LogFAQs > #978647079

Zareth posted...

Why does everyone always shit on Judas when if it weren't for him Jesus wouldn't have been crucified, which was like the entire point of his existence

In some interpretations of the story Jesus actually told him to do it, for precisely that reason.

But that's like pointing out that the Pharaoh in the Old Testament was literally willing to let the Jews leave Egypt after the second Plague, but God magically made him change his mind, because God had come up with Ten Plagues and wanted to get to use them all, damn it. And then acts like the Egyptians totally deserve to have all their firstborn sons murdered because Pharaoh did the thing that God wanted him to do (and made him do) in the first place. God's a dick.

Though it gets more complicated when you take real-world history and assumptions into account, because neither of those stories likely happened in the first place. As far as we can tell Jews were never slaves in Egypt, and Judas was probably one of the more loyal Disciples. And only got framed after-the-fact because Paul was writing a very pro-Rome version of the story for Romans, which is why he demonizes the Pharisees (in spite of the fact that Jesus almost certainly was one), and why he absolves the Romans via Pilate (who almost certainly wouldn't have acted that way because most evidence implies he was a brutal asshole), and blames everything on the Jews wanting Jesus dead (when it would have only be the Roman-collaborating Jews who would have had that mindset).

Telling people that you're the descendant of the rightful royal family in a conquered nation being ruled over by a militant empire and preaching resistance to their rule is a good way to get yourself killed. But writing in your holy book that said empire killed your god while you're preaching to that empire is also a good way to get yourself killed. So Paul had a vested interest in changing details. As did the people who followed him.