It cannot have been easy being a descendant of Judas Iscariot over the past, well, 2,000 years. To put it mildly, the man himself has had something of an image problem, the name has rather fallen out of use and few financial transactions now explicitly refer to 30 pieces of silver. As we report today, however, a team of senior Vatican scholars is debating whether the deviant disciple should be, partially, rehabilitated. They have offered the argument that the betrayal is an essential part of the story of Christ and that He was well aware of this role.

The case is coherent, although it is doubtful whether Judas will be wholly reassessed by a wider public. It leaves the delicate question of how best to consider his reputation. To see him as a victim is surely too generous — even by modern standards. To contend that he did not know what he was doing does not square with biblical evidence. To conclude that he was only obeying orders is not satisfactory either. Nor did the Roman Empire often exploit the equivalent of ASBOs. The Vatican may decide to be very kindly towards him. Yet, Judas is surely a “bad chap”.

Still, any improvement in his status could provide some hope to others in the Good Book who were not treated sympathetically. Cain’s unusual family history might be cited in his favour. The discrimination that Goliath faced as a man who attracted unwanted attention for his exceptional height has to be considered. Herod’s fear of being usurped is the material with which popular psychologists are too familiar. The Devil might try to use the “a necessary evil” clause to his advantage. At that point, belated forgiveness and hip rebranding must really meet its limits.