(10 votes, average: 4.60 out of 5)
Loading...I sometimes get asked about Paul and Judas Iscariot: did Paul know Jesus was betrayed? I was asked it again a couple of weeks ago and have decided to repost an answer from some years ago. SO:
QUESTION:
Do you think that Paul, without naming him, is referring to Judas in 1 Corinthians 11:23-24? (The verse in the NRSV: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”)
RESPONSE:
Ah, it’s a great question. Paul never explicitly mentions Judas Iscariot or indicates that Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples. But couldn’t this verse contain a reference to Judas? It refers to the night on which Jesus was betrayed!
One reason the question matters is that Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird to people, but just read all of his letters. Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone, casting out a demon, doing any other miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other leaders, teaching the multitudes, even speaking a parable, being baptized, being transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being arrested, put on trial, found guilty of blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate on charges of calling himself the King of the Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. There’s a very, very long list of things he doesn’t tell us about. And it’s a very interesting question: WHY?
There are several explanations that I’ve explored on the blog before, but for now I don’t want to go into the question of why, but the question of what. Specifically, one of the things Paul doesn’t tell us is that Jesus was betrayed by Judas. But does he *allude* to it in this passage? I always thought so – for years and years. And then I looked into it and read what other scholars have said about it. They convinced me. I don’t think this is a reference to Judas’s betrayal.
But why not? The passage comes out and *says* that Jesus had his last supper “on the night that he was betrayed.” So Paul is referring to Judas’s betrayal, right? Well, probably wrong. “Betrayed” is almost certainly the wrong translation of the Greek for this passage.
The term Paul uses here, in Greek, is
Wanna see how this works? Keep reading. All members can Not a member? Join! Every penny of your membership fee goes to charities helping the hungry and homeless. Click here for membership options
Matthew 24 and Mark 13 both say that no one knows the hour “not the angels in heaven nor the son but only the father”
Matthew has “ει μη ο πατηρ μου μονος” / “if not the father alone”
Mark has “ει μη ο πατηρ μου” / “if not the father”.
Can the greek be understood in a literal sense here?
Matthew says the father alone can know and no-one else can. Mark just says if the father doesn’t know no one else knows either.
My sense it they both mean the same thing. Matthew makes Mark’s statement more emphatic. Scriibes, as you probably know, sometimes dropped that phrase from the verse, almost certainly for theological reasons, since it would then mean that the Son of God did not know when the end would come, which worked against theological views that the Son was equal with the father in power and understanding.
I think Mark has the softer version. His version can be understood as “no one knows unless the father knows”.
But Matthew’s can’t be. In his version only the father alone can know and no one else.
Translator’s note from Jewish annotated NT 1 Cor 11:23. “Betrayed (“paradidōmi”), lit., “handed over,” referring to God’s handing over Jesus to death (Rom 4.25; 8.32).” … contextually, “betrayed” would fit in very nicely with the gospel betrayal accounts, esp given this verse’s textual closeness with Luke (same textual sourcing or what?). In John 13:21 Jesus says “one of you will “betray” me with NET footnote “hand me over”, which given Jesus’ immediately previous words strongly implies betrayal.
Given this issue has been around since the 80s (Vanstone), why do you suppose “betray” has pretty much stayed put? I take it that the scholars which have convinced you have not the many translators. Even the Jewish Annotated translators didn’t protest. Had they used the lit. “hand over” it would have only marginally altered the meaning of the *Judas story*, or is that story to be ditched too? There is lots of variability here, but not particularly more so than much of the rest of the NT. The fact that Paul *alters* Luke is at least suggestive he knew there was a *betrayal*. Handed over by *God*? sure, but assigned in the gospels to Judas…
Yes, it’s always hard for me to understand why smart people are not always convinced by good arguments. 🙂
I imagine there are smart people on both and mixed sides of the fence with this, like most disputed topics. I was wondering if anything i said was worth picking up on, but i guess not. 🙂
Is it possible that someone did betray Jesus, but as the story developed it became one of the Twelve who was given the name “Judas” to further implicate the Jews in the death of Jesus, “Judas” being synonymous with “Judah” or “Jew?” I assume since all 4 gospels call him “Judas” it would have to be a relatively early development in the story, but maybe post-Paul? It just seems so coincidental to me that in the increasingly anti-Semitic gospels the name of the betrayer should be “Judas.”
It’s certainly possible. I think part of the problem is that even if Paul didn’t know about it, that wouldn’t mean it originated after Paul. Without anything like mass communication, differnet communities developd different views nad had different traditions that other communities would simply know nothing about. ANd since Paul spent the vast amount of his time with the unconverted….
So the reference to Jesus appearing to the 12 (including Judas?) in 1 Corinthians 15:5, is part of what Paul says he “ handed on (PARADIDOMI) to you as of first importance what I in turn had received”.
This is a verse that many scholars give weight to as a “pre-Pauline creed” dating back to the earliest years of his ministry. Many scholars argue that this creed shows signs of an Aramaic original source and may date to Paul’s interaction with the Jerusalem Christians.
Wouldn’t this mean that it wasn’t only Paul, but also all the early Jerusalem Christians who would not have been familiar with the story of the Judas betrayal?
