(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...This will be my last post in this thread on Judas Iscariot, and it deals with a question that has long been asked, often answered, and never satisfactorily: what motivated Judas to betray Jesus? No answer has ever satisfied because there is simply no way to know. When I say the answers are never satisfactory, and that they do not satisfy, I don’t mean that no one is satisfied. Lots of people — including possibly you! — have an answer that you think works perfectly. OK then!
But there’s no consensus on the matter and even though I have my preference of an answer, I don’t think it’s possible to enter into some person’s mind — especially a person living 2000 years ago that we know virtually nothing about — to come up with a psychological explanation for why he did what he did.
Here’s the reality: you can’t come up with a convincing and conclusive psychological explanation for MOST things that MOST people do. You actually have no idea what is motivating me to write this post. Is it because I’m hoping it will convince more people to give money to the charities supported by the blog? Is it to show off how much I know about the Bible? Is it to trash an academic rival whom I don’t like who has written a book on the topic. Is it out of a sense of guilt that I’m not doing enough public service in spreading the knowledge about the New Testament that the taxpayers of North Carolina are giving their hard-earned money in taxes for me to both acquire and disseminate? Is it because I’m bored and would on the whole rather do this then watch a sit-com? Is it … ? These are all plausible explanations. Maybe one is right. Maybe they are all right. Maybe some are right. Maybe only one is more right than the others. How would you know? And in fact, how would *I* know?
OK, so, ascribing motivation is a very tricky enterprise. But still, hey, it’s a lot of fun to think about. And we do it all the time, for all sorts of people, both those close to us and those that we read about incessantly (oh boy, incessantly…) in the news. Why did they do that??? And so, with Judas. Why did he do that?
I talk about the issue in my book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. Here are my reflections found there:
***************************************************************************
The Gospels give various answers to the question of “why.” In the (newly discovered) Gospel of Judas, he betrays Jesus because that’s what Jesus wants him to do — Jesus needs to escape from the material trappings of his body, which requires him to die, and Judas both recognizes this and makes it happen. In our earlier accounts from the New Testament there are a range of different reasons given: (a) John portrays Judas as inherently evil, “a devil,” and so naturally he does what he is inclined to do (John 6:71; (b) Luke suggests that “The Devil made him do it” (Luke 22:3-6); (c) Matthew indicates that he does it for the cash (Matt. 26:14-16).
But what was the real motivation behind Judas’s act? At the end of the day, I’m afraid we can’t know for certain. It might be that the scenario I’ve suggested above [i.e., earlier in the chapter] is the right one, that Judas simply wanted Jesus removed from public view until after the Festival of Passover had ended and they could return to Galilee to continue their public preaching.
But there’s another option that might be even more intriguing, possibly hinted at in Mark, our earliest surviving account. Throughout Mark’s account …
To see an intriguing answer to the question, you need to belong to the Blog! Joining has never been easier — it is quick and costs less than a MacDonald’s milkshake a *month.* Don’t drink a milkshake. Join the blog!
Wow, I’ve never thought of it this way. I guess I never tried to make sense Judas as a historical character, so thanks for the speculations of what might be the cause of him turning on Jesus and highlighting some of the facts within the bible.
One interesting speculation about Judas comes from writer Jorge Luis Borges in his short story, “Three Versions of Judas”, where he has his fictional scholar/heretic Runeberg claim that in order to truly become human God would have had to know iniquity to the point of committing sin. The pain of a few hours on the cross does not compare with the sacrifice of accepting the burden of shame and guilt and revulsion for all time to come.
“God became a man completely, a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of being reprehensible – all the way to the abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which together weave the uncertain web of history; He could have been Alexander, or Pythagoras, or Rurik, or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: He was Judas.”
That’s a wonderful story by Borges, thanks for reminding me of it! And the twist in the tale is wickedly funny as well as thought-provoking.
