Loading...What then can we say with relative certainty about Judas called Iscariot? I think the following five points just about cover it:
- He did exist. This has been doubted in some circles and by some scholars, of course, especially among those who have wanted to point out the etymological similarity between his name, Judas, and the word Jew, and have argued, on this and related grounds, that Judas was a creation of the early church who wanted to pin the blame of Jesus’ death on the Jewish people. I think this is an attractive view, and one that I personally would like very much to be true, but I don’t see how it can be. Judas figures too prominently in too many layers of our traditions to be a later fabrication. I give all the data in my book on Judas, but here let me just say that there is unique and shared material about Judas in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – so that his existence passes the criterion of Multiple Attestation with flying colors.Moreover, if early Christians wanted to invent a villain responsible for Jesus betrayal there would have been no good reason that I can see to make him one of the twelve. Quite the contrary, the idea that one of Jesus’ own disciples turned him over to the authorities (however one construes the term paradidomi) is widely and rightly, I think, thought to pass the criterion of dissimilarity. Jesus had no more authority and control over his own closest disciples than that? He couldn’t keep even them in line? What kind of authority figure is that?As a sidenote I should say that I do not think that there is any reference to Judas in the writings of Paul. When Paul narrates the events of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, he does indeed indicate that this meal took place “on the night on which he was betrayed” (to give the traditional rendering); but elsewhere in Paul paradidomi in relationship to Jesus always refers to God’s action of handing Jesus over to his death. Thus, for example, Romans 8:32: “He who did not spare his own son but handed him over for us….”; there is no reason to think that Paul means anything else by the term here in 1 cor. 11. The Last Supper, then, took place on the night that God fulfilled his purposes by handing Jesus over.
The absence of Judas from the writings of Paul, of course, does not matter much for my thesis. Virtually
everything from Jesus’ life is absent from Paul. But since Judas is mentioned in Mark, in an independent source of Matthew, and another for Luke, and yet another for John – and since his act of betrayal, if that’s what it was, passes the criterion of dissimilaritly, I think we can say he existed.Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
- As a corollary, I think we can say on the same grounds that he was a follower of Jesus. This must mean, I think, that he was a Jew from Palestine. Everything we can say about first century Palestinian Jews, therefore – if in fact we can generalize at all about Palestinian Jews – we can say about Judas.
- More than that, I think it is virtually certain that he was one of the inner circle of Jesus’ followers, one of the twelve. This is one thing that all the sources on every layer actually say about him. The existence of the twelve, of course, is multiply attested, not only throughout our Gospel sources but also, in a rare moment of historical utility, in the writings of Paul (1 Corinthians 15).There is one additional datum from the Gospels that demonstrates the point, in my judgment, one directly related to the fact of Judas’s membership in the group. This is the saying of Q that appears to be best preserved in Matthew’s version of Matthew 19:28: “Truly I say to you, in the renewed world, when the Son of Man is sitting on the throne of his glory, you disciples also will be seated on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Luke 22:30).That Jesus actually said something like this I think is virtually certain, because it is not at all the sort of thing that Christians after his death would have invented and put on his lips. That is because no one familiar with the traditions of Jesus’ death really thought that the twelve disciples would be the twelve rulers in the future kingdom soon to come. For among the twelve was the one who betrayed him. Is Judas going to rule in the future kingdom with the other eleven? Later Christians – even in the days and months after Jesus’ death – certainly did not think so, since Judas, one of the twelve, was a condemned traitor to the cause. This must mean that the saying is something that Jesus actually said. The twelve disciples – including Judas — would be future rulers in the kingdom.
- One further implication of the circumstance that Judas was one of Jesus’ followers and was in fact one of the twelve closest disciples has been somewhat overlooked in the discussions of Judas Iscariot. Like Jesus of Nazareth, Judas must have been an apocalyptic Jew, one who expected an imminent act of God to overthrow the forces of evil in this world and to bring in a good utopian kingdom here on earth to replace the corrupt and oppressive kingdoms that are currently in power. I obviously don’t have time here to discuss the powerful arguments in favor of an apocalyptic interpretation of the life and message of Jesus, but will instead take it as firmly established by a bevy of serious researchers over the past century, since the publication of Schweitzer’s classic study (outstanding scholarly exceptions duly noted and nothwithstanding).The implications of Jesus as an apocalypticist are worth considering, however, and have not been adequately considered by most scholars working on the problem of Judas. Jesus’ followers were ones who accepted his message, not ones who rejected it; and the twelve were the ones who really accepted it. Judas Iscariot must have been a Jewish apocalypticist.
