The Gospel of Judas

It's a minor niggle in a sense, but I woke up in the middle of the night and realized I was annoyed at the coverage I'd seen this evening on TV concerning the Gospel of Judas. I haven't thoroughly perused television and cable coverage, nor what's been written either in MSM or the blogosphere, so my comments may not be entirely new—and I'd certainly expect to see something similar emerge at some point at least in the academic debate. (I have no particular pride of authorship here.) But what Lehrer asked Elaine Pagels and his other guest, and the critical question I saw discussed on other reports, was what importance the discovery might have. All the answers cast the problem in terms of our understanding of Judas' role in New Testament events. But this is wrong. Assuming that the Gospel of Judas is genuine—and most scholars appear to think it is—the most important question it raises is not about Judas but about the historical Jesus: Was Jesus an innocent victim, as is always taught, or did he connive in some way to create a legend? If the latter this is indeed a different sort of character.