In The Gospel of Judas, Dr Erhman offers some perfectly reasonable thoughts/speculation for Judas’ motivations for betraying Jesus. [Note, I’m going to continue to use the word “betray”, but people should note the discussion of the original in The Gospel of Judas.]
Judas more concerned about this world than a promised one
One of the (very reasonable) assumptions in all of the scenarios proposed is that Judas fully bought into the apocalyptic belief system of Jesus. The speculation that I’d like to add into the mix relaxes that assumption. Let’s suppose that Judas was more interested in the, what we might call, “social justice” side of Jesus’ preachings. Sure, Jesus may have only been concerned about the world to come, but he certainly preached about the injustice of the world as it is. Imagine that for Judas, concern for the poor and oppressed is to Judas’ involvement with the twelve.
Jesus treated as a king in this world
So now consider that Judas may have been growing frustrated with the talk of the world to come instead of doing good in this world. And finally, we reach a point where Jesus gets anointed like a king with some very expensive oil. In some accounts, it wasn’t only Judas who was shocked by that use of money.
When Jesus was called out about it, his response could easily be taken as “hey, this isn’t about the poor; it’s about me.” If Judas had doubts about the whole apocalyptic thing or if he had suspicions of a leader who put himself about the poor, then the anointment in Bethany could easily become the last straw.
Judas’s choice
If this is Judas point of view, then he could be thinking that there are two possible consequences of his betrayal. (a) If Jesus is the messiah, then turning him over will do no harm, and only speed events along, or (b) if Jesus isn’t the messiah, then let’s put an end to a leader who expects to be treated like a king while the poor continue to suffer.
My own biases
Now perhaps I am just projecting a sort of modern, liberal, “Jesus as a social justice preacher” onto the historical Judas. After all, that is the sort of Jesus I grew up with. But I don’t think it is implausible that Judas was attracted more by the general condemnation of injustice than by the notion that heavenly entities were going to arrive and sort that all out. My account does explain the connection between the anointing of Jesus, “the poor will always be with us”, and Judas’ actions. So as far as speculation goes, I don’t think that it is substantially less justified than any other.
Great topic! For me, I think we will never really know the story of Judas, who and what he was and exactly what he did. All we have are the stories from the gospels and Acts and each of those were written for a different audience by writers who had different agendas for those audiences. This pericope of the anointing of Jesus is found in all 4 gospels and actually has 3 radically different (in my opinion) versions. The accounts in Mark and Matthew are very, very similar with only some minor differences in wording. The stories are found in the following verses:
Matthew 26:6-13
Mark 14:3-9
Luke 7:36-50
John 12:1-8
Matthew and Luke, as we should all know by now, used Mark as one of their sources. This explains how Matthew and Mark are so similar. In summary, Jesus is at the home of Simon the leper and an anonymous woman pours ointment on his head. This is symbolic of the anointing of kings from the OT. The disciples complain that this is wasteful and that the oil could have been sold and the money used on the poor. Jesus rebukes the disciples and says, in effect, it’s ok if the woman uses the oil on him to prepare him for burial as he will not be with them much longer and the poor will always be with them.
In Luke things are pretty different (I suppose a fundamentalist would say not so much different, but to me the details are very different). Jesus is at the home of a man named Simon, but he’s a Pharisee here and not a leper. We also get a detail not found in the Mark/Matthew account that the woman is a “sinner” (her sin is not described). In Luke the woman bathes the feet of Jesus with her tears and hair before using the ointment on his feet. No mention is made of his being anointed for burial. Jesus is apparently a mind reader in Luke because it is said that Simon uses his inner monologue to tell himself that if Jesus were a prophet he would know what kind of woman was touching him (ie, a sinner…is it implied she’s a prostitute?) and he wouldn’t let her near him. Jesus miraculously knows what Simon is thinking and gives Simon a parable to explain why it’s ok for the woman to anoint his feet. Not only that, but because of the actions of the woman all of her sins are forgiven. One final point is that the disciples at the end, among themselves, say “who is this who forgives sin??”. None of the disciples have issue with the expensive oil being used.
So, we get numerous extra details in the Luke story that aren’t found in Matthew/Mark. We also get some contradictions to the Matthew/Mark version. In Luke there is no leper, but the woman is a sinner. This means that between the two stories they do have an unclean person in common, but the person and sex of this individual are diametric opposites (a spiritually unclean woman and a leper who was physically unclean, an outcast). In Mark/Matthew it is the head of Jesus which is anointed in symbolic reference to his kingship; however, in Luke it’s the feet of Jesus which get washed with the oil. In Luke the disciples are hardly mentioned except at the end. Simon the Pharisee complains of the waste of the oil, not the disciples. In fact, the disciples are silent on the matter. In Matthew/Mark the anointing story happens immediately before Judas goes to the chief priests and as a result we know it was right before the Passover. In Luke it’s another 12 chapters before the Passover and in between many, many other events occur!