Ah, “pre-Pauline” does not mean “before Paul began getting serious in his ministry” (or “before he converted”). It simply means “before Paul quotes it.” So in this case it means sometime before 51 or so (when he would have founded the church). I don’t seen any hard core evidence that it was originally composed in Aramaic.
One more question, Dr. Ehrman:
As someone who was involved in the translation of the NRSV, do you recall any debate about the use of the word “betrayed” to translate PARADIDOMI in 1 Corinthians 11:23?
No, I’m afraid not. Oddly I mainly worked with the OT committees!
I wonder if you could explain the context of John 14:27 “Peace I leave with you.” Since it only appears in John, I’m assuming it’s a later addition to the words of Jesus. If so, does it relate to persecution of early Christians? Might it have appealed to the sensibilities of the wider Hellenistic world in some way?
My sense it is a kind of common greeting or farewell, like “I hope things are good!” or “Good luck with everytihng” in today’s lingo. Whether Jesus actually said it or not, I don’t know But that entire discourse (John 13-17) cannot be a stenographic account of what he actually said on the occasion of his final meal.
So: Paul does not allude to the “fact” that Jesus was betrayed.
There is even evidence suggesting he might not even *know* this “fact”.
Does not, then, the evidence for this “fact” become uncomfortably thin?
Do we have any evidence independent from Mark?
It’s in John and Acts as well.
Isn’t it more likely that a Judas legend sprang up in the decades following Jesus’ death (leading to mentions in several books) than that Paul – writing much earlier and having personal relationships with Jesus’ top disciple and brother – didn’t know about it?
It’s multiply attested in numerou independent traditions (Mark, M, John, Acts) and is usually thought to pass the criterion of dissimiarily; so think it probably happened.
Independence makes sense but I don’t see dissimilarity. Although the story makes Jesus appear less than authoritative, it takes place within a narrative world where there’s a crucifixion. Betrayal is several steps lower than crucifixion on the conventional authority scale. Isn’t authority therefore redefined in the NT – especially when the authors have Jesus predicting the betrayal? More broadly, pastors aplenty preach on Jesus’ upside-down view of power – Jesus washing feet, first will be last, the Son of Man came to serve rather than be served, etc.
The logic of saying that the betrayal passes the crition of dissimiarlity is that early Christians would not be inclined to say that one of JEsus’ closest companions, whom he himself had chosen, and who had spent all that time with him, would be the one who betrayed him. Jesus had no more authority/power over his closest followers then than? A more likely “invention” would be something like a Jewish leader/personal enemy/etc. had done it. I find that pretty persuasive, but in cobination with the extensive attestation, even more so.
Do you have any idea if the Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, mentioned in Acts 18: 12 is Seneca’s brother?
Yes, that’s his brother. Whether Acts 18:12 is historically accurate or not is another question….
I agree that it stretches credulity that Paul knew absolutely nothing about Judas Iscariot. Why he doesn’t mention him by name is another matter. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he claims to know about the Last Supper from a personal revelation directly from Jesus himself rather than as a story handed down (har!) from the other apostles. Perhaps he was deeply disturbed by the notion that one of Christ’s own disciples could have possibly done such a thing, so he keeps things comfortably in the passive voice. Might the existence of Judas and the fact that Jesus’s death appears to have come about as the result of a conspiracy of some kind between the Sanhedrin and one of his closest followers complicate Paul’s theology or soteriology in any way that we can discern?
I don’t know.
Mr. Ehrman, in Acts it is written that Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot (1:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles). This happened shortly after Jesus’s ascension, and it was endorsed by Peter (in his speech, starting at 1:15). Since Paul talked to Peter, a few years after these events, he must knew about Matthias. Isn’t it more likely that in his reference to the “twelve” in 1 Corinthians he had Matthias in mind?
I don’t think that we can assume that Acts is giving a historical account (that Paul would know about) with respect to the electoion of a “12th” apostle. But in any event, even in Acts this takes place after Jesus stopped appearing to the apostles, and had ascended to heaven.
To the question of why Paul would not mention Jesus’ “betrayal” there is an interesting minority viewpoint that questions the historicity of Judas Iscariot.
Great post! Wow, I’ve never considered this question before, but it certainly is a very interesting thing to ponder.
An interesting article. I always thought 1 Cor 11:23-24 reinforces the betrayal by one of Jesus’ disciples. This also raises the issue of translation – where a word is picked to suit a viewpoint rather than just saying it like it is. By the way, my view of Paul was that he deliberately did not make an effort to understand the deeds and words of Jesus through Peter and/or other apostles as his (Paul’s) own claim to apostleship was by revelation. He needed to emphasize the superiority of revelations after Jesus was “elevated” to be a divine being following his (Jesus’) crucifixion. Jesus’ day to day acts were not that important – hence Peter’s possible reliance on these might seem to miss the point (in Paul’s view). IMHO
, well at least Judas came out more and more sinister/more and more scary in the evolving stories from the Gospel of Mark to John.
It is also curious that the story expanded from Mark to John, where new elements in the story were cronological added, did not seem to be known by or not even worth mentioning by the previous gospel authors.
The late Bishop Spong considered the Judas figure more symbolic than historical. He even claims that the story was linked to the older Hebrew scriptures (Psalm 41:9, 2 Sam 17:23, 2 Zechariah, 2 Samuel 20:9 at least) which also mention the earlier Jewish traitor stories where the 30 silver pieces/coins, suicide after betrayal and the betrayal kiss (Joab and Amasa).
