Why I am a Judas historicist

[Giuseppe]

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers.

(Acts 15:22)

Hence Judas called Barsabbas was a Jewish-Christian leader of the same importance of the Pillars. He was also a "prophet":

Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers.

(Acts 15:32)


When the name of Judas was defamed forever by "Mark" (by the infamous episode), the Judaizers had their revenge by casting Judas as Joseph, and putting him in the rehabilitated form of "Joseph" Barsabbas, so that the old (defamed) Judas was replaced by a new "Judas" (masked as Joseph):

So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also called Justus) and Matthias.

(Acts 1:23)

The implicit message was: even if one of the 12 was an evil Jew (as per gentile propaganda), he was not replaced by the gentile Paul, but by the his good alias.

Judaizers - Gentilizers: 2 - 1.

Note how this false "Joseph" but genuine "Judas" did the opposite thing of the old Judas Iscarioth:

Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

(Acts 4:36-37)

A field was not bought for Judas, but a field was sold by Judas.


Now this has serious implications to interpret the Judas episode in the Gospels. The episode was invented against a specific Jewish-Christian, Judas Barsabbas who was really existed.

The first implication is that the founders of the cult were accused of having betrayed Jesus. Basically, the accusation of Marcion against the 12 apostles.

The second implication is that the rivarly is not a generic rivaly between Jews and Christians, but a sectarian rivalry between Jewish-Christians and Gentile Christians.

The third implication is the more suggestive:

The author conceded that the Judaizers founded the cult, since they delivered (in the person of Judas) Jesus to the gentiles. But in this recognition, he is seeing himself as totally distinct from the Judaizers. As a member of a new religion that is distinct from Judaism.

[Giuseppe]

The last implication allows to answer definitely to the question raised in the past:

Was the Original Point of the Christian Story/Myth to Punish or Justify the Punishment of the Jews?

There has of course been a complete revisionist interpretation of Christianity that 'Christ crucified' doesn't justify the punishment and chastisement of the Jews. But was this dimension original and essential to the Christian gospel?

Being Judas so strictly connected with the death of Jesus (Beyond if made by Herod, by Pilate, by sinedrites, by all the Jews) as the apostle who delivered Jesus, then the answer can only be : yes.

ADDENDA:
Now I have the right to accuse as apologists anyone who argues that "Mark" was a Jew even if he invented the Judas episode, just as the qumranite Wicked Priest was a Jew even if he was hated as "Man of the Lie", etc.

[Giuseppe]

Now, one can't not think to Bar-Abbas given the similarity of the sound with Bar-Sabbas (so Adamczewski).

But Bar-Abbas is a parody of the marcionite Christ and who thinks otherwise is entirely fool.

What if the original name was Judas Barabbas, with Matthew wanting to preserve rather Jesus Barabbas, for the same reason in Acts that Judas Barsabbas was replaced by Joseph Barsabbas?

In this way, the choice was between Judas Bar-Abbas and Jesus called Christ.

It could equally be between Judas Son of Rabbi and Jesus so-called Christ.

«Judas Son of Rabbi»: was he Judas the Galilean?

Judas the Galilean was the author of the fourth branch of Jewish philosophy. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord

[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.23.]

I.e. the gentile Christians invented first the epithet "Son of Rabbi" against the Judaizers, and the Judaizers cast it in "Son of Father" against Marcion.