- And finally, Judas was the one of the twelve who handed Jesus over to the ruling authorities, leading to Jesus’ trial, condemnation, and crucifixion. As I’ve pointed out, this datum is not only multiply attested by independent sources, it passes with flying colors the critierion of dissimilarity. For my purposes here it doesn’t matter whether the term they used for this act is para- or prodidomi. It’s the former, but it scarcely signifies: Judas turned him in.
Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
Become a Member Today!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
68 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Why is it important that there is a “Q”?
Well, for several reasons. If Q did NOT exist then Luke would have copied Matthew in the material they shared that is not in Mark, and you could then look at how he changed Matthew to figure out what he wanted to improve or do differently; if they both used Q, you can’t do that. If Q DID exist, one value is that it would be another independent source for the sayings of Jesus, in addition to, say, Mark and John.
The concept of multiple attestation itself has been challenged. Matthew and Luke certainly knew Mark and some scholars think John knew of at least Mark. And of course the figure of Joseph of Arimathea and the miracle of the loaves and fishes are both multiply “attested”.
The figure of judas does more than present an anti-Jewish emphasis. His betrayal is in keeping with Mark’s theme of the unreliability of the disciples. If the other gospel writers all depended on Mark, well…
Yes, the criterion works only when the writings are independent of one another. At the least I would say that Mark, John, and Acts are independent on Judas; and Matthew has a story found only there which seems likely to be from M. So there would be four independent sources.
It’s entirely possible that a member of the 12 betrayed Jesus, but that doesn’t mean his identity was known or that his name was Judas or that the details about “Judas” are accurate. We know the Gospels were written with certain “prophecies” in mind, like Zechariah 11:23-13 and Psalm 41:9. Just as they may have invented stories about the betrayer being paid 30 pieces of silver (Zech.) or breaking bread with Jesus at the Last Supper (Psalm 41) they may have assigned a name to Judas that implicated “the Jews.” The Gospels were written by Gentiles, were they not? Do we have any reliable Jewish source mentioning “Judas” as the betrayer? Paul was a Jew but he never mentions Judas.
As you know, we don’t have any reliable Jewish source that verifies *any* of the stories of Jesus’ disciples (or much of anything else). Paul being a Jew, of course, would have no bearing on whether he knew the name of Jesus’ betrayer. It’s important to note that Judas was a veyr common name. Jesus’ brother was called that (Jude is a different way of rendering into English the name Judas), as was one of the other so the twelve! disabledupes{6c2fda119f309cd282f054f60f2f56eb}disabledupes
In the Swedish Bible, both Iscariot and Jesus’s brother (the alleged epistle author and saint) are called Judas.
Is the reason that different variants of the name are used in English bibles that one wants to distinguish between the traitor and the saint, that the name Judas is so much assicociated with the traitor (perhaps by antisemitic undertones) that it felt better to have a slightly different name for the saint?
Yup, that’s pretty much the reason.
Contamos con un tradicion en la Biblia hebrea que refleja muy bien las descripciones de cercania, traicion y hasta el modo de muerte que vivió Judas tal como nos cuenta Mateo. En la historia de David y Ajitofel.
¿ Podría haberse inspirado el autor de Mateo en esta historia al tener un vacio del final del traidor en Marcos?
¿ Esto al menos nos haria dudar de que no podemos conciderar que todo lo que se nos dice de Judas en los evangelios por ser el traidor deba ser aceptado como histórico?
The Judas story must be important since it ruins the trope of 12 loyal followers–now there’s just 11.
Is the idea of a betrayer/traitor also a trope in ANE literature? So many features of the gospel story pick up on prior stories from the zeitgeist that I wonder if Judas also had precedents in legends of that time and place.
I was also thinking along these lines…
Could Judas be a legendary development within late Pauline Christianity, intending to diminish the authority of the group around James?