Bishop Spong seems to interpret the story of Judas evolving with the growing hostility between the Orthodox Jews and the revisionists (the Christians), especially after 70 AD. and the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. He thought that Judas had a synonym for Judah (the name of the nation at that time was absorbed in the Roman Empire), and in an extension which also, as in John, the blame for Jesus’ death was passed on to the Jews. He claim that all the Gospels who were written later than the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD was written with this incident in mind and gave rise to Judas as a symbol.
It is an intriquing interpretation, which if true, also give perfectly sence that Paul (an early convert) had never heard of or even found it material to mention such a very important part of the story of Jesus.
Paul also seems not to know anything about the kind of body Jesus wore after the resurrection, since in the gospels Jesus is eating and showing his wounds, and that is NOT indicative of the sort of glorified body that Paul assumed the resurrected would wear. Of course those gospels came much later, but if they were derived from older traditions, then, either Paul was not aware of those traditions, or he chose to ignore them. If he actually had contact with James and Peter, then we are forced to imagine that they spoke not at all of their contact with a resurrected Jesus, or, again, Paul chose to disregard whatever they might have told him. In either case there are major problems, and one’s credulity is strained, to say the least. There are so many holes in the New Testament narratives, you could drive a fleet of 18-wheelers through them and have room for a few hundred mini-vans.
I agree with Douglas Wadeson (aka fishician) that ‘someone did betray Jesus, but as the story developed it became one of the Twelve who was given the name “Judas” to further implicate the Jews in the death of Jesus, “Judas” being synonymous with “Judah” or “Jew”.’
That being said, the notion that the Messiah (especially one that is eventually believed to be God the Son incarnate) could be and was betrayed by one of his closest disciples is a profoundly embarrassing fact that must have raised a lot of annoying questions in the minds of potential converts. So best to avoid mentioning or alluding to it as much as possible until a satisfying rationalization can be developed.
No doubt you’ve commented on the following many times in this forum and in your books, sorry, memory not serving me.
Assuming that Paul and Peter really met, how did they communicate? A Greek speaker and an Aramaic speaker (Peter likely illiterate). Many possibilities of course: Paul was a polyglot, or they had a translator who was fluent in both Greek and Aramaic. Or Peter and Paul used a common lingo (Latin; not likely), much like Vladimir Horowitz and Wanda Toscanini used French (the former knew not Italian, the latter knew not Russian, neither was fluent in English), or Nicholas II and his genius wife Alexandra (English).
Any evidence?
No evidence, other than the fact that Peter almost certainly (in my view) could not have spoken Greek and not evidence that Paul could speak Aramaic. We’re left with the option of a translator, I suppose?
Dr Ehrman,
I read somewhere (i wish i could recall) that Saul was actually born to parents who had fled from Galilee when the Roman troops came to quash the rebellion at Sepphoris in 6bc. Are you familiar with this? In that case, it seems to me he would know some Aramaic (and maybe felt a connection to Jesus being a fellow Galileean) – also if Saul/Paul actually did study with Gamaliel in Jerusalem – and I have my doubts – you’d think he’d be familiar w the local lingo (Aramaic). At any rate, its hard for me to believe such an intelligent and well-traveled guy wouldn’t have picked some up, even if he couldn’t write in it.
Yeah, if someone is writing that they’re, well, makin it up!
This is very interesting.
Bart, I’ve always wondered, did Paul speak Aramaic? How do you think he communicated with Peter? Because Peter most definitely didn’t speak Greek.
I’m assuming it involved a translator.
Is it possible early on he was less than honest or clear about what he believed when speaking to Peter and James.
When it comes to human behavior, most things technically possible are possible!
Part 1.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 15 and Paul’s doubts about the resurrection of Jesus
—————————-
There are many inconsistencies in the text: the reference to the “Twelve”, when at that time there were only eleven apostles (Paul refers again to the appearance–is it the same one, or is it a second one?–in 15-7; although this time he writes “the apostles” without mentioning their number); the massive appearance to 500 witnesses, of which no more detail is given than an irrelevant comment, made in passing: “[…] of whom the [500 eyewitnesses] greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. ”. Did Paul know that most of those 500 witnesses were still alive when he writes this letter? It seems highly unlikely, as Paul had no way of knowing, unless he knew a significant portion of those 500 eyewitnesses, which does not fit the description of that mass apparition (15-6); Also a mystery is why, if any, Paul calls himself “one born out of due time.” Nonsense in a writing as vital as the recognition (despite doubts?) of the resurrection of Jesus.
Part 2
But for me, what stands out the most is that Paul lets his doubts about the resurrection of Jesus surface, when he says in 15: 15 “[…] we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, *if so be that the dead rise not.*”. Paul knows perfectly well that the dead usually do not rise, so he makes the warning “if so be that the dead rise not”. There is no doubt that if Paul believed the resurrection of Jesus to be an irrefutable fact, he would not have written this text, which is the fruit of doubt.
Which is immediately confirmed at 15:15: “* For if the dead rise not*, then is not Christ raised.” For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus is only possible if it is natural—though perhaps rare—for the dead, in general, to rise.
