Both the disciple and the Gospel remain interesting, though.
The City-Man (Iscarioth = ish qaryot = אישׁ קריות) appears to have remained non-believing in the Messiah, which is why he was treated as a traitor. I think the early messianic believers were mocking on Judas' sticking to the principle of handing-down, i. e. written and oral tradition, when they depicted him as handing down, i. e. extraditing, Rabbi Yeshu de-Nazrath. In modern Bible translations, the Greek words παραδιδωμι / παραδοσις (to hand down / tradition) are translated to betray / treason only when referring to Judas.
The Gospel of Judas, on the other hand, keeps a thought still quite modern, i. e. that the disciple did a necessary service in giving away Jesus. This way, Judas can still be considered part of the Work of Salvation, which would considerably diminish the Saviours' Work in that Judas was necessary to set it into motion. That would make Judas, the High Priests, and the Romans, tools of redemption, leaving us with a view of Christ's passion as a mere play with Good and Evil just tidyly playing their opposite parts, but walking into the same direction, i. e. redemption.
Such a view would have ties to certain kinds of widespread modern religion. But the Church has always denied that view because it would make the real Man Who Suffered for Our Sins, Died, and was Risen on the Third Day nothing more than a mere and rather complex construction. Redemption would then depend on whether or not you reach the higher level of realization.