There’s also the possibility that Judas didn’t exist at all he’s a allegorical character, a stand-in for Judah ie the Jewish people, who the author of Mark is cross with for not having en masse accepted Jesus as the Christ. After all, Paul never mentions him by name, writes of 12 not 11 apostles (although the 12 in the gospels are disciples, not apostles), and early Christian writers give THREE versions of the death of Judas, with the legend becoming ever more gruesome and bonkers.
What a haunting, fascinating, game-changing speculation. Thanks for posting such an intellectually stimulating idea. I’ll be thinking about it for days…
“handed Jesus over to his enemies – not simply telling them where to find him, but giving them the insider information they needed in order to have him brought up on charges before the Roman governor.”
His enemies here would be the Jewish priests? From what Josephus writes about Pilate it doesn’t seem like he would need an excuse if Jesus was on his radar.
The tradition says it was the Jewish leaaders, who were the first point of contact int he local judicial system; but it *could* have been directly to the Romans.
I always thought the “why” of Judas more interesting than the “what.” Thanks for this interesting take on it!
A sort-of related question, you have opined that at least a few of the apostles had vision(s) of a risen Jesus. Do you have an opinion on how many of the twelve actually continued to believe (either in Jesus or the resurrection), or to follow the “Way”? I have this image of Bartholomew (as a random example) sheepishly returning to his wife to report that he was not actually going to rule over one of the tribes (and of her giving him a stern “I told you so.”)
I think it’s clear that Peter did, at least he is the first recorded in our earliest reference. Mary Magdalene is multiply attested. And Paul tells us himself that he had one. As it turns out, that would be Peter, Paul, and Mary!
Others too? I think it’s hard to say. I go into all this in my book How Jesus Became God.
FYI
The youtuber Paulogia has been doing a series of late with the theme of Christianity needing only Peter and Paul to have visisions to get the ball rolling…He issued a challenge to all to explain using any extra-biblical sources how to refute the possibility that Christianity needed only Peter and Paul (and nothing else) to explain the early spread of Christianity.
“Paulogia” is a good example of a former Christian who really did his homework and ended up going down a similar path to Professor Ehrman’s in terms of belief.
https://youtu.be/-TjXExCBM_U
you always hear Christians saying that the other disciples would have come out to disprove it, had it not been true.
Bart in an earlier part of this discussion you wrote: “Jesus almost certainly did not publicly claim that he was the messiah during his lifetime; more specifically, he never publicly announced that he was the King of the Jews.” I think differently. Namely, IMO Jesus did, in effect, publicly proclaim himself Messiah when he rode into Jerusalem in fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9.9 and accepted his followers’ cheers of “Hosanna Son of David.” To me this was his “coming out party,” and it led to his arrest, especially in the context of the money-changers episode, which signaled his willingness to use violence. I would guess that you deny the historicity of this account [meaning the intentional fulfillment of Zech 9.9 and the acceptance of the ‘Son of David’ cheers]. If so could you explain why?
I used to think that too. But I argue in Jesus Before the Gospels why I now think that is almost certainly wrong. For one thing, if he did declare himself openly as the messiah and did have the “Triumphal Entry,” he would have been arrestd on the spot, not five days later.
Logical, but the way I read it, the Triumphal Entry grew in glory with every telling. It Mark 11, Jesus approaches the city to shouts of Hosanna but there is no huge crowd. Then, “he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.” No wonder then that he wasn’t arrested – “the Triumphal Entry” was a complete dud! The money changers’ episode happens the next day, and I figure it was this event that caused the authorities to seek his arrest.
But when Matthew tells it [21] there are “crowds” shouting and “the whole city was stirred up.” The money changers event follows immediately. If it really happened that way, then the authorities would surely have been notified, yes. In Luke 19 there’s a big crowd and controversy, and he stays in the Temple several days… But I’ll have to but my comment short for lack of space! Bottom line, Mark is closer to the historical fact, and his account doesn’t require an immediate response from the authorities. Did make a small dent in your certainty? 😉
Well, if it was a complete dud then it wasn’t actually a triumphal entry!