But Paul cannot admit such doubts, since he immediately states emphatically, in 15-14: “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Although he does have many doubts that the dead can be resurrected in the real world.
Out of context
The 12 ran to Galilee after Jesus was arrested. How do we know they had visions after he died and was buried? Maybe had visions while he was on the cross (left on cross) or still alive?
Do you mean historically? There would be no way to know.
If Peter did have visions while Jesus was still on the cross (let’s suppose he did know), maybe he would’ve interpreted the vision as a prophecy that would occur after Jesus died?
I don’t know.
Even if Peter did not share the story of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas during Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, one might expect the story to be in circulation. After all, it made it into independently into Mark’s and John’s Gospels. Paul might have heard it as he travelled between Christian communities, stories spread by Apollos or the other evangelists that Paul knew of.
Hi Bart 2 questions…
1) was listening to your debate with Mike and in your closing statement, you said somethings that confused me. You seem to have said that if your Christian loved ones started believing that they could prove-they-were-right, they wouldn’t be your loved ones anymore. Can you clarify what that meant? You also said something similar about evangelical beliefs in general. Can you clarify that too?
2) Let’s take the case of the popes. You seem to agree that there was a pope/bishop of Rome in the second century. My question is… if the lists provided by Irenaeus, Tertullian etc are correct, but the previous “popes” rather than referring to single bishops refer rather to the most significant figures in that Church (in this case, Rome) and it is true that one came after the other… wouldn’t that count as Apostolic succession of office. After all, even tho the way the role was administered changed, there was still a senior figure, who may simply have been in charge of less than his eventual successors decades later. Can that sort of thinking “rescue” apostolic succession (of either Popes or Patriarchs)?
Thank you!
1. I mean that thees would not be the people that I would want to spend a lot of time with because we would have such a fundamental disagreement about what matters in life; 2. I suppose it depends what you mean; apostolic succession requires the leader to have been appointed by the apostles or those whom, the apostles appointed. So if they were, then yes, that argument could be made if the early lists are correct.
On a side note Bart; Are the Tar Heels still reeling over the collapse of that big halftime lead over Kansas and losing the final eventually? Is the university recovered and back to normal? I was sure they were going to win their seventh title the way they started. Go figure. That’s why I don’t bet on sports!!!
My sense is that it was a blow (given the way they lost) but eveyrone was/is ecstatic they got that far since no one at all expected it.
This post just stops with, “The term Paul uses here, in Greek, is “…
Where do I read the rest of the post?
THat ususually means that your subscriptoin has not been renewed. Please click the link for Help and send a note to Support, and someone will help you out.
I’ve watched the first hour and a quarter of your debate and am fascinated with the give and take. The historian Richard Evans was mentioned more than once. I know him from his magnificent trilogy on Germany and WWII, even tho he referred to Hitler as “Leader” rather than Fuhrer and for his role as an expert witness in David Irving’s trial against Penguin Books. How did Evans end up in a debate about the resurrection?
Oh boy was I wondering that same thing myself…. It’s because Mike wanted to cite him as someone who thought that nothing cin history could be PROVED and that historians all have biases. As if either one is a debated issue….
I see a number of people here asking, “If Paul did know of the betrayal of Judas, why did he never mention it?” The answer would be, “for the same reason he didn’t mention other details of Jesus’ life that he might have known about: because he had no occasion to do so, because it wasn’t relevant to what he wanted to say.”
But in general, what was Paul trying to tell people about Jesus and who he was? So maybe Judas may not matter, but wouldn’t little things like a virgin birth be relevant? All the dead people rising up and walking around when Jesus died per Matthew? There are things in Jesus’ life that are pretty important towards arguing who he was. So maybe Judas doesn’t matter much, but Paul not mentioning things that would help his argument would if Paul had known of them.
I believe that in the past you have drawn attention to the fact that Matthew (21:1-7) when referring to the Entry into Jerusalem makes a nonsense of the story because he appears to claim that Jesus was straddling both the donkey AND the colt. This indeed appears to be ridiculous but I have recently read that when the text says that Jesus sat ‘on THEM’ this is referring not to the animals but to the cloaks thrown over the beasts. Please are you able to say if the Greek allows for this more charitable interpretation or whether the genders of the nouns preclude this?
How could he sit on them all if he wasn’t straddling the beasts?
Now that you have completed your thread setting out your recent lecture on the violence of Revelation to a scholarly audience please are you able to say how it was received and something about any feedback you received.
The book was just published a week ago; I wouldn’t expect any scholarly reviews for months. But we’ll see!
Is it possible that Paul was told of Judas and his actions but simply did not believe what he was told? People are often told things that they do not pass on because they have not been convinced of them.
Yup, that’s possible!
Dr. Ehrman. John 13 is where Judas’ fall is best described. Judas appears to be an allegory basen on the fall of Esau, combined with some actions in the Song of Songs chap. 5
Jacob, as a type of Christ, became a servant of the church when he served a meal, first to Esau and then to Isaac. Jacob did this because he knew that God had given all things into his hands, and not into Esau’s hands.
With these meals, Jacob was glofied by God while Esau was condemned. Esau, who had lifted up his heel and stepped on Jacob right from their birth, now sold his birthright for temporary carnal pleasures.