In John we get another radically different version than that found in Mark/Matthew. In John’s version Jesus is at the home of Martha and Lazarus (the one who was raised from the dead!). In John it is Mary (sister of Martha I believe) who anoints the feet of Jesus (again, a different body part than Mark/Matthew use). It is only in John that Judas is specifically named in the story. Here he questions why the ointment isn’t sold and the money given to the poor. Not only that, but the author of John goes so far as to make sure the readers know that Judas is a thief.
These stories have so many strong differences between them that I think we have to look at the audience and theme of each gospel to explain the differences.
Luke, in the first few verses of his gospel, says he’s seen the other accounts of Jesus and that he wants to write an orderly account to set the record straight. Does this mean the story of the anointing of Jesus in Mark/Matthew was wrong? Luke certainly does give a pretty different version of the story.
John, the last gospel written and which supposedly didn’t have Mark, Matthew or Luke to refer to, also a gives a pretty different account of the details. The location of the anointment is radically different and it is only in John, an author who unquestionably had an agenda in writing his gospel, that Judas is mentioned and with such pejorative language. Among the gospel writers it is perhaps John that is the hardest on Judas. John lived in a community that was being persecuted by the religious non-Christian Jewish community and as such John does not present the priests in the best light in his gospel— far from it. It is in John that Judas’ interactions with the chief priests are described in such detail. Early in his gospel John says Judas will betray Jesus. I believe that every time his name comes up in John this fact is mentioned (or alluded to). In the story of the anointing of Jesus John doesn’t just say that Judas will betray Jesus, but that he’s a liar and a thief as well! He didn’t care about the poor, he only wanted the money for himself!
I’m not going to go into the details of how Judas is described in the synoptics. In John though he is described without a doubt the most negatively. Matthew at least says that Judas suffered remorse at his betrayal….. John has a bone to pick with the chief priests because of how they treatment his small community of Christians in his own day. To put them in the most negative light he needs a specific facilitator of the turning over of Jesus and his betrayal. Judas is that scapegoat and any attempt to paint him in a negative light must be taken advantage of. In my opinion it is for this reason that only in John is Judas so specifically pointed out as the one who has issue with the expensive oil being “wasted”.
John was the last of the gospels written, perhaps by as many as 60+ years after the crucifixion. Mark, written probably 20 years earlier, was a generation closer in time to Jesus. As we’ll see in Prof. Ehrman’s upcoming book, memory is very frail and as we get further and further in time away from the actual events memory is to be trusted less. So, for me, being written so long after the death of Jesus John is to be held at arms length when it comes to considerations of “factual accuracy”.
Jeffrey1 said
In The Gospel of Judas, Dr Erhman offers some perfectly reasonable thoughts/speculation for Judas’ motivations for betraying Jesus. [Note, I’m going to continue to use the word “betray”, but people should note the discussion of the original in The Gospel of Judas.]
Judas more concerned about this world than a promised oneOne of the (very reasonable) assumptions in all of the scenarios proposed is that Judas fully bought into the apocalyptic belief system of Jesus. The speculation that I’d like to add into the mix relaxes that assumption. Let’s suppose that Judas was more interested in the, what we might call, “social justice” side of Jesus’ preachings. Sure, Jesus may have only been concerned about the world to come, but he certainly preached about the injustice of the world as it is. Imagine that for Judas, concern for the poor and oppressed is to Judas’ involvement with the twelve.
Jesus treated as a king in this worldSo now consider that Judas may have been growing frustrated with the talk of the world to come instead of doing good in this world. And finally, we reach a point where Jesus gets anointed like a king with some very expensive oil. In some accounts, it wasn’t only Judas who was shocked by that use of money.
When Jesus was called out about it, his response could easily be taken as “hey, this isn’t about the poor; it’s about me.” If Judas had doubts about the whole apocalyptic thing or if he had suspicions of a leader who put himself about the poor, then the anointment in Bethany could easily become the last straw.
Judas’s choiceIf this is Judas point of view, then he could be thinking that there are two possible consequences of his betrayal. (a) If Jesus is the messiah, then turning him over will do no harm, and only speed events along, or (b) if Jesus isn’t the messiah, then let’s put an end to a leader who expects to be treated like a king while the poor continue to suffer.
My own biasesNow perhaps I am just projecting a sort of modern, liberal, “Jesus as a social justice preacher” onto the historical Judas. After all, that is the sort of Jesus I grew up with. But I don’t think it is implausible that Judas was attracted more by the general condemnation of injustice than by the notion that heavenly entities were going to arrive and sort that all out. My account does explain the connection between the anointing of Jesus, “the poor will always be with us”, and Judas’ actions. So as far as speculation goes, I don’t think that it is substantially less justified than any other.
Good topic!
