A Kiss for Judas

(2 of 2)

Roberty hints further that it is a "product of its time," a comment that both titillates and advises caution. A.D. 150 was a heyday for Christians who postulated a higher God above the God of the Old Testament. The prospect of melding the Judas-Jesus story into this scheme is intriguing. Yet by 150, most experts agree, a "Gospel" said more about the group that produced it than about the facts of Jesus' life and death or even the understandings of his earliest followers. Beyond marveling at the variety of Christian belief prior to doctrinal housecleaning by the early church, an average believer should not find Judas faith shaking.

Yet the rumor of its publication has stirred intriguing discussion. Queried by the newspaper La Stampa, Vatican historian Monsignor Walter Brandmuller noted that the tractate might shed light on early Christianity even if the text had eventually been found heretical. Vittorio Messori, a layman who has co-written books with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI (when he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) is more effusive. "Jesus' words about Judas ["It would have been good for that man if he had not been born"] are tough," he told TIME. But "Judas wasn't guilty. He was necessary. Somebody had to betray Jesus. Judas was the victim of a design bigger than himself."

Somewhere (assuming his theology allows for it) the author of the Judas Gospel must be smiling. Faith's sentries may never cede his man a title credit. But when his treatise finally gets its red-carpet moment, the biggest news may be that even orthodoxy's defenders can have some sympathy for the betrayer.