Edom, “the Field of Blood”, was from now on a condemned place.
But, even though Jacob was exalted by God, he would still be a servant of Laban for 20 more years. In this, Jacob was a role model for the church. The apostles who were to preach the message of the Lord were to be humble like Jacob.
When Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, He took on the role of a servant, that He might convert His persecutors( Laban ) from malice to love of Him.
Jacob’s transformation took place by Jacob taking off his own “robe” and disguising himself in Esau’s smaller “towel”. At Isaac’s table, Jacob smelled like the Bridegroom’s garden, full of lilies among thorns.
«I slept, but my heart was awake.
A sound! My beloved is knocking. “Open to me (…)
I have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them?»
Song of Songs 5:2-3
Until now, Jacob had been at home and acquired wisdom in his heart, but wisdom also had to be shown in virtues. There was no time to sleep. Come out and preach! Show off your wisdom! Show everyone who you love! Be vigilant!
At the same time, dangers lurked for those who dared to be an apostle. Pride, anger, and despair were vices that a preacher could easily acquire. In addition, they could face envy, as in the case of Jacob.
Peter, like a new Moses, did not dare to preach at first.
«Who am I? Can I (Moses) go to Pharaoh?»
Yes he could, because these were vices that could be easily washed away from his feet.
The battle between Jacob and Esau reflects in a way man’s inner spiritual battle between soul and body, where the soul seeks to ascend to God, while the vices of the body trample it down.
When the soul is ready to embark on its Way towards Truth and Life, suffering is expected. Jacob caught a glimpse of this Way when he saw a ladder from heaven to earth. The ladder showed that there were many levels of spiritual maturity – i.e. there were many rooms in the Father’s house. Although the soul is predestined to dwell in the house of the Lord, the standard of each room is determined by the spiritual maturity of each soul. Jacob therefore had to leave the church / soul so that it could mature through faith.
«I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had left (…) The watchmen found me as they went about in the city; they beat me, they bruised me, they took away my veil»
Song of Songs 5:6-7
In the journey of the soul, in the end, only the veil of the soul remains that prevents full spiritual clarity. The veil must be removed with discipline; with blows from the staff.
Psalm 23:4 «Your rod and your staff, they comfort me.»
Jacob was a role model for the soul’s journey towards Truth and Life. Jacob was the Word encapsulated in flesh.
All carnal vices had to die by disciplining and subduing the flesh. Then a spiritual resurrection of the soul would occur, where the last veil would remain in the grave.
Jacob, who had walked this path all the way to the end, had now become like God. He was now able to fight with God as his equal at Jabbok.
Jacob had become like Adam before the fall; created in God’s own image.
In Paradise, the soul became mortal when the devil tricked man into eating forbidden fruit.
But Jacob had done the opposite. The flesh was now killed by Jacob who tricked the devil into eating a vital meal.
Philip thought it would be sufficient for him if Jacob showed him the Father. Like Laban, nothing was sufficient for Philip. Although Jacob had been with Laban for 20 years, had married four of his daughters, miraculously shepherded all of his sheep, Laban still did not recognize the son of man in Jacob. Was it not enough yet?
Finally. This is how I understand this Christology.
The Way that leads to Truth and Life always starts with being a disciple. A disciple is a passive listener to the wisdom found in the holy words, because the truth comes from God. This is like taking off his cloak, or body, and letting the soul open itself fully to wisdom.
It is not enough to be a passev listener. One must show in virtues how mature one’s soul has become. One must become an apostle. One must remove the veil from the face so that one’s true face appears. One’s true self is shown through virtues or vices. The vices stink while the virtues smell like flowers.
Virtues are only possible to learn through role models; by living examples. Children learn virtues mainly through their parents, and in ancient times they often also used the staff as an aid. The wounds from these blows could be compared to fragrant smells.
In the Bible, there are different personalities who can act as role models. In such cases, one can say that the word has become flesh. They become types of Christ.
Truth and Life are thus found when both the disciple’s robe and the apostle’s veil are buried.
Dr. Ehrman. This topic is not fully elaborated until Rebecca’s and Isaac’s roles are identified, is it?
Behold, you are beautiful (…) Your hair is like a flock of goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead.
Song of Songs 4: 1
Rebekah was given the role of the church who anointed the bridegroom with her own hair.
Isaac, on the other hand, was blind both physically and in his heart. Isaac could not identify the suffering servant of the Lord, even though he touched him with his own fingers. Jacob was therefore not identified to Isaac until Esau had arrived.
Isaac did not know that it was God’s will for Jacob to be blessed.
– If you had known Me, you would have known My Father’s (will) as well.
Jacob who was the truth did not deceive with falsehood. I am the Truth, not a liar.
Jacob who was life would not leave Isaac in his blindness, but save him from darkness.
Jacob who was the way was Isaac’s servant and savior. Indeed, the suffering servant of the Lord.
Isaac was Jacob’s twin in the sense that, on an earlier occasion, he had carried the cross voluntarily. Isaac had then shown his willingness to die for others. John 11:16
The Gospel of Thomas Logion 13:
«Jesus said: Compare me, tell me whom I like. Thomas said to him: Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like. Jesus said: I am not your master, for you have drunk, and have become drunk from the bubbling spring which I have caused to gush forth. And he took him, withdrew, (and) spoke to him three words. Now when Thomas came (back) to his companions, they asked him: What did Jesus say to you? Thomas said to them: If I tell you one of the words which he said to me, you will take up stones (and) throw them at me; and a fire will come out of the stones (and) burn you up.»