It’s possible, but there’s no connection between Pauline Christianity and the Judas traditions. Judas is never mentioned in the Pauline epistles or the deutero-Pauline epistles, e.g. I guess Acts would be part of the Pauline traditoin, but other than that…
It’s possible, but there’s no connection between Pauline Christianity and the Judas traditions. Judas is never mentioned in the Pauline epistles or the deutero-Pauline epistles, e.g. I guess Acts would be part of the Pauline traditoin, but other than that…
Professor Ehrman,
The motive of Judas has always intrigued me. Do you think Judas was disillusioned with Jesus because he was hoping Jesus would start an insurrectionist movement? Or do you think that perhaps Judas was scared of being lumped in with Jesus after Jesus started attracting the wrong kind of attention during Passover week? Or do you think maybe he thought that turning Jesus over to the authorities would be the very catalyst that triggered the Son of Man’s appearance? Or, None of the above?
I’m getting to that one!
I did a bit of research into Biblical names.No other Biblical person’s name has Ish(man of) as a first word,signifying provenance.I did find an article about one of the current Kerioth places in Israel. A guy from Kerioth is called ” Keriot(h)i”. Like someone from Jerusalem is called ” Yerushalmi,not Ish Yerushalaim.Also, NT names containing procedence behave the same way:Joseph of Arimathea is Yosef Haramati ( Joseph from Rama).Mary Magdalene is Mary Hamigdalit,not Mary eshet Migdal(Mary, Migdal’s wife).
This leaves Judas Sicarii,a very violent sub-group of the Zealots.If Sicarii is the name,it means a lot to know that fact,as it can help us to try to understand what was happening to him and why he acted as he did.
I take exception to the assessment that Judas’ approaching the priests *resulted* in the apprehension, trial,scourging and crucifixion of Jesus.Yes,this is what ultimately happened.But Jesus would have been detained,eventually,at any other time or place unrelated to Judas.And we still don’t know Judas’ motive.No request for money is mentioned in Mark.Moreover,Judas could not have known what would transpire,and could only dream that his Apocalyptic master would bring the Kingdom.His hopes dashed by the unexpected horrific outcome,he lost the will to live.
I recall the late John Spong making the claim that Judas was invented.
He wasn’t the first!
As usual, great post Dr. Ehrman. On point number three, you make an excellent case for Jesus actually telling his top twelve disciples that they would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. From the scholarly approach, don’t you think this means that the historic Jesus was somewhat childish and even looney? Imagine an American politician telling their top fifty financial contributors that they would sit on fifty thrones judging the fifty states of America. A politician who talked like that would definitely be called a cult leader leading a foolish cult. It seems, then, that a scholarly case can be made that Jesus and his followers really were a foolish cult in the negative sense of that word. Would you agree with that. Personally, I’m not quite sure what to make of it.
I would say that is one of the VERY MAJOR differences between modern capitalist American politics and ancient apocalyptic Jewish religious beliefs. I don’t think someone in THAT context would be considered loony for strongly holding views that nearly everyone else held as well. In our context, oh boy might he be called that. But then again, most any American senator or, say, typical atheist would be considered completley looney to ancient apocalyptic Jews. Looney is all about context!
Ah, looney was a poor choice of words on my part. A better phrase to capture what I was trying to write is delusions of grandeur. I think even in the ancient world, anybody making such grandiose claims for themselves would be considered by others to be `out of their mind’ so to speak. As you know, the New Testament gospels claim that Jesus own family members considered him to be “out of it” when they found out about his newly established ministry. Yes, the apocalyptic beliefs were common but a religious movement claiming to be fulfilling apocalyptic prophecy was probably much less common. People claiming to be a messiah were probably even less common than that and viewed as “out of it” by the majority of others. So, my question is: from a scholarly point of view did the historic Jesus suffer from megalomania?
I’d say it’s hard to say. The problem is that it’s impossible to psychoanalyze someone from this difference in time, place, and context. If I were to say about myself something like this, yeah, I’d be a megalomaniac. But in that time and place? I’m not so sure. We certainly have records of others making claims that would seem outlandish to us; but maybe we’d call them all megalomaniacs. It would help if we knew just what assertions Jesus was actually making and how strongly he was making them.