Exactly! However the issue isn’t whether the entry was actually triumphant, but did Jesus in fact proclaim himself as messiah. He kept the messianic secret for nearly his entire career, but IMO he “came out” in the end, though not successfully. Later, his disciples increasingly exaggerated the “triumph” of his entry, just as they also turned his death into a victory.
Yup, that’s fine. I just don’t see much evidence for it. But it’s certainly possible.
But why with such certainty? Doesn’t that assume that the gate was sufficiently guarded? And if they had tried to arrest him on the spot (for presumably the same reason they didn’t arrest him few days later in the temple) a riot would have likely broken out, with many ready to defend their promised one? And that is what the Romans were worried about at the time – but then, would they have even understood the Hebrew reference in the first place, and that he represented a threat? Or even if the Jewish authorities had caught sight of it ( among whom, I would think, opinions, would be mixed even though they would have gotten the reference) would they have necessarily rushed to turn him in, or rather just thought: “let’s just see where this is going..guards, keep an eye on this man”.
The reason for the certainty is because we know from other sources that this was one time of year that Pilate brought troops into Jerusalem (he was located in Caesarea otherwise) and stationed them in pressure points precisely to make sure that there was no unrest or potential disruption of public order. When you read Josephus, it is very clear that Romans did not have a hands-off attitude to potential trouble makers, and no sense that they should simply see how things played out.
I get it. But still, would the Roman troops have recognized what Jesus was proclaiming by riding in on a donkey? (also,among the thousands of pilgrims, how many were riding in on donkeys, not necessarily with messianic aspirations? They would’ve had to single Jesus out) If the guards had known what was up, it just seems like it would be a bad time to arrest him, for fear of a massive bloody riot (and Josephus does say that Pilate was wary of this, with Tiberius notified of and unhappy about his earlier provocations). Yes, I know brutal ol’ Pilate wouldn’t let him get away; but why get him when he’s away from the crowds, and so rather than arresting him have a spy follow him (who approached Judas with an offer perhaps). Pilate was known for having Roman soldiers spy on people, disguised as Jewish civilians.
No, it’s not the donkey that is the issue. It is the idea that the crowds were declaring him the coming messiah.
Maybe Judas saw it as him or us? That might explain why the disciples were not implicated or arrested: Judas told the authorities that Jesus saw himself as the king of the Jews but it was just him, not the disciples who believed that. In a real stretch you could suppose that Judas sacrificed Jesus in order to save his fellow disciples. It’s all speculation, but then that’s the fun part of Bible study!
Professor, what is the scholarly consensus about whether the betrayer actually was Judas? (Sorry; I forget whether you discuss this in your writings.) I know that the earliest mention of Jesus being betrayed is in First Corinthians 11:23-24 but Paul never mentions a Judas. Is there any support for the idea that very early on, before Paul wrote, a tradition evolved that Jesus was betrayed and that later, after Paul but before Mark and before John’s source, Judas somehow was tagged?
Yes, I talked about that in a post earlier in the thread. It’s multiply attested (and Paul does NOT talk about the betrayal!). Start at the beginning of the thread and you’ll see.
Dr. Ehrman, The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church claim to be the FIRST church. In your mind, what kind of church existed in 1st century Jerusalem? And are the Catholics and Orthodox correct in their claims?
It was a group of Jews who thought Jesus was the messiah. It was nothing like ANY of the churches of today.
But you have said in the past that Jesus was not expecting to die. If Jesus was not expecting to die, then he would not have said that the anointing was for his burial. With that in mind and also speculating on what might have happened, maybe since Jesus thought the Son of Man was going to appear during the Passover Festival in Jerusalem, Jesus himself starting preaching to the crowds that he was soon to be the King of the Jews. Maybe Judas was vocal during all this while the other disciples were silent. Judas confirmed with Jesus that Jesus will be the King of the Jews.The priests heard him, let the Roman authorities know, Jesus was arrested and crucified. The story then was changed and exaggerated that Judas was the devil, greedy and betrayed Jesus.