Picture Jacob at Isaac’s table, serving him wine. Isaac is unable to identify Jacob. Jacob says three words: I am Jacob! When Isaac returned to Esau, Esau asked: What did Jacob say to you? Esau would then respond with anger to what Isaac had now learned, but Esau’s anger would only be directed at himself.
Job was also present at the Lord’s table, emphasizing that Christ’s body was now being handed over to the devil. Job’s soul would rest safely in the bosom of the Lord, but his body was now fully in the devil’s possession.
At a later time, when Job had disciplined all the vices of his body – i.e. “hung his vices on the cross” – he would be rewarded with a new family. Job was to have the honor of being a teacher in the synagogue of the Jews, the mother from whom Christ was born.
Job, Moses, and Jacob thus became the pillars of the Christian church. They were the very foundation of the Christian faith.
Finally, I want to thank you for allowing me to freely share my thoughts on your blog.
moose on the loose.
Dr. Ehrman. I really intended not to comment further in this thread, but then Nazareth was mentioned.
I think Nazareth existed at that time, but that the very name of the city was convenient to use to emphasize the duality of Christ’s nature – true God and true man.
Philip (Laban) met Nathanael (Abraham) who was from Cana, the same Cana where the first miracle was to be performed. Nathanael questioned whether anything good could come from Nazareth.
Or rather: – Can something good come from Sarah?
The word Nazareth can be divided into Na-Sarah, where Na (να) is a Greek particle used to show or point out someone or something. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Even the name Nathanael can thus be divided into Na-Thanael, where Thanael may possibly be a reference to Abraham’s father Tarah.
The same goes for the name Bartholomew; Bar Tarah.
Christ had on an earlier occasion met Abraham. Then they sat under the fig tree – then He came in His divinity. Now he appeared in his human nature.
The marriage between Arbraham and Sara was childless, they were too old to have children. They had run out of wine, but a miracle was about to happen. The Lord would now become man. A marriage between God and man in Isaac.
Not only that; Abraham was also to become the father of six more children. What a miracle.
Matt 2:23 «So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.»
Which Old Testament prophet does Matthew quote here?
Perhaps a reference to Isaiah’s suffering servant, as opposed to a triumphant messiah from Bethlehem?
The patriarchs in the book of Genesis lived by both faith and suffering before the law came.
One such type of Christ was Joseph. He was sent by his father to look for his brothers, but was sold as a slave to the Gentiles.
Joseph was the dreamer who aroused the envy of his brothers because he was loved by his father and because he had predicted that they would kneel before him. The jealousy became so strong that they made a plot to kill him.
Therefore, Jesus was first judged by the council of the Jews, and where Caiaphas was high priest that year.
Why is this significant?
Exodus 13:2 “The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me”
The firstborn son was meant to be the high priest among his brothers.
Among Joseph’s brothers, Reuben was the first, and should have been the high priest. After him came Simon, first in third place came Levi.
Levi was the priest when Joseph was sold as a slave. The ranks of the brothers suggested that Simeon should have been high priest before Levi.
Genesis 49:5-6 «Simeon and Levi are brothers. Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly»
Simeon and Levi were two brothers who had brutally avenged the abuse against Dinah. Jacob did not meet in their council, but Joseph had to meet them when he came to Dothan.
None of the brothers, however, understood that what was to happen to Joseph was after the Lord’s providence. Not even Levi, who was high priest, understood: “You know nothing at all, or think that it is expedient for us that Joseph should die for the people, and that our nation should not perish.”
Still, the brothers did not dare to kill Joseph. They bound him, sent him away as a slave, hoping that others would carry out the crime. The brothers sold Joseph on the advice of Judah.
To be a slave is to be under the yoke of the slave owner. Joseph had to carry this yoke / cross until he was released from captivity many years later.
Joseph was the Lamb of God who bore the sin of the world.
Levi was in the case of Joseph the high priest, but more generally, Caiaphas represents the entire Levitical priesthood. So when Caiaphas rose from his priestly seat and tore his priestly robe, this indicated that the Levitical priesthood had now come to an end. A new high priest after the order of Melchizedek was to be installed; Jesus our new high priest.
In the book of Genesis, the story of Joseph and his brothers is briefly interrupted by a chapter on Judah and Thamar. The same pattern is found in Matthew, where Judas showed remorse in front of the high priests right after they had handed Jesus over to Pilate.
Was Potiphar a villain or a believer? It depends on how you read the story. Potiphar put Joseph in charge of his house, but later sentenced him to the dungeon. Thus Potiphar was clean on the outside (his hands were clean), but he was guilty on the inside.
Joseph remained silent to all the accusations leveled against him, even though all the accusations were false. In his trial, Joseph could have accused both Potiphar’s wife and his brothers of his sad misery, but he did not.
What exactly was the truth? Well, the truth came through Joseph’s dreams. Joseph had to say exactly what God told him. The truth came from God, and the truth would eventually set him free.
The story of Joseph’s life was another template for how to walk the Way towards Truth and Life; a role model for all believers to follow.