“Moreover, if early Christians wanted to invent a villain responsible for Jesus betrayal there would have been no good reason that I can see to make him one of the twelve.”
Doesn’t the very notion of betrayal suppose that in order to betray you must first be in a position of trust?
When I used the term “betrayal” here I’m using it in its generic sense of “handed over,” not in the sense of “betrayal of trust.” Betrayal of trust does indeed require trust, but the story didn’t have to run like that. It would have been just as easy to come up with some *other* person to turn him in — for example, one of the despised Pharisees. Or one of Jesus’ unbelieving brothers. Or a Zealot. Etc.
“Doesn’t the very notion of betrayal suppose that in order to betray you must first be in a position of trust?”
I think that could be the key to answer Bart’s question about why Christians wanting to invent a villain responsible for Jesus’ betrayal would make him one of the twelve
Matthew 12:48-49
Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward HIS DISCIPLES, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
Matthew 10:35-36
“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his OWN HOUSEHOLD.”
I think it makes all the sense for early christian to “invent a villian” that in fact was one of Jesus’s closest disciples, it would work better than “one of the despised Pharisees. Or one of Jesus’ unbelieving brothers. Or a Zealot.”
The word used literally means just something like “handed over” without the nuance of “betrayed trust”
The BETRAYAL is explicit in Mark 14:11:
“ And when they heard it, they were glad and promised to give him money” and the fact Judas conducted the “crowd with swords and clubs” to a place where they could find Jesus without the “crowds” that allegedly could have helped him.
About the “TRUST” is something that Mark stressed once and again.
When Judas “went to the chief priests” :
“ Then Judas Iscariot, who was ONE OF THE TWELVE” (Mark 14:10)
And again during the arrest:
“And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, ONE OF THE TWELVE” (Mark 14:43)
Why repeat something we already know?
Evidently Mark wants us readers to realize that the betrayal came from somebody TRUSTED, probably because that was what christian in Mark’s times experienced, betrayals by people from their own household.
Just out of curiousity, why would you like the notion of Judas being created by the early church to be true?
I think it would be incrdibly interesting, and a comment on how Jewish-Chritia relations deteriorated in some circles this early.
Questions:
if an event is attested in Mark,why are Matthew and Luke’s tellings considered to be from independent sources,thus qualifying as multiple attestations?
Why are there 3 sources rather than 1, with some variations?I had understood that the idea of the synoptics is that they horizontally ” read” the same basic stories.
There’s also John,I know.
You mentioned in your books that Jesus *must*have told the priests hitherto unknown ideas against Jesus that they could use to incriminate him.I also read this as Schweitzer’s conjecture.This is clearly not historic,and moreover,unnecessary,as the priests knew exactly what they needed to know.Besides,they gave Jesus a fair trial.
It seems to me that this accusation piles an unattested additional curse on Judas.Why?
I’m grateful that you wrote” since his act of betrayal,if that’s what it was”,giving this alleged “betrayal”the benefit of the doubt.I am trying to understand how what Judas did,based on indications that Jesus,who was not in hiding or on the run,was announcing openly how things would go- so the Scriptures can be fulfilled
(o,the “fulfilling of Scripture”,how much damage this chimera has done)- ,can be considered a “betrayal”,as when someone or an entire country can truly be hurt when least expecting it by someone they considered flawless.
Matthew and Luke are independent of Mark only in traditions that they have that are not in Mark. There are, of course, a ot of those.
I don’t recall insisting that Judas “must” have told the priests. Maybe I did! It seems to me likely, but I don’t think it’s historically naecssary. I’d also say that “betrayal” carries certain connotations in English that the Greek word doesn’t necessarily have. It can mean to pay something in advance, or to hand something over to someone else or to surrender to an enemy or to abandon, or to disappoint or … to “betray” in the modern sense. But betray doesn’t normally have these other nuances.
OK I bought in! Maybe not the FARO card level but WTF? right? Read a couple of your books…OK?….and got most of Crossan’s books, right? So in REAL SIMPLE terms could you explain how in the hell you differ from him?
Yeah I know he still believes in some kind of God or whatever? But how do you differ?
