I still find it weird that his story arc made it past the editors, such as they were, and I'm not sure if I mean the people who decided what was/wasn't canon back in the day and/or the English translators from King James edition onwards.
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.”
Not much of a plot hole. Judas betrayed for greed. He fulfilled the resurrection through his evil, which does not make him good. In any random Hollywood movie, the villain would not be redeemed by accidentally helping the hero in the course of their schemes.
It's not a plot hole, it's a plot point, that makes Judas a complex, tragic character. John 13:27 addresses this a little. You might enjoy Jesus Christ Superstar, which is reasonably based on the text but takes some interpretive liberties, and is set from Judas's troubled point of view.
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
I'm not invested in this story, but Voldermort doesn't get a pass because without his actions Harry wouldn't be a great wizard.
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.
Perhaps I am just dumb... but I'm not following anything you are saying. If Christ had to die to be a sacrifice, how is someone turning him in make it a "plot hole"?? Who else would it occur, just by chance?
From my recollection of Catholic school, Judas was tempted into being the betrayer, but his legacy as the betrayer is due to his abandoning his faith in Jesus and refusing to confess his sins. Both Judas and Peter are supposed to have betrayed Jesus on Good Friday, but Peter repented while Judas let his guilt drive him to suicide.
The message is supposed to be the devil tempts us all, and failure is inevitable, but God/Jesus forgives all.
It probably made it past the "editors" because the Judas betrayal actually happened (Christ myth theories aside), whereas the death/resurrection cycle... not so much.
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.”