This pattern is repeated in the book of Exodus, where Yahweh is sent to Israel / James, his brother. Yahweh performed many miracles, but the Israelites would not believe. Moses, a representative of the priesthood of Levi, struck the Rock with his staff. Water and blood came out, to show the connection this story had with Joseph’s fate in meeting with the high priest. Same pattern, but here it is Jethro who has been given the role of Pilate; the pagan judge. The Gentile Jethro confessed, long before anyone else had done so, that the Lord was the God of the Israelites.
– Are you the king of the Jews?
– You said it!
John 17:24 «Father, I want those You have given Me to be with Me where I am, that they may see the glory You gave Me because You loved Me before the foundation of the world.»
Joseph wanted his brothers to come to Egypt where he was, so that they could fall at his feet and see his glory. The same Glory that was foretold by God, through Joseph’s dreams. But first, the virtues of his brothers had to mature through faith, hope, and love. Therefore, Joseph did not reveal who he was until his brothers had undergone a process of moral maturity. The brothers’ faith, hope and love had to be tested, like gold was refined in fire so that those whom God had given Joseph could be where He was.
The penitent thief:
Genesis 44:16 lxx: «Judah said; Wherein should we be justified? Whereas God has discovered the unrighteousness of thy servants; behold, we are slaves to our lord»
On the very same day that Judah confessed his guilt before Joseph, Joseph finally revealed who he was.
The confession of Judah points directly to the crucifixion in Exodus Capt. 17, where Aaron, of the tribe of Levi, and Hur, of the tribe of Judah, flanked Moses as he held his staff.
The priesthood under Aaron failed when they made a golden calf to lead them, instead of the Lord. Hur, on the other hand, had protested and been killed by the Israelites at the time.
Judah, in person and as a tribe, was a penitent thief. Not least through David’s life, after his fornication with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, and in David’s psalms.
Psalm 50:15-16 «call upon me in the day of affliction; and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. But to the sinner God has said, Why dost thou declare my ordinances, and take up my covenant in thy mouth?»
Psalm 106:4-5 «Remember me, LORD, when you show favor to your people, come to my aid when you save them»
The fact that Judah had proposed to the brothers to sell Joseph was just so that Joseph would not be killed. Judah was the other Judas, not Judas Iscariot.
One last remark about the penitent thief. Caleb, of the tribe of Judah, was the only one who, along with Joshua / Jesus, gained access to the promised land / Paradise.
Jesus Barabbas:
Isaac and Ishmael were two sons of Abraham. Ishmael was sent away by Abraham, while Isaac had to carry the cross.
This was a picture of what would later happen when Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites. There in Dothan the brothers chose Ishmael before Joseph.
Pharaoh’s cupbearer was sent into the same dungeon where Potiphar had put Joseph, but he was later released.
More importantly, Barabbas was released during the Passover meal, which gave this figure the theological significance as the Destroyer himself, who attacked anyone who was not protected by the blood of the lamb.
The Israelites chose the Destroyer / Barabbas and therefore died in the wilderness, except for Caleb and Joshua.
Dr. Ehrman. Joseph, the dream interpreter, was a type of Christ. Joseph was rejected by the Jews and judged by the pagan Potiphar.
We find the same pattern in another such dream interpreter. Daniel, who was rejected by the Jews and judged by the Gentile Darius. Consequently, Daniel was also a type of Christ.
The source of Daniel’s story of suffering can be found when Jesus came to Gethsemane. Daniel took with him his three closest friends, those who had been in the fire, and prayed on his knees three times.
Daniel 6:10 «he knelt down on his knees three times that day.»
Daniel prayed to God that he would not drink the cup (the food and the wine) from Nebuchadnezzar’s table.
Mark 14:33 «And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very sorrowful.»
Daniel was both amazed and saddened by all the visions God showed him. It is Daniel’s human emotions that appear in Gethsemane.
Daniel 10:2 «In those days I, Daniel, was mourning three full weeks.»
The reason why Darius had to sentence Daniel to the den of lions was that Danel had opposed both the law of the Medes and the Persians.
Daniel 6:12 «Darius; “The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.”»
Darius, the Mede, was not allowed to oppose the law of the Persians, ie the law of Caesar.
The Jews accused Daniel of failing to pay tribute to the Persian ruler Cyrus.
Darius had no choice, and therefore Daniel was laid in the tomb and the stone was sealed by Darius.
I believe that the very source of the tradition around a letter sent from Pilate to Caesar, has its roots in the correspondence we find in the book of Ezra, between Cyrus and Darius and of the resistance of the Jews.
Dr. Ehrman. Some form of cleansing of the Temple is believed to be a true historical event performed by Jesus.
But keep in mind that Paul described Hagar as the present Jerusalem, and Sarah as a future Jerusalem. The temple in Jerusalem therefore had to be cleansed from the slave woman and her son. That is, the lineage of Sarah and Abraham had to be preserved from the lineage of Hagar and Ishmael.
Genesis 21:10 «Expel the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac!»
That is probably why this pericope is found at the beginning of the Gospel of John, right after the wedding in Cana.
In the encounter with Joseph, the Ishmaelites are described as merchant travelers loaded with spices, balm and myrrh.