Yeah, I know you and he are real erudite kinda guys….
so keep it simple
muchas gracias
Lots of differences. Here’s a major one. I accept the widely held view among historical scholars that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who believed the end of history was drawing to a close and that God was soon to intervene in history in a dramatic way to destroy the forces of evil and set up a good kingdom on earth. Crossan thinks this view is wrong and that Jesus was more like a Greek philosopher interested in promoting spiritual instead of material matters and principally interested in issues of justice in the here and now.
Why did the chief priests even need a “betrayer” like Judas?
This is the part of the story that I’ve never understood. Judas didn’t raise unfounded accusations against Jesus. He simply “pointed Jesus out” with a kiss. Why was that necessary? Was Jesus in hiding?
The chief priests had spoken to Jesus before (according to Mark) so they already knew what he looked like. For what purpose did they need a “betrayer”?
Ah, see the next post!
Here is a question not related to this fascinating study of Judas: The Gospel reading Sunday was Matthew 5:21-37. This passage has references to being thrown into “the hell of fire” or “hell”. Having read your book “Heaven and Hell” and followed its logic, I was surprised and intrigued by these references. Back home I picked up my Oxford English Bible and found these words footnoted as “Gr: Gehenna”. Wow! This translation is misleading to say the least. I suppose this goes back to the KJV, Tyndale, etc. Is that correct? What is the history of rendering Gehenna as “hell” instead of rubbish pit or whatever?
Yup, it’s the traditional English translation based on the idea that if Jesus is talking about an afterlife punishment, it must be hell (plus its in fire!)
Spies were common and used by not only the government but also by the numerous uprisers. Even Jesus gets information from time to time. Paul seems to admit to such acts? But, this about religion not local politics.
My ten cents worth: picking up on one of your points on why Judas would probably not be invented: it will portray him as not being to keep his disciples in line (much more his inner circle of 12). I think (like John the Baptist), the Gospel writers tried to play down the event by making it seem Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him and allowed it to happen. To once again portray Jesus as being in full control of the otherwise embarrassing event.
Historically, I think Jesus had no idea he was going to be betrayed. What are your thoughts Bart?
I really don’t know. I think he didn’t imgainge he’d be arrested and killed until right up to the end.
Hi Bart – With regard to the passage quoted above in Matthew 19:28, my understanding is that Jesus believed he would be the one to rule over the twelve in the new world order. At the same time, I thought the historical Jesus likely referred to a third person as the Son of Man (e.g., the figure appearing in the Book of Daniel), not himself, and that referring to Jesus as the Son of Man was something created after his death by later Christians, even though he refers to himself by that title at points in the gospels (e.g., Matthew 8:20). While I understand your point about later Christians not wanting to include Judas among the 12 rulers over the tribes of Israel, this would seem to present a small conundrum (i.e., it would not go back to the historical Jesus “as is”). Do you think the “Son of Man” was added to Matt 19:28 later? If so, for what reason? Or am I missing something?
Yes, my view is that there’s a different between what Jesus said and what he’s reported as saying. In other sayings Jesus speaks of the Son of man as the cosmic destroyer of the forces of evil; here he talks about him as a future king. I think he said the former sayings but later Xns thought *he* was that Son of Man. So they were able to speak of the son of man sitting on the throne when they meant Jesus.
Could similar arguments be made with regard to the existence and actions of Joseph of Arimathea? Multiple attestations : He was specifically named and the story told in all four gospels. Witnesses in three of the gospels: The two Marys and other women. I guess the criterion of dissimilarity might not apply though? The notion of the body of the Messiah/Son of God being left on the cross to decompose would probably not be acceptable to a Christian agenda.
Joseph is attested in two surviving sources, Mark and John (matthew and luke got their stories from Mark). So that’s good, but not as good as Judas, attested in Mark, John, Acts, and probably M.
I once held to the idea that by betraying Jesus, Judas was hoping to force Jesus to “come out” and show his power, and “be the messiah” and stop pussyfooting around. When that didn’t happen, Judas was beside himself with guilt, and killed himself. Back when I was an assistant Presbyterian minister, I preached a sermon on this topic.
