> Judas was the betrayer symbol maybe most familiar to US people then:
Probably still so now. Judas is the betrayer par excellence in American culture.
Probably still so now. Judas is the betrayer par excellence in American culture.
American culture is very Christian influenced, even now.
e: I would be curious if the name "Judas" or its equivalent is a common synonym for traitor outside of english, however.
It's a massive plot hole in the NT, that a person whose mission can only be fulfilled by a death/resurrection cycle (to the extent of making sure none of his other allies prevented the death, nor making even a cursory attempt at defence in either of the two trials) would regard Judas as a betrayer.
And yet, he is named as such even before the deed. Although, looking at this text, I assume a wild mistranslation happened somewhere and that the original word which became "betray" had a much more general sense of causing harm rather than violating trust or confidence:
> After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.”
> After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.”
The message is supposed to be the devil tempts us all, and failure is inevitable, but God/Jesus forgives all.
The Baron Harkonnen doesn't get a pass on killing Duke Leto cause it put Paul on the path to becoming a messiah. Dr. Yeuh doesn't get a pass on betraying the Atredies because that put Paul on the path either; of course, his situation is a bit more nuanced what with the promise of joining his wife and leaving stillsuits for Paul and Jessica.
> “Do quickly what you are going to do.”
So, maybe this is supposed to illustrate forgiveness. I know you're gonna do this thing, but it's going to work out, and I don't blame you. Or maybe it's do it or don't do it, but let's not take all day wondering about it.
Interestingly, JCS was controversial among some christians for portraying Judas in a sympathetic light. But the text always did portray him in a more complex manner. He did end up hanging himself in shame over his actions very soon after, for example.
Perhaps in today's era of nonstop marvel superhero movies and super partisan political content, you have become accustomed to simple stories where all the characters and motivations are very black and white. But in older times, people were able to appreciate a good complex story told about complex characters with complex and conflicting motivations and emotions...
PS: King James is a notoriously mediocre translation whose only advantage is nostalgia for English speakers and a false patina of "ancientness" (in fact, the KJV is pretty new compared to the original texts, just as the English language is, obviously). If you are interested in learning more, I would avoid everyday bibles sold to everyday christians and look at textbooks with nice commentaries of the sorts you might see used in a college religion or theology class