That’s right. He almost certainly did not say the anoining was for his burial. And I don’t think Jesus probably said the Son of Man was coming during the Festival. (At least we have no record or evidence that he did)
Well…that’s why we’re speculating…since there is no record or evidence. I was speculating that the reason he made the journey to Jerusalem was because he thought the end was going to happen “now” and he needed to be there to declare himself the King of the Jews.
Kind of similar to James, Peter, John, etc leaving Galilee to live in Jerusalem because they thought Jesus was returning “now” in Jerusalem and they needed to be there when he returned.
Maybe I have asked this question some years ago: What if Judas thought Jesus went bananas in the temple court, bringing all of them into serious danger, and he thought to have found a secure way out?
Just being frustrated or disappointed should not lead to anything but quietly leaving the group.
Ah, I know lots of people who are frustrated and disappointment who do far more than simply leave…. Would that they did.
But yes, the Temple incident is a plausible turning point for Judas.
If Jesus actually did anticipate his demise, what would have been his apocalyptic expectation? That he would be rescued by a divine intervention? That he would not actually have to die an ignominious death? That might explain the final outburst on the cross– wondering why he’s been forsaken. Could Jesus still be the messiah Christians have taken him to be, as the gospels were written and christology hardened into the current form, and still have been a sort of delusional crackpot? If God assumes the human dress, becomes fully human, is He doomed to be a crackpot?
I don’t think he anticipated his demise probably until the very end.
Not only can we not readily surmise the motivations of others, we often can’t know for certain what our own motivations are. I may think I’m posting this comment because of x but my real motivation may be y, and it’s quite possible that I’m wholly unaware that y is what’s driving me. Or I may, in fact, know that y is my motivation but, for whatever reason, insist to others that x is. So even if Judas revealed what he believed to be his motivation, could we necessarily trust him? Perhaps the best we can do is to assign to Judas the most plausible explanation and leave it at that. It’s not very satisfying but it’s honest.
Well, Dr. Ehrman, I do believe we have some fairly reliable Information to indicate what it was that motivated you to write this post – unless it was forged:
Blog post of August 1, 2014:
“It’s not that I don’t want to provide all the content that I provide. I absolutely do. But at the end of the day, that’s not why I do the blog. My sense is that *most* people who have blogs put in the effort because they want the wider world to know what they are thinking. That’s certainly true, I think, of most blogs involving the New Testament, early Christianity, the historical Jesus and … well, probably religion generally. But that’s not what drives me. If it were up to me, by myself, I’d be happy not to do the blog, and just to write books. But doing the blog is a way for me to raise money for charities that I believe in and want to support.”
Yup. That’s what I wrote and believe. Or so I say…. 🙂
“And I said unto them, If you think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. And God said unto me, Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prized at by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them unto the potter, in the house of Jehovah” (Zechariah 11:12-13).
It’s symbolic of a deeper betrayal – that of the Jewish people for their Messiah.
The price of thirty pieces of silver demonstrates the value the religious leaders put on Jesus. Nothing more than the price of “damaged goods” under the Mosaic law.
“Cast them unto the potter” became the “potter’s field” for broken pottery, 600 years later.
And Zechariah’s account links Jesus to the Tanakh and the old covenant.
Thus the Redeemer paid the full price of humiliation, judgment and death – as prophesized.
Of note – Mary’s alabaster box was worth about $75,000 in today’s value (more than three hundred day’s wage)
My take on Judas (Aren’t you thrilled?!) Just as Jesus embodies the essence of man’s ‘goodness’, or ‘God likeness’, so Judas serves as an avatar for his most base attribute, selfish ambition. Jesus could have walked into the public square and declared himself king, or incited the crowd to violence against the Roman occupation without much difficulty. Both public acts would have provided more than enough reason to have anyone humiliated and dead. But, the story doesn’t work according to its purposes if Jesus merely violates the law. The ‘evil’ aspect of man must betray the ‘virtuous’ man, so bringing about tragedy for both. Only then can the virtuous man be made free. Judas serves the gnostic vision of ridding the soul of the body, imparting secret knowledge to achieve his aims. Jesus has secret knowledge, too, and it is made clear post-resurrection, when his glorified personality inspires the formation of the religion we know today.
