Was Irenaeus alive during Jesus' lifetime? Of course not.
His views of the facts regarding the relationship of Judas and Jesus are thus unimportant.
It is true that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was the least anti- Judas story. As each successsor Gospel was written 20-30 years later, Judas was transformed into an evil figure, tansformed into a figure that was intended to defame Jews in general. This was to serve Rome's interests.
I saw the documentary on the National Geographic Channel, and was quie impressed. There is even talk of declaring Judas a saint. Food for thought.
How many untruths have we been taught all these years?
Judas was no saint. He deliberately betrayed Jesus Christ primarily because of his keen interest in destruction of the Romans.
It is documented that Judas was a member of the Zealot party, and probably expected Jesus to use his miraculous powers to zap the Romans. The etymology of "Iscariot" is in fact related to Sicarii, a sect of the Zealots committed to the violent overthrow of Rome. If Judas was a Sicarius (which may or may not be historically possible), then it's possible that he saw Jesus as the Messiah in the fashion expected by the Zealots: a military leader who would zap the Romans into oblivion. If this scenario was the case, then Judas may well have been trying to force Jesus into a position where he had to reveal himself as the divinely appointed warrior-king who would destroy his enemies.
However, as Jesus' message of peace and forgiveness became more clear to Judas, he probably began to doubt Jesus as the Christ. The Jewish elders, whose egocentric anger was stirred by Christ's selfless teachings, sought His removal from the public forum.
Jesus was arrested, beaten and executed as the result of a conspiracy financed by the Jewish Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin paid Judas to find and arrest Jesus, and thus began Christ's unfortunate persecution.
George Washington penned a secret biography that I have in my possession, and I am willing to sell it to you. No need to worry that it is 200+ years after the fact. In in, he proclaims that he was actually in league with Benedict Arnold, and never really had tried to win that war with the British.
Are you interested? Perhaps National Geographic would be.
I'm certain that the Dan Rather Documents section at CBS news would give big money....
Well, gee. That settles it then.
No. He was from the second generation of church leadership after the apostles. His viewpoint is important becuase it teaches what the early church thought.
It is true that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was the least anti- Judas story.
Uhh... Mark has Judas betraying Christ too.
I saw the documentary on the National Geographic Channel, and was quie impressed.
The National Geographic Channel is, as demonstrated here, sensationalistic and not exactly historically sound.
There is even talk of declaring Judas a saint.
By whom? There are two churches which declare saints - the Catholics, and the Orthodox. Neither will be swayed by a Gnostic gospel.
If you think the Gospel of Judas is genuine, then I've got a genuine autographed picture of Jesus I'd like to sell you. Freep mail me for the details.
I think you miss the point. St. Irenaeus was a Second Century apologist who was instrumental in vindicating the four gospels we venerate as scripture from the original Gnostic challenges.
He based his arguments in favor of the apostolic Gospels on account of their apostolic succession. That is they were written by the apostles themselves and transmitted immediately to their successors who were out in the open, unlike the Gnostics who believed Jesus handed down secret teachings.
In the absence of the doctrine of apostolic succession, there is no objective, extrinsic way to distinguish the canonical gospels from the forgeries. Because, otherwise, how do you know the canonical gospels ought to be Mary, Peter, Philip and Judas, not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
This is where Protestantism is at its weakest. It rejects Holy Tradition, yet it accepts the Tradition of which books are inspired. Who made the decision to declare the canonical books authentic and apostolic and the Gnostic books inauthentic and spurious?
When I realized this I decided to convert to Catholicism from the Lutheranism of my youth.
Two problems with that assertion. First, Mark was written to CHRISTIAN Gentile communities who were undergoing persecution from ROME. The Letter was not written to serve Rome's interest, but the Christian community to persevere in their time of suffering, just as Christ did. And secondly, one who reads that John is defaming Jews in general has little understanding of the Gospel. John is writing against ANYONE who refuses to believe in Jesus Christ! Since the narrative is set during the life of Christ, many such people are Jews. But many believers are ALSO Jews. It becomes clear throughout that John is attacking non-believers of God's Messenger, not Jews.
Regards
Actually, one of the primary circumstantial PROOFS of the Authenticity and Reliability of the Canonical Gospels is precisely their status as Contra-indicatory Testimony (I speak here in collegiate Debate terms; since I don't know the "Legal Terminology", I will have to trust my young Paduan "Jude24" to supply me with the Legal description).
Which is to say...
In other words, when considering the natural Biases of the original, Jewish-influenced, early Christian Church, one could scarcely imagine a more UNLIKELY Mötley Crüe of Traitors, Cowards, Misfits, and Children to author the Biography of the Living Son of God.
AND YET... the Early Christian Church, across the entirety of the Roman Empire, from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Council to the Gentile Christians of Rome itself, unanimously accepted THESE FOUR GOSPELS SPECIFICALLY as being a genuine and accurate biography of their Resurrected Rabbi.
WHY? Conspiracy Theories won't work here; there was no "Evil Vatican Papacy" with the Absolute Power to change and "white-wash" the Scriptures, as the Revisionists claim; at the time, there was no Papacy at all -- Christianity was at that time administered from Jerusalem (NOT ROME!); and Apostle James (NOT PETER!) was the Primary Administrator of the Council of Jerusalem... And even Patriarch James had only the power to advise Gentile Christians to "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:28-19)
SO THEN WHY, please tell me, were the Gospels of these disreputable SCREW-UPS actually unanimously accepted by the Early Christian Church as the most accurate Biographies of the Lord God Incarnate? And that DESPITE the alleged existence of far-more "Prestigious" Gospels, such as "The Gospel of James", "The Gospel of Mary", "The Gospel of Peter", "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Gospel of Philip" , and what have you.
The answer seems to me obvious:
The Four Canonical Gospels were universally accepted by the Early Christian Church IN SPITE OF the Low Pedigree of the Authors -- precisely because the Original Apostles still running around before Nero's Great Persecution were able to say, "Yep, that's an Accurate Biography of the Jesus of Nazareth with whom I spent three years of my life", together with the confirmatory testimony of Saint Paul the Repentant Persecutor.
CONTRA-INDICATORY TESTIMONY -- the Writers of the Four Canonical Gospels are about the WORST Mötley Crüe one could possibly imagine for any self-interested Preacher wishing to establish a Religion.
That, in itself, is powerful evidence of their Authenticity and Truth. The Authors of the Four Gospels were, in sum, considered by most Christians in the Early Church to be Traitors, Cowards, Gentiles, and Children; their Biographies of the Living Son of God were universally-accepted by the Early Christians BECAUSE they were known to be the MOST Factually-Accurate "Gospels" in existence.
Best, OP
The only argument I've ever heard for the notion that the traditional view of Judas "defamed Jews in general" was based on his name -- Yehuda or Judah in Hebrew.
But there's another apostle named Yehuda, Judah, Judas -- the "brother of the Lord" who wrote an epistle and is considered by Catholics to be the beloved St. Jude, patron of impossible causes. In fact, a litany to St. Jude my family and I sometimes say refers to him as "redeemer of the name of Judas".
Why is the traditional view of the Iscariot discounted as propaganda intended to defame Jews in general because of his given name, in view of the fact that another man with exactly the same given name is a dearly beloved and revered Christian saint and inspired author of Scripture?