In the Gospels (the Temple), they traded in oxen, sheep, and doves, which may be a reference to Abraham’s earlier covenant with God, in which Abraham cut these animals in two.
There is a connection between the cleansing of the Temple and the glorified entrance into Jerusalem.
When God put Abraham to the test with Isaac, they rode on a donkey towards Mount Moriah, which is the same place where the Temple was later built.
The palm branches that were cut are an allusion to the wood that Abraham cut, but the palm branches were also a sign of victory and praise over Abraham. Because even though it was Isaac’s body that was to be sacrificed, it was Abraham’s will and faithfulness that prevailed.
Theologically, Abraham was the head and Isaac the body, or Christ the head and the church the body. Mysteriously, even the donkey foal was like the church that had the wood laid both over it when Isaac walked, and under it when he was to be sacrificed, in the form of palm branches and cloaks on the foal and under the foal.
Thus they rode towards Mount Moriah (the Temple) with their two servants.
Abraham’s triumph was worthy of a heavenly praise; Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
Maybe somebody above already said this and I missed it, but here goes. The gospels tell us that priestly aristocrats had Jesus arrested, and then (whatever the “trial’ business was) handed Jesus over to the Roman prefect with some charge like “this guy’s making trouble.” So “handing over” fits this scenario just fine, but might not some also think of this handing over as a betrayal? Wouldn’t it be natural for Jesus’ followers to claim that the high priest & his associates were betraying…I don’t know, their duty to protect their fellow Israelites from abuse by the empire’s agents?
Do you mean as what Paul was referring to? I guess the problem is that in the tradition that does not take place at “night” — which is when Paul places the turning over of Jesus.
I’ve only just joined the blog and this is the first post I’ve read. I am in no way a biblical scholar so I may be very ignorant of references to the “betrayal”. I’m only stating what has puzzled me since I first heard of these things in Sunday school. I’ve never understood the need for a betrayal. But I assume it fills some need in the narrative.
I didn’t think that Judas did anything other than identify Jesus which seems entirely redundant. Surely Jesus was well known and didn’t need to be identified? Judas didn’t testify against him (did he?) or provide some sort of evidence that would convict him. Jesus could have been arrested at any time, with or without Judas pointing him out, and the outcome would have been exactly the same.
If Judas had casually pointed to him in a crowd and said “Yep that’s Jesus over there”, he wouldn’t be guilty of very much more. So . . . what is the betrayal?
I have a particular view of that, which I discuss in my book on Judas Isacriot. I think Judas betrayed the insider information that led to Jesus’ execution, that he was calling himself the king of the Jews.
Is Judas betraying Jesus historical? Or did the authorities arrest him without the help of an insider?
I think it’s historical. It’s attested in lots of independent sources (Mark, John, Acts, etc) and it is not hte sort of tradition jesus’ followers would be likely to have made up (since it assumes he had no more authority over his own disciples than *that*..). I talk about it at length in my book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot.
Interesting! I will look up that book!
Is it possible that the details of the role that Judas played in Jesus’ arrest was not really that important to Paul? If you are writing a biography of Jesus’ life, it is important. But if you are writing letters in which you are discussing the religious significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection, why would you get into all the minutiae of his arrest, trial and crucifixion unless it has some special importance to Christians like the last supper?
Yup!
Hello bart,
Is it possible that in that meeting 3 years in, Paul doesn’t have his particular Christology so developed? The whole bit about Jesus having been angel of the lord and an instrument of creation come down then re-exalted to semi godhood (seems really similar to Philos concept of the Logos intermediary) would have been a been at least a little (if not a lot) different to the people who knew him just 3 years after the crucifixion.
I’m speculating here about something else-Paul initially has a desire to convert gentiles, and with time develops a theory justifying his view they shouldn’t need to follow Jewish customs. Are there any historians who consider this possible?
Since he wa a thinking person, I would imagine his theology certainly did develop in some ways over time. I do think that right off the bat the earliest believers in the resurrection believed Jesus had been made divine; but I also thinik “pre-existence” only came along later.
Bart. I’ve been a longtime fan of JC Superstar since it came out in 1970. Listened to it start to finish yesterday, Good Friday. I’ve always admired the writing and how they got into Judas’ point of view and humanistic portrayal of Jesus. Just wondering if you’ve ever commented on it or any thoughts you have. – Greg, Tampa
Ah, I used to listen to it in toto every Good Friday as well. Just had my students write a paper on it (they’d never heard the music). I think it’s brilliant. The Gethesemane scene is the climax, in my view.
I’ve used the movie sequence of Superstar in my philosophy class in the God unit when Judas descends in white and the backup sisters come out in red. Fantastic still. Buddha was he where it’s at, is he where you are. Glad you appreciate it, too.
Since we’re talking about translations here, I have an off-topic question: Can you explain why the NRSV translates ἔθνη (ethnē) in 1 Cor. 10:20 as “pagans”? As I understand it, “pagans” (which comes from a word for rustic or rural) wasn’t used to mean polytheists or non-monotheists until the IV century. Why would the NRSV have Paul say pagans?
In this context it appears to mean those who are neight Jews nor Christians with a focus on their religious practices, so I guess that would be “pagan”?
Maybe there is a book or article there. The rock and roll appeal of Jesus, Why he won’t just die. Happy Easter.