That’s certainly plausible. Another guess is Judas was trying to force God’s or Jesus hand to get the new kingdom ball rolling.
Does that seem a reasonable possibility?
Ah, thought I suggested that one…. If not, I *meant* to….
Thanks for highlighting Matt 10:23. Additional support for the thinking that Jesus was preaching a new world order that was soon to come. And support for the possibility that one or more of the disciples became disillusioned when it didn’t occur as predicted.
It seems to me that the parts of Matthew that emphasize the imminent upheaval wouldn’t have gotten much play in recruiting among the Gentiles. How do you sell a new religion post crucifixion when one of the major themes ( Son of Man on his way) hasn’t panned out?
You say it’s been delayed to give your audience a chance to repent, but it’s now about to happen! (At leaast that was one common tactic)
Both Luke and John tell us that Satan entered into Judas, at the time when he made the deal with the Pharisees and when he left the last supper. John also tells us that Judas helped himself to the group’s funds, so he was already greedy before that. While greed is a sin, we are all sinners, so that doesn’t necessarily mean that Judas was any more sinful than the other disciples. Satan exploited his greed to betray Jesus.
The Gospel of Judas is a second century Gnostic text which was discredited by Irenaeus as fictional.
Judas does NOT betray “Jesus because that’s what Jesus wants him to do.” Do you even understand what that would mean? Judas Iscariot was a good apostle who had bad thoughts about stealing money and he entertained and cultivated those thoughts until he sinned. He ignored his conscience until his heart hardened. This is what the perfect angel did before he became Satan the Devil. This is what Eve and Adam did before they rebelled. James says, “each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.” (James 1:14-15) That is the real motivation behind Judas, human imperfection. Genesis 6:5; 8:21 tells us that fallen man and woman are mentally bent toward evil. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that our heart is treacherous and we cannot know it. Paul tells us that our natural desire is to do bad. The only way to avoid those things is to wholeheartedly obey the conscience that God gave us and strengthen it.
The Apocryphal writings are completely inferior and regularly fanciful and, simple and childish. They are most often inaccurate.
Hi Bart! I have a lingering memory of “something I read once” (how’s that for a citation) that the betrayal wasn’t actually a betrayal at all, but rather Judas handing Jesus over to the Romans was done at Jesus’ request, and only later was explained as we read it now. This may be apocryphal or some other romanticized fiction, but certainly exonerates Judas, and also speaks to his motivation, that it was done out of loyalty and duty. Have you encountered this tradition in your research, and if so, where does it come from?
Yes, I thought I suggested that as an option — or at least I meant to. It’s found in some of the Jesus movies, e.g., The Last Temptation of Christ. But no, I don’t find anything in our accounts to suggest that; My sense is that Jesus was not at all planning on being executed.
After some research, I see that my question should have been, did Jesus *predict* Judas’ betrayal, or *command* it?
As you say, it’s clear in the Gospel of Judas that Jesus wants Judas to betray him. But take the passage: “you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.” It’s the “you will” on which the whole question pivots. (My nephew has a delightful way of “requesting” things using this language: “Uncle Richie, you will get me a doughnut.”)
Modern Gnostics take this to mean that Jesus is giving a command. For example, Gnostic scholar/practitioner Tobias Churton writes of Jesus “commissioning Judas’ ‘betrayal,’” (Churton, The Kiss of Death). But this may simply be bad exegesis. However, I find that many modern Gnostic traditions in fact teach that Jesus ordered Judas to betray him, not just approved of it.
