The story of Jesus is extensive and begins far before his birth. There are documents other than the “Gospel of Judas” excavated from the past the ‘church’ never incorporated into it’s foundation. The documents about Mary, the mother of Jesus, were said to be unverifiable to the ‘author’ and therefore considered questionable in their authenticity. Regardless, just as the Gospel of Judas exists so do the others and they tell a story that makes a great deal of ‘sense’ to the circumstances of the people of the time and their beliefs surrounding God. Their religion is what bound the communities, or tribes if you will, dictating the essence of life or culture.
A clear understanding of Mary, the mother of Jesus and the social significance of her birth and life is paramount to understand the life of her son, Jesus of Nazareth. She was born to an older, childless couple. This couple was esteemed among the people of the community and with years of childless status they were becoming a concern by the ‘elders.’ It was felt children were a gift of God and where there was a childless status the question arose as to the validity of the status of a couple. The elder council was concerned this status reflected an inequality of the couple’s right to stay as a part of the community. Mary’s parents were considered wealthy. That definition of wealth included many servants that lived with the household that worked the land and cared for the house and it’s management.
Mary’s father left the household to travel in reflection of his status. It was some time before his wife sent word to his lonely place of reflection or religious contemplation that she was expecting a child. The conception of Jesus’ mother was considered ‘immaculate’ in that she was conceived ‘virginally’ by an act of God. Upon his return home he was greeted with great fanfare and the child was considered the most obvious proof of their diligence profession of faith.
After Mary was born she was treated as royalty. She had servants that never allowed her feet to touch the ground. Her every need was attended to with complete care and reverence to the faith. It was at the age of three she was allowed to walk unattended. Her feet were placed on the temple steps by her father where she immediately ran inside. She lived there and did not emerge until the age of twelve. It was said she was fed ‘manna’ by the Angels of God.
At the time she emerged, which in Hebrew culture/religion is considered the time of “Mitzvah” she was betrothed to Joseph, whom would become the human surrogate father of Jesus. Joseph was an elderly man. When Mary conceived it was again considered a virgin or ‘immaculate’ conception. The ‘special’ status of Mary and her birth of Jesus has a royal implication regardless the impoverishment or enslavement of the Jews. The culture/religion of the people is what separated them from Rome and the ‘heathen practices.
Much of the definition of culture of society today is defined by the very dividing line of the societies thousands of years ago. The ruling class of Romans dominated the entire Mediterranean. It wasn’t until the Romans tried to expand their empire into Europe and met with it's lose of stability. The empire became too large for the Roman armies to enforce. It fell to the armies of the north and not the armies of the Middle East. The so called tribes of the Middle East remained intact for the most part and Roman rule simply stopped dominating their governance. The most persecuted by Rome were the Christians. They became outcasts to most of the societies there simply because Jesus was able to supply a new covenant to ‘his’ people and that covenant set up social mores’ that set them arrogantly apart from their heritage. It was the ‘special’ status of miracles through Christ’s work as a man and more than likely a Rabbi that maintained the significance of his teachings.
Jesus Christ within his community was considered ‘special’ all his life. He was born to a woman conceived of a virgin birth of which conceived him by a virgin birth. At the time of his Mitzvah he was council to the elders of the community. A ‘special’ significance noted in the Bible of Christian faith. They don’t call it a Mitzvah, but, more a counseling of elders at the age of thirteen. A young profit of God was his status from that time forward. It is a well established truth that Jesus was a Jew by birth.
As his following grew over the years of his preaching and ‘acts’ of miracles to prove his teachings he developed a new covenant with people on behalf of them to God. The ‘counter culture’ of Jesus Christ at the time rejected many of the values Rome reflected as acceptable and became more sexually sterile; hence, no Gay relationships, no polygamy and the like simply because Jesus grew to identify the Jewish plight under Rome as a needed cleansing of morality. Those were among the dividing lines of difference between the culture accepted in the tribe by the Romans and those that were not. I believe as time went on Jesus reflected and saw his ‘special place/status’ in authority and demanded different social mores’ to relieve the people of poverty and enslavement through the ‘GRACE’ of God, a rather passive and safe venue of change. As his status grew through his acts as a Rabbi or teacher if you will the demands for a pinnacle, a turning point, grew to an extreme and he finally confronted Rome.
The act of Judas is pivotal to the end of Jesus' teachings ‘in the flesh.’ Judas according to most Christian teachings betrayed Jesus which brought ‘special’ information to Rome and then the charges of blasphemy and the social trial of him resulting in this crucifixion. It was a rare occassion slaves would cooperate or even ask for Roman intervention. The Romans acted on 'The Ceasars' orders.
It is no surprise to me but only delightful revealing that Judas was actually a best and trusted friend to Jesus. It is no surprise the betrayal was a chosen ‘status’ of the handling of this ‘out of place’ Rabbi/teacher in the community. Rome normally did not intervene in societies. They held control with the understanding there would be ‘tribute’ paid to Rome. They did not dominate the society’s culture but did intervene to ‘maintain’ the status quo. In doing so that enforced the understanding as to the ‘status’ of Rome and it’s power over people, hence the regular payment of ‘tribute.’ Rome ultimately did turn the disposition of Jesus back to the community but did expect him to be ‘handled’ and not dismissed to continue his ‘disruptive’ teachings. Rome did not like social descent. It saw ‘it’s place’ within it’s empire as a ‘keeper of the peace’ which maintained it’s authority.
The difference between Judas as a traitor or a friend is huge. Judas' act against Jesus created ‘the christ’ he became. Knowing Judas martyred his friend is a much different and more human understanding of the events leading to Jesus’ death. The rest of the miracles of Jesus life cannot be removed or changed due to the change of the friendliness of Judas. However, it does change the ‘miraculous’ event of the events leading to the death of Jesus. That is hugely significant. It makes Jesus actively involved in his demise which in my opinion changes ‘the map’ of status of the event markedly.
This is more a side note to the debate but a good deal of the ‘suffering’ of people as seen in today’s society and I make example of Gay Men, resulted in this desperate attempt to raise Christians above the status of slave by a single man determined and anointed as ‘special’ by his own birth. Realizing Jesus martyred himself to solidify a different belief system among the Jews is to realize the prejudice held by today’s religions was that of manly and not godly intent. It is wrong.
Much debate will follow this discovery and it is only expected the Christian Churches will dilute it’s authority by calling it fiction, but, in my opinion this is a new pivotal event that lends itself credence to those of faiths accepting ‘lack of authority’ over gender issues of teaching the faith and those considered to have different sexual identity than heterosexual. It dilutes any religious authority in areas of social mores without diluting the ‘special’ status of God’s will.
