Judas Iscariot: The man who didn’t kill Jesus!

Judas Iscariot, the man history hates

Judas Iscariot: The Lord’s best friend?

Shattering myths: The Gospel of Judas

Did Jesus Christ ask Judas to betray him?

“... you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me… you will be cursed by the other generations — and you will come to rule over them.”

Jesus Christ to trusted friend, ally and most-preferred apostle, Judas Iscariot, in the Gospel of Judas

The ‘good news’ about Judas?

Judas Iscariot, history’s most hated man, the disciple who sold out his companion for money and and the apostle held responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, might be an innocent man. A tall claim? No, if the English version of the Gospel of Judas – the result of a long collaboration between various experts and the National Geographic Society – is to be believed. Conserved, authenticated and translated from Coptic (the ancient language spoken by Egyptian Christians) manuscripts dating about AD 300, the Gospel of Judas (GOJ) spins the traditionally held belief about Jesus and Judas on its head.

While accounts in the four New Testament Gospels paint a very villainous picture of Judas—how he was vile and greedy, how Jesus was onto his treachery and how finally Judas betrays Jesus by handing him over to Roman guards in the Garden of Gethsemane for 30 pieces of silver—GOJ portrays Judas as the man truest to his Lord and someone who was following Jesus's request when he betrayed him. GOJ further claims Judas was Jesus's most preferred disciple and was in fact the only one with whom Christ had shared the true secret of the salvation.

But if the Gospel of Judas exonerates the man after whom it was written, why was it kept secret for so long?

Of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

As benevolent a belief system Christianity might be, it's rise and fall through the ages has been marked by some extremely bloody periods. Each time alternate beliefs that challenged, questioned or differed from the mainstream Christian Church arose, they were squashed ruthlessly. The Gospel of Judas (and its followers) too met the same fate.

Much before it's discovery in the desert near El Minya, Egypt in the 1970s, the first known reference to the Gospel of Judas was made around A.D. 180 in a treatise, Against Heresies by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (then Roman Gaul).

In his treatise, Irenaeus acerbically rallied against those whose views on Jesus and his message differed from that of the Roman Catholic Church. In his list of 'heretics' was a mentioned a group* who  “declare that Judas the traitor…alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal… They produce a fictitious story of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.”

The 'they' referred to by Irenaeus were a group of early gnostic Christians. For the uninitiated, the gnostics believed the way to salvation was through secret knowledge—delivered by Jesus to his inner circle — that revealed how people can escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual world from which they came. In other words, the author of the Gospel of Judas believed that when Judas Iscariot handed Christ over to the authorities, he was 'helping' Jesus fulfill his divine mission.

This was in direct contradiction to the Church that said salvation could only be achieved through it and by believing in Jesus Christ the Saviour. Incensed, Irenaeus banned all the other gospels in circulation and declared that only four—Matthew, Mark,  John and Luke—were the real gospels. Biblical scholars believe that though the other gospels were either destroyed or confiscated, copies of some of these were hidden by followers.

About 1,700 years after it was hidden away, the 66-page, leather-bound papyrus manuscript (codex) that contained the Gospel of Judas was discovered in the Egyptian desert in the 1970s. It then circulated among antiquities traders, moving from Egypt to Europe to the United States and languished in a safe-deposit box in New York for 16 years till Zürich-based antiquities dealer Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos bought them in 2000. Since then the manuscript has been called the Tchacos Codex.

Since then the codex has been put through strenuous tests —radiocarbon dating to multispectral imaging—to establish its authenticity as a genuine work of ancient Christian apocryphal literature. However, while the documents' legitimacy has been established—the Coptic document was copied in AD 300 from an original Greek text written in AD 180—the Church (read Vatican) is non-commital except for dismissing the findings.

If Judas was a friend, Christianity is...

While the resurfacing of the Tchacos Codex is definitely of academic interest, it's ramifications on Christianity could be far reaching. If it shows how Christianity started out with many beliefs and practices in the ancient times, it also opens a Pandora's Box of questions.

For some it is a vindication of their belief that the Bible is not be taken literally as the word of God but is rather a result of historical and political choices made over the ages that decided to promote some texts and viewpoints while obliterating others. The believers are obviously in a tizzy: from being the central villain in the Bible, Judas is suddenly the fallen hero who actually helps Jesus achieve his mission for salvation!

 “Whether or not one agrees with it, or finds it interesting or reprehensible, it (Gospel of Judas) is an enormously interesting perspective on it that some follower of Jesus in the early Christian movement obviously thought was significant,” says Elaine Pagels, Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion at Princeton University.

While the final findings of the Gospel of Judas (to be revealed on the National Geographic Channel at 8 pm, Sunday, April 9 in the world premiere of a two-hour series by the same name) might not drastically change Christianity as we know it today; it could very well spark off debates that were once hushed almost 1,800 years back.

Where there are debates, dissenting voices aren't far behind. Some scholars say that while the Gospel of Judas is indeed one of the ground-breaking finds in non-Christian writings in the last 60 years, it will not do much to shake Christian faith. Then there are those who allege that the entire discovery-debate-issue is being blown out of proportion to gain mileage for the book on Gospel of Judas that the National Geographic Society has published and to give a boost to TRP ratings for the National Geographic Channel.

