Judas Iscariot as a Deuteragonist Character: A Narrative-Critical Interpretation of the Gospel of Judas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gospel of Judas was found in the 1970s in Al Minya, Egypt. After a series of bizarre events, this long-lost gospel was restored, translated, and published in April, 2006. The National Geographic Society financially supported the project, which resulted in an English translation, a commentary on the gospel, and a televised documentary. This gospel tells the story of Jesus and his disciples in the days leading up to the crucifixion. More specifically, the narrative is focused on the dialogue between Jesus and Judas Iscariot. Although the initial reactions to the Gospel of Judas sought to redeem Judas from his malevolent reputation, further analysis has revealed a negative depiction of his character. \nIndeed, characterization utilizing a narrative-critical approach in the interpretation of this gospel clearly supports the idea that the figure of Judas Iscariot is characterized as a demon. Jesus is the central character, and as such is the protagonist of the story. It is Jesus who is the divine revealer of the mysteries of the kingdom and the end days. Judas plays a significant role in the plot, but because the implied reader develops a negative relationship with him, he cannot be a protagonist. Judas, instead, plays the role of the deuteragonist. He is the second most important character in the plot and acts as Jesus' subordinate. The Gospel of Judas is a valuable document, as it reveals aspects of second and third century Christianity. Much of the content of this gospel is shrouded in mystery. A narrative-critical approach focusing on characterization will elicit layers of meaning within the Judas gospel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".