By Rainer Sousa
Even today, we can see that many scholars spend their efforts to elucidate other perspectives that reshape the narrative of the biblical text. Whatever their intentions, we notice that from time to time unpublished research calls into question the validity of certain stories that not only populate the Bible , but also underpin the belief of thousands of followers of Christianity.
In 2006, a team of theologians, linguists and historians funded by the Fundação Mecenas , from Switzerland, carried out the translation of the so-called “Gospel of Judas ”. At the end of this work, they published an article saying that Judas' classic association with betrayal simply did not correspond to the facts . In fact, he would be an important element in carrying out the actions that would make Jesus the savior of humanity .
Within this new perspective, Judas would not have been a conscious executioner of the plot that made Jesus' arrest and trial possible. In this new version, the apostle appears as a dedicated servant who approaches an influential scribe to engineer Christ's safe return to Galilee. However, the moment he kisses his master, he ends up discovering that he had been tricked by his allies and, in this way, makes possible the later ordeal of the Messiah.
In contrast to this narrative that grants Judas innocence, another group of historians argue that this translation of the gospel is surrounded by errors . One of the fundamental misunderstandings, which invalidate the redemptive version, revolves around the translation of the word “daimon”. Based on Platonic literature, this term would mean spirit. However, in Christian literature, this same term means "demon".
By means of this disambiguation, a biblical passage in which Jesus Christ catches the attention of Judas Iscariot could be translated as follows:“Thou, thirteenth demon (or spirit ), why do you try so hard?”. Undoubtedly, the difference in judgment on the figure of the apostle is clear through this single word. But after all, would it be possible to give a final judgment on this debate?
For some of the revisionist historians, there is no way to define a definitive position on the role played by Judas in Messianic biography. As a human, he can assume different positions that demonstrate the uncertainties of those who followed a leader questioned by many. By way of comparison, we can see that this same vacillating posture can be seen in Peter – the apostle who denied Christ, but was also one of the most important preachers of the Christian faith.