Ah, yup, it’s one of the views that’s out there. You find it in some of the movies (Last Temptatoin of Christ, e.g., has Judas try to get Jesus to get going!) I bet you didn’t learn that one in seminary. Depending on your seminary!
I went to Toronto Bible College 1965-1969, which became Tyndale University.
It was evangelical, and you are right…I didn’t learn that idea there. But there were some good people there. Dr Stimple being one of them.
So, Professor. If we rule Judas, historical, “Q” @ Luke 22:30, historical, do we continue and conclude Judas betrayed Jesus to Jewish authorities for blasphemy rather than directly to Romans for treason?
In other words were the Jews written in to take the Romans off the hook?
They were in some ways in these traditions, but not as a creation of the Judas story, I don’t think.
I suppose that’s an option, but nothing in the saying or the narratives otherwise suggest that the two are connected. In any event, it would not have been a blasphemy to claim you were the messiah/future king and that your followers would rule as well. It would be a political issue though, at least for the Romans.
Schweitzer played such an important role shifting scholarship away from the liberal lives of Jesus and to the centrality of eschatology in Jesus’ message. But Schweitzer has been critiqued for being too heavily dependent on the gist of Mark’s chronology as a historian and neglecting that Mark, like John, was a theologian making theological assertions through his narrative. There are many disjunctives and plot holes in Mark’s narrative that give historians pause.
Mark 6:6-13 is a factor here (not unlike Mt 19:28 as you mention). Mark says Jesus sent “the twelve” out to preach, heal, and exorcize demons, and they did so. That pericope seems so disjunctive towards other major themes in Mark, such as Jesus’ repeated attempts at secrecy and the complete abject failures of the disciples throughout Mark. And without explanation, Mark would be including Judas in that pericope with the twelve, despite the earlier note in 3:19 of Judas’ eventual demise. Seems odd and disjunctive. Difficult to explain.
I’m not sure the criterion of multiple attestation is going to age well in the decades ahead. Scholarship seems to be shifting away from Q and towards Luke’s dependence on Matthew, and John’s dependence on the Synoptics. But maybe I’m wrong.
Yes, I think the first time I realized I could be a scholar was when I saw that THE problem with Schweitzer’s reconstructoin of what actually happened rested on a conflation of Mark and Matthew wiht respect to the sending out of the disciples and Jesus’ subsequent disappointment.
Thanks, that’s interesting. I don’t remember you mentioning that before. I’d be curious to hear more.
Just curious, what’s your take on Mark’s completely negative depiction of the disciples? Other than abandoning everything to follow Jesus and one brief episode of successful ministry (6:7-13), Jesus constantly hammers them for unbelief. They’re the seed on the rocky ground, not the good earth. At the end, they all betray, deny, and desert Jesus and are never restored or commissioned. Is it just part of Mark’s messianic secret? Or is Mark making a stark contrast to say, follow Jesus’ example, not the disciples’ failures? Or is it to shift focus away from the Jewish twelve towards the Gentile mission? Or it reflects the historical gist, and Matthew and Luke downplay those failures? Other reasons?
I ask because this affects how we see Judas. His demise is part of the bigger picture of all twelve’s demise in Mark.
(Fwiw, I think Luke used Mark and Matthew, and John knew the Synoptics, so I don’t put weight on multiple attestation. I think John gets his storyline from the Synoptics but modifies it greatly. I think we have different presuppositions on that. Sorry for such long questions and comments.)
There can still be multiple attestation with your understanding of teh sources. Distinctive material in one account did not come from a source that lacked it. Disciples in Mark: I think it’s closely tied to the Messianic Secret. I talked about the issue at length in my recent online course on Mark (bartehrman.com); I shouuld maybe post on the issue, since it’s so intriguign.
Bart, roughly what probability corresponds to “relative historical certainty” for you?Something roughly in the 80% to 90% range?
Ah, I don’t do percentages when I deal with historical probabilities, but I suppose something like that would make for “relative certainty”
“Jesus had no more authority and control over his own closest disciples than that?
He couldn’t keep even them in line?
What kind of authority figure is that?”
Well,the problem is that the gospels DO depict Jesus as somebody with “no more authority and control over his own closest disciples ” and that “ he couldn’t keep even them in line” !!