In the synoptics, Judas plots with the authorities, and John’s account unambiguously points to unsanctioned betrayal. So when we read in Mark and Matthew, “one of you will betray me,” it’s clearly a prediction, not a command. But what about the Gospel of Judas? Is the “you will” a prediction, or a command? I don’t read Coptic, so I have no authority to answer this.
No, I don’t think the historical Jesus predicted the betrayal.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
You better than I know that the gospel of Judas is a gnostic writing. The Gnostics influenced by some Greek philosophy believed that the material flesh was evil and one had to escape it. It is most probably written late second century and of course not written by the historical Judas.
Concomitantly, even thought the ideia of Jesus supposedly planning on being executed is in some sense unlikely, unless there is a solid and a strong evidence to suppor it on historical ground.
Dr. Ehrman, I know it’s just speculation but I would like to hear you opinion nonetheless:
Do you think Judas killed himself or was killed and that this tradition was known by the time the Gospels were written and was expounded upon in the Gospels and Christian communities?
I think he probably killed himself, but it’s not clear how. I think I’ll repost on that — it’s a really interesting issue.
That would be great!????
A theory circulated several years ago that Judas Thomas (i.e. “Judas the Twin”) was Jesus’ own brother, and that the Synoptics deliberately took the brother out of the picture (through an alleged betrayal and suicide) to protect Jesus’ family. After all, if the Romans executed Jesus because they thought he claimed to be the king, then they would certainly go after his family too in case there were any royal claimants to the throne among his heirs. This would also explain the verses in which Jesus refuses to acknowledge his mother and brothers but says his true family are those who believe in the Father’s message; the Evangelists were denying the family members in order to protect them. One writer suggested that the author of John’s gospel, in representing another wing of the diverse early church factions, deliberately portrayed Thomas as a doubter in order to dispel any attempt within the early church to create a dynasty of Jesus’ nephews or other descendants. After all, his brother James had risen to become the leader of the Jerusalem church in the decades after the crucifixion. Paul’s well-known opposition to James might have won more support after Jerusalem’s destruction.
Some questions for future consideration in the blog.
Why do the gospel writers have a lower view of Jesus’ divinity than Paul epistles which were written much earlier and consider Jesus as always being God?
Why did Paul leave out nearly all of Jesus’ teachings and sayings in his writings?
Jesus says you must follow his commandments if you are to enter the Kingdom, but Paul never mentions them. Why?
Ah, I’ve dealt with both at some length on the blog already. Search for “Jesus and Paul” and “The gospels and Paul” and you can find the posts.
I don’t know Bart. I’ve become more skeptical. It sounds too good to be true for a Christian polemicist who is trying to attack Jews. I think Judas as a betrayer fits very neatly into a Christian context but from a Jewish lens I see some problems with it. I think Judas thought Jesus was the political messiah they were waiting for and Jesus wanted him to get the ball rolling. I don’t think he wanted Jesus to die or did it for money.
All four Gospels say Judas did it for money so I guess your criterion of Independent Confirmation disappeared along with “Mark’s” Jesus. The Gospels indicate that Jewdas was the money guy for the Disciples which sounds contrived to me but maybe you think it likely historical.
The Markan type irony is the Gospels’ implication that the money the “High Priests” gave to Judas, in order to destroy his movement, was used by Judas to pay for The Last Supper, which created Jesus’ movement. This reminds me of the scene in Bat Man where the Joker says to the Mob, “Do you like this suit? You should, you bought it.” Likewise Jesus to the High Priests at his/their trial, “Did you like The Last Supper? You should have. You paid and will pay for it.”
Do they all say he did it *because* of the money?
They all say he received money and none give any other reason. If he didn’t do it for money then he should have chosen what was behind stone door number 2 or at least the luggage. Oh right, but you think it’s possible the Devil made him do it.
“Judas Iscariot” here is related to more Markan irony:
“And verily I say unto you, Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
14:10 And Judas Iscariot,”
The woman who was memorialized. I’ll never forget good old whatsherface. The one who was memorialized, Judas Iscariot. Who doesn’t know his name. Has there ever been anyone else with that name? So the one that was memorialized was the one that betrayed Jesus. Jesus needed to be betrayed to succeed. Now what’s the word for that…
Reminds me of the “They shall not soon forget the name Sidney Applebaum” from Love and Death.