The channel however, denies such allegations. Joy Bhattacharjya, Senior Vice President - Programming, National Geographic Channel India says, "The Gospel of Judas reveals facts, beliefs, conspiracies, secrecies and a lot more about Christianity...it has already created excitement worldwide and brings to light information that will make us rethink our beliefs."

But whether this rethinking translates into anything concrete—a change in rigid Christian beliefs, a possible inclusion of other interpretation—or is lost in translation is a matter of time. For now, most are taking the safe route of being just academically excited that the Codex has been discovered.

(Once all the research and piecing-together of the manuscript is done, it will be returned to Egypt and kept in the Coptic Museum in Cairo)

"If you lose THAT it would be cause to worry for some, because that's when the guys start hitting on you," said my very-concerned friend being not-so-polite about the little tummy that I have. And mind you it is little. Not flabby that it puts off and not, not there either. I have a little tummy (it's always 'little tummy', never tummy and callin it paunch is sacrilege). But my friend thinks otherwise. The 'otherwise' wouldnt really bother me but for his thinking that my little tummy is detrimental for my... let's call it my Head-Turning factor (HT factor...an 'o' between the 'h' and 't' wouldnt hurt either <wink>).

A statement, ANY statement about the state of affairs of your little tummy (however little it may be), first thing in the morning hurts a girl. Did the little tummy really look that bad? The HT Factor aside, if your little tummy is overtly visible, its a sure sign that its perhaps not that little anymore. So this girl stood before the mirror and looked at herself.

But the eyes never did reach the little tummy.

As they scrutinised head to neck to...the eyes stopped right there. Boobs. Definitely cannot be called 'little boobs'. Lower still, while the little tummy did look a tad not-as-little than last time it underwent early-morning-careful-scrutiny, it wasnt that bad. This girl turned and then rested (feasted? Grin, feelin particularly immodest as i write) her peepers on the not-so-little butt. Mmmm, mmm, not bad either. But a little voice kept saying, "The little tummy, watch the little tummy"... so i checked again and was distracted again by the hardly-little-you-know-whats.

Then that little light bulb from cartoon strips went off - Bling! I looked at myself and said, "So you got yourself a little tummy. You also got hair that has a natural right-outta-bed look, eyes that with deft use of kajal can change from doe-eyed to diabolical, perfect kissers (Lawrd am blessed), definitely-not-little Twins and a butt that would be insured if you were J-Lo."

So what if there's a little-tummy? If it were washboard flat I'd look unreal and real women always have little tummies. And real men like little tummies. For those who don't like, there's always the t!ts and arrse. Shrug.

PS: For those who scream, but-you-dont-need-validation-from-others: You do. Looking good works for me. Those who say they arent bothered about how they look, we arent on the same plain anyway. Those who are too bothered about their little tummies or whatever else aint perfect - Bah. Look carefully and you'd see the not-so-little something else, there;s always something else. Be imperfect, and bloody enjoy being imperfect.  

What makes a person fall in love with the 'wrong' people, again and again? Or rather not so much wrong as not right for them. The situations where on the face of it everything seems perfect and yet there is that often overrated, mysterious 'something' missing.

Despite having an idea of who or what we want to love, we still end up investing our emotions, effort and time in places where the quest for love will only disappoint us. Or is it because we 'have' a clear idea that we fall for the Mr/Miss Not-That-Right?

You are so certain that your TL is supposed to be an adventurer that when you meet the horticulturist who might be just right for you, you fail to recognize or even give him/her the benefit of doubt because who ever heard of aloe vera being as adventurous as base jumping?

Or over the years, the idea of what your ideal relationship will/should be is so fixated that accommodating a different view, a different way and a different picture often becomes an existential issue. When you meet something/someone different that could perhaps be equally good for you, your system goes into denial. How could this be? My TL is supposed to be roses and wine… it didn't talk about McDonald's burgers and video games!

Then of course there is Richard Bach and the likes of him who further promote intolerance-towards-the-wrong-one by propounding the Theories of Soul Mate. Your soul mate will be your mirror image. What if that image is a little skewed? Your soul mate will know things about you instinctively. What if that instinct needs a little awakening? Your soul mate will love/hate the same things. What if he loves one of the things you hate?

Maybe your TL is in disguise or let's say has not washed his/her face so you cant see them clearly yet... Maybe The things you want, wish and seek ARE there in them, just need a little scraping-off-the-surface before you can spot them. Is it worth walking away from something that can be, but might take a little time, just because you cant see all the merits initially... It is scary for sure. Each time we invest in the wrong person, we are so scared to ever try again that even though there might be merit in a relationship, we are afraid of waiting it out. We are scared that we could be wrong all over again and we dont even wait to find out. It becomes a question of emotional survival. "I dont want to get hurt therefore I will not try".

Do love and survival have to be mutually exclusive? Why cant we love and wait to see if the slightly-wrong-for-me person does turn out to be the TL...