FOR a man whose name is a by-word for treachery, remarkably little is, known about the real life Judas. It is generally agreed that he was one of the 12 disciples; that he played a central role in the events in the Garden of Gethsemane 2,000 years ago; and that soon afterwards he killed himself.
But evidence of his identity, never mind his guilt in the betrayal of Christ, is scant.
Justice demands, therefore, that we welcome the initiative by Prof William KIassen of Jerusalem's Ecole Biblique in reopening the case.
The trouble is there is hardly a detail of Judas's life that isn't, open to dispute among biblical scholars. We don't even know his family name, for instance, although the "Iscariot" is at least a clue as to why he got himself such a bad reputation.
Some experts suggest it means merely that he came from the village of Kerioth in Judaea, or that he was a dyer or a fruit-grower, or that it was a posthumous addition derived from the Hebrew sakar, the "one handing over". But the most likely theory is that it refers to his membership of the Sicarii.
A radical offshoot of the Zealot movement, the Sicarii, were dedicated to the overthrow of the Romans but were considered mere bandits by some. Named from the Latin sicarius, meaning assassin, they were known among other things, for mingling with crowds in festival-time Jerusalem and felling their prey with small daggers concealed in their clothing.
So whatever his personal beliefs about violence Judas, along with Simon the Zealot, to have been firmly on the militant wing of the disciples.
It is generally agreed, too, that she was the Apostles' treasurer, always a controversial role in, any organisation. Indeed the fourth gospel, which goes further than any of the others in making the case against him, accuses him of having had his hand in, the till (John 12:6.... . as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it".)
His role on the night of the Last Supper could have been pivotal for many reasons, given the fraught political situation.
The presence of many other Zealots and Sicarii in the 100,000 people crammed into Jerusalem for the Passover would have been as much a cause of concern to the authorities as the problem of Jesus. Feelings ran high at festival time. Drink would certainly have been taken. So political and military intrigue might have played a part in Judas's early departure after the meal.
Jesus's instruction to him - "What you are going to do, do quickly" - has usually been interpreted to Judas's discredit. But a good barrister could have found any number of plausible theories for his late-night mission, such as that he was relaying a plea for restraint to the hard men bent on an uprising. And there are as many explanations of why the nervous elders might have sent him back with an armed guard in tow.
The fact that John, the latest of the gospels to be written, is the most persuasive of Judas's guilt is central to the conspiracy theory propounded by Prof KIassen in Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus?
After the split with Judaism, the professor argues, the early Christian church needed an appropriate (i.e. Jewish) fall-guy for the death of Jesus.
The author argues that, at worst, biblical evidence suggests Judas was a small-time informer. Against this, it could be argued that even after 20 centuries of inflation, "30 pieces of silver" could still buy a pubful of small-time informers. But the traditional payment to Judas is, in any case, as unsupported by hard evidence as most other parts of the story.
Scholars are unsure whether there were such things as silver coins in the Jerusalem of the time. In fact, the 30 pieces of silver is a tradition that began with the prophecies of Zachariah six centuries before, which provided early Christians with a model for Judas's treachery.
His self-inflicted death was a convenient ending for those who placed him in this role, but even this evades the grasp of the historians. Tradition has it he hanged himself. Acts 1:18 adds a more graphic touch to his death: "Falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."
GIVEN his background, there are also plausible reasons for his suicide other than guilt. He could well have considered a self-inflicted end preferable to the treatment he would get from the Romans. But by killing himself, he ensured there was no one to challenge the emerging consensus on his role.
Judas has not been without his supporters. In Muslim polemic literature, he is shown lying to the Jews to save Jesus. A 14th-century cosmographer, Ad-Dimashqi, goes further, having him take on Christ's likeness and being crucified in his place. The 19th-century essayist Thomas de Quincey cast him as willing catalyst, propelling Jesus towards the fulfilment of his divine destiny.
But in spite of these, he remains the traitor par excellence of the western world. The court of history has repeatedly confirmed his original conviction and, according to Dante's Inferno, he continues to pay the ultimate price: languishing in the lowest circle of hell.