Take for instance what happened before and during Jesus’s arrest as is told by Mark (Mark 14:32-50):
Jesus asks Peter,James and John , his inner circle of disciples to ““Stay here and keep watch.”
And what happened? well “ he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping”
“Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour? “ asked Jesus again
But again and again they kept sleeping !
A tired Jesus finally said “ Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!””
And it came , and Jesus was arrested ..
And the disciples?
“Everyone deserted him and fled.”
So.. if Jesus couldn’t keep even Peter,James and John in line …why do we have to expect something different from Judas????
(giselebendor – Yes I’m from Uruguay !!!)
(fishician – great platinum article ! , what about 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 ?)
The criterion of dissimilarity might not work here. We all know how rumors get bigger as they spread until sometimes they become legends.
Back in the days of dial-up modems, we sometimes had static on the line which caused random garbage to come out. I remember once when that happened at work, a clerk asked my boss why that happened. He said, as a joke, “A squirrel is running on the cable outside.” Later I heard that clerk telling her co-workers in all sincerity that it was caused by squirrels on the wires.
I can see how the earliest Christians, say in the first weeks after Jesus’ death, wondered what had happened and how the soldiers knew whom to arrest. I can see someone speculating, “Maybe he was betrayed by someone who knew him.” Then this gets morphed into “Someone must have betrayed him.” Then later it changed into “One of the twelve betrayed him.” By the time Q was written, this was a wide-spread legend. After all, it makes a great story.
Excellent post. I think your reasons for saying Judas actually existed are sound. You also say this: “Moreover, if early Christians wanted to invent a villain responsible for Jesus betrayal there would have been no good reason that I can see to make him one of the twelve.”
Perhaps I’m just cynical, but I can’t help but think that much of the gospels were either directly fabricated or were slanted to address, in part, what early Christians faced in the Roman World. By making Judas as one of the twelve, it’s arguable that the early Christian writers were portraying an example of a seeming follower of Jesus betraying him to the authorities and the message is that could happen in the early church so beware.
I don’t think they were fabricated or intentionally slanted either. And yup, that could indeed be one of the reasons someone came up with the story, I agree.
Dr. Ehrman,
A long standing question of mine. Were they really twelve? Although multiply attested as you point out, this is a powerful symbolic number, probably echoing the future restoration of Israel kingdom in an apocalyptic sense. Jesus was an itinerant preacher. How could he make sure these twelve people would be around wherever he taught?
P.S. As a native greek speaker i can tell you that the term paradidomi (παραδιδομι) literally means: I surrender
Yes, that may be what it means now. In ancient Greek it was transitive though, not intransitive. You could surrender (paradidomi) your sword but not yourself. As to the twelve, yes, it is multiply attested; but there’s nothing to suggest that Jesus thought he could always have the twelve with him, though I’ve never thought much about it. I suppose it would be natural that they stayed with him, but they are rarely mentioned in the stories themselves.
Apologies for not noticing your response earlier. Still in Ancient Greek (which follows similar rules to modern Greek), the transitive version is paradido (παραδίδω). Paradidomi (παραδίδομι) means I surrender, I give myself in.
You sure about that? There is a late (medieval?) form paradido but paradidomi is all you will find in lexica of ancient Greek (I checked both Liddell and Scott and the more recent Cambridge Greek Lexicon, which are meant to be exhaustive). Didomi is a -mi verb, not the passive voice of an omega-verb (if that’s what you were thinking?)
Thanks for one of the differences between yourself and Crossan…Jesus as John Hagee and Crossan’s Jesus as Terence Malick, bet there are more but I ain’t no scholar……I was more interested in the resemblance of you and Crossan and others (Shlomo Sand) concerning peeling back the Thomas Jefferson and all Enlightenment and returning to the days of yore….sort of like the Lone Ranger….Lingo, geography, geology, architecture, sex yada yada, rich and poor in that time…but guess that’s why you are a historian…Robert Graves/Vidal…could ask more dumb questions like just how long it takes to get Aramaic/Greek/Coptic and to get thru all the stuff you do….but won’t. Thanks again…”very interesting”….that’s stolen from Laugh In