People get money for doing all sorts of things they do for reasons other than getting the money! If it was just the money for all the Gospels they wouldn’t have mentioned the other factors (Satan entering into him, etc.), imo.
Now that I have your attention…
There seems to be a Markan theme sandwich around here =
[Note that Jesus is “set against/opposite The Temple”]
The Widow gives her life (living) to the Treasury.
Followed by the lecture on the Temple.
Followed by the money stories and Judas giving Jesus’ life for money.
The connection is money. Since you think resurrections are possible is it possible that the Markan Judas being motivated by money was a literary contrivance?
I’m not sure what you mean that I “think resurrections are possible”? Even if I did, why would that affect the question of whether a monetary explanation was contrived?
Was Jesus himself simply the victim of class warfare within Jewish society? I know it’s often not wise to use a modern term for an ancient event but (and correct me if I’m wrong at any point) if Jesus wasn’t killed for committing blasphemy it seems like he was simply killed for his constant attacks on the Jewish aristocracy (and wealthier members of the Jewish priesthood), who eventually got fed up with his attacks and had him handed over to Pilate for sedition.
The era of Roman occupation is also often presented as a conflict between Romans and Jews, but it seems like the wealthier segments of Jewish society mostly collaborated with the Romans, both groups enriching themselves off the Jewish peasantry. I can’t find it at the moment but (if I remember correctly) I think one of the first events of the First Roman-Jewish war in 66 was that Jewish nationalists stormed the Temple in Jerusalem to the burn debt records being held there, to free peasants being crushed by a Temple that was starting to act as a predatory financial institution.
Are you able to confirm or deny this? I’ll try to find more info if I can.
It’s pretty clear why he was executed. It was not for internal Jewish disputes — which Romans would not have cared about. It was for calling himself the King of the Jews, a political claim that would be seen as insurrectionist. Romans did indeed care about that.
Forgive me if my question was confusing.
I mean I know the Romans wanted Jesus dead and the reasons why they wanted him killed (sedition, insurrection), I was wondering why Caiaphas and the high priests in Jerusalem also wanted Jesus dead.
Were they also concerned about insurrection against Rome, and if so why would they unless their interests were parallel with that of the Roman government?
Or am I looking at this whole thing wrong and the death of Jesus should best be looked at purely as a “Romans vs. Jesus” dispute, something that historically didn’t even involve Caiaphas and the Jerusalem priesthood who may not have even known of/approved the arrest of Jesus beforehand?
I think you mentioned before that you weren’t sure if the trial before the Sanhedrin was an actual historical event. Was it possible the Romans simply abducted Jesus themselves (without telling Caiaphas), and simply had him executed without any trial (either before the Sanhedrin or before Pilate)?
We don’t know for sure. My sense is that they were afraid that as he was getting a gathering at the Passover Feast that things could get out of hand, and if there was a groundswell of support, it could lead to unrest precisely at the time the Romans were intent on squelching any unrest, leading to very big problems indeed. So better simply to have him taken out of the way. The other option is the one you mentino, that in fact Jewish leaders weren’t involved at all, but that that is a legendary accretion in the Gospel stories, to put the blame on them instead of on the Romans.
People who are comfortable always desire to maintain the status quo. Likewise, those in power never take threats to that power, real or imagined, lightly. Revolutionary agitation is roused amongst the powerless. Poor people don’t want money for its own sake, they’re just sick of starving, wearing rags and working from dawn to dusk.
If you look at Jesus as a revolutionary, calling for a disruption of the system (political and religious), then it is easy to understand both the popularity of his message to the humble folk as well as the concern over his growing following to the priests and the Romans. He wasn’t the only one in his time breaking the proscription against prophesying, but perhaps he was gaining more traction? Was a more convincing orator?
