Now here's a thing. Archaeologists have discovered a new Gospel in the Egyptian deserts. Radiocarbon dating, multispectral imaging, ink analysis, and linguistic style have convinced Coptic scholars of its authenticity. It's 1,700 years old, 26 pages, and tells the story of Judas.
Yeah, that one.
According to the Gospel of Judas, there was no betrayal, only an intimacy between master and student that the other disciples couldn't match. Christ confided in Judas alone that ensuring the Messiah's death would allow the disciple to exceed all the others, as it would free Jesus from the humanity that constrains him). This was the gnostic point of view, and since Jesus's death was obviously always part of God's plan, it retains a certain resonance, and was more powerful in the years after his death. After all, it's a bit weird to assume the primary enabler of Christ's purpose sinister:
"You can see how early Christians could say, if Jesus's death was all part of God's plan, then Judas's betrayal was part of God's plan," said Ms. King, the author of several books on the Gospel of Mary. "So what does that make Judas? Is he the betrayer, or the facilitator of salvation, the guy who makes the crucifixion possible?"
Indeed, there are certain hints that this is how it should've been understood all along, and some even think the others apostles were perfectly aware of the score:
"Correctly understood, there's nothing undermining about the Gospel of Judas," [James M. Robinson..the general editor of the English edition of the Nag Hammadi library] said in a telephone interview. He said that the New Testament gospels of John and Mark both contain passages that suggest that Jesus not only picked Judas to betray him, but actually encouraged Judas to hand him over to those he knew would crucify him.
Mainstream Christianity tends to scorn this view, which is a bit problematic. As it is, uniting the various perspectives on Judas would actually strengthen the case for Biblical authenticity, or at least coherency. To many chefs contemporaneous gospels spoil the soup theology.
Instead, what we've got are literally hundreds of books, all claiming authenticity, most arbitrarily escised from the canon by political conferences of Church elders that took place far later, and in a much different context, than the events and narratives at hand. Given all that, what;s been codified as Christian theology is more the result of sectarian/political struggle than divine inspiration. And the more authentic, well-dated, and contradictory documents that appear, the more problematic the Christian canon's assumption of authority becomes.