The poor, sick and disenfranchised had little to lose in leaving their jobs, homes and families to follow a promise of forgiven sin and a perfect body in heaven. Why would anyone eating six course meals with silver spoons from gilt-edged china want to risk a delicate arrangement with Rome for some ethereal pie-in- the-sky from a guy in sackcloth bearing no credentials from the accepted order?
Hi, it’s been a long time!
I would like to know if their are discussions on (and if not, why not?) the fact that Jesus is said son of Joseph and it is well known that in the Torah, from where most of the gospel scripture is from, there is an argument between Jacob’s two sons Joseph and Judas that is still going on to this day. (it is even writen in the Prophet’s that at the end of time the two peaces of wood will be brought together, meaning the religious and material, like the soul and the body).
Joseph representing the more religious one and Judas the more material one (from whom King David is from so that is one reason most jews do not believe Jesus is the Mashia).
The betraying of Judas even to this day can represent the betrayal of the more materialist versus the religious.
Some would argue that it is just hearsay but I would argue that most of what we know about the gospel is hearsay and also that a coincidence this big is not just a red flag, it’s the flag, the pole and the ground that it is set in, namely the Torah!
No, I’ve never heard of books like that. By Judas in the Torah I assume you mean Judah? Both Jude/Judas and Joseph were popular names in NT times.
“By Judas in the Torah I assume you mean Judah?”
Yes sorry, as you can see to me they are both intertwine! 😉
“Both Jude/Judas and Joseph were popular names in NT times.”
Ok, and then you look at the probability of each peaces (literal and profound) fitting perfectly!
And then, as you know, you look at what could be the motivation of the writter, does it make sens to the history of the time etc…
Just for example, let’s say that Jesus was a Nazir with disciples… and was at the spiritual level of Prophet (as some may say as high as Melchizedek) … If you have just been in close contact with him, you may not know how to discribe it (like people who have lived an NDE Near death experience, I know I’ve lived it, it’s hard to put into words) so you dont write about it, you talk about it as best you can, and then other people talk about it for years, and then someone write’s about it without first knowledge, so with his own perspective and motivation like the centuries old argument of Judah and Joseph, and then you get Judas betrayed Jesus…
It’s an angle worth looking at!
I’m afraid this is one blog post I don’t understand. From time to time I’m confused by some little detail, but in this case I am bewildered by the main thrust.
You’re suggesting that Jesus’s words in Mark 14:8 about his body being annointed for burial may have a grain of historical truth: that despite despite believing himself to be the Messiah with all that entails — despite, as you’ve repeatedly said, never expecting to be crucified or foretelling his death in the way the gospels portray — he might nevertheless have come to suspect that he would “run afoul of the authorities” and in that context even contemplate his own burial.
You also connect this to Matthew 10:23, suggesting that this prophecy of Jesus proved false within his lifetime, yet was remembered and made it into the gospels anyway, which surely calls for some explanation. This is puzzling, but not as puzzling as the other thing.
I have no idea how to reconcile this with everything we think we know about the historical Jesus. It doesn’t make sense to me at all. If you can’t clear it up in a few short lines, perhaps this is a topic to revisit sometime.
I’m not saying that Jesus really said that the woman was anointing his body for burial. (I think!) I was saying is that Judas and the others had been expecting the end to come right away, before all Israel was evangelized. they thought this would be a glorious event and they would be made rulers. But Jeuss kept saying it would not be glorious, and they found that frustrating. At the end Jesus may have started realizing that he was in terouble with the authorities and told his disciples. Judas realized that the end they had hoped for was NOT about to appear, with Jesus selectded as king. And so out of frustration he betrayed him to the authorities. The anointing passage, then, is not necessarily historical; it simply is a way of showing that Judas finally realized that Jesus was not about to take any efforts to bring in the kingdom. Anyway, as I repeatedly say inthe post, it’s purely speculative, a way of trying to understand WHY Judas did what I think he really did do.