I havn’t read Ehrman’s book on the Judas Gospel, but the speculations on Judas’ motives are fascinating. I think I shall sum up my own speculations like this:
1. It is not very likely that Judas was some kind of greedy person who joined a religious group with the motive of cashing out some money on a suitable occasion. Greedy people have more efficient business practices. The story about the 30 pieces of silver is most likely an act of smearing – nobody knows the exact deal between Judas and the Jewish priesthood.
2. In the end he must have lost his belief in Jesus as a kind of heavenly envoy or maybe a Messiah. Nobody betrays God, thinking that it is possible to get away with it. In the beginning he must have had faith in Jesus – nobody joins a poor, itinerant and tiny sect without strong belief.
3. He was not forced, or else he would have joined the eleven later, explaining the facts.
4. As a Jew, participating in the most important Jewish festival he cannot have had complete hostility towards the temple cult. He may have had a more moderate view on the Sadducee priesthood than Jesus.
5. Contrary to most others, he may have understood the security implications of Jesus’ actions during the festival which he saw unfolding maybe without knowing them in advance: The semi-public hailing of Jesus, the bitter arguing in the temple area including harsh language against the temple and finally the overthrowing of tables and possible other actions.
So in a sum he may have decided to survive by cooperating with someone he not necessarily regarded as an enemy, against a person he increasingly considered a crank or false teacher or just a dreamer who could bring them all into deep shit.
OK – if speculation is in order re the gospel Judas figure – here we go…..
Since the responses so far are dealing with the Judas figure being historical….I’ll offer speculation from the other side of the debate…the ahistoricist position.
Firstly, it is interesting to note that the crucifixion under Pilate account in Slavonic Josephus does not have a Judas figure.
<Again>the lawyers were struck with envy
<against him>.
And they gave 30 talents to Pilate
that –they- should kill him.
And he took (it) and gave them liberty
to carry out their wishes themselves.
<And they sought out a suitable time to kill him.
For they had given Pilate 30 talents earlier,
that he should give Jesus up to them>
Josephus’ Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison. H. Leeming (editor) K. Leeming (editor)
—————————————-
26. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. 27. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose.
28. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
——————————————
So, a Roman official is bribed into executing a man. Is the gospel story reflecting a recorded instance where a Roman official is bribed into executing someone – someone who is important to the gospel writers in their developing theology/philosophy?
Well, yes there is a record of such a bribery – in the writing of Josephus. It deals with Herod I and the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus.
Antiquities book 14 ch.16
When Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, bringing Antigonus with him in chains to Antony, but Herod was afraid that Antony might only keep Antigonus in prison and that when he brought him to Rome to answer to the senate, he could prove that as he was of royal stock while Herod was just a private citizen, his sons should be kings, due to their stock, despite his personal offence to the Romans. Fearing this, he paid Antony a large amount of money to kill Antigonus, for after that Herod’s fear could be set aside
————————————-
Cassius Dio’s Roman History records: “These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him. (Wikipedia)
———————————–
The gospels portray Judas as one of the 12 disciples, as part of Jesus’ inner circle. Likewise, the family of Herod I were part of the Hasmonean court for many years…..”The diplomacy and artful politics of Antipater, as well as his insinuation into the Hasmonean court, paved the way for the rise of his son Herod the Great”. (Wikipedia)
One can speculate why the gospel figure of Judas betrayed Jesus – such speculation adding nothing to furthering research into early christian origins. Or – one can turn to the Jewish historian Josephus to read his take on what befell the last King and High Priest of the Jews. That way allows historical reflections to be observed within the gospel story.
————————————
Regarding the Slavonic Josephus and it being the ‘lawyers’ or ‘teacher of the law’ that want Jesus killed – and the gospel story that it is the ‘chief priests and the scribes’ that want to kill Jesus: In view of the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews – it is the Herodian Jews that are being referenced here. There is no anti-Semitism in the gospel story when Hasmonean/Jewish history is allowed to shed light on that story. The gospel story has been written from an anti-Herodian/Jew perspective.
————————————-
The gospel Judas hanged himself. Marc Antony later committed suicide – over an unrelated issue. Because they both took the money does not equate to Marc Antony = the gospel Judas. In any case it is not the man that pulls the trigger that alone gets charged with murder. Herod I paid a hired assassin and is as guilty as though he pulled the trigger…..However, I am not looking for parallels but for themes.
In order to think that Mark borrowed the themes from other authors, you will have to point to sources earlier than Mark.
Further, there is a difference between wild speculations and informed guesswork. Among the safest “facts” in the Judas story are his membership in the group of twelve and that he left the group at a critical moment, by an act of treason. These points have high scores applying the traditional authenticity criteria.
gavriel said
In order to think that Mark borrowed the themes from other authors, you will have to point to sources earlier than Mark.Further, there is a difference between wild speculations and informed guesswork. Among the safest “facts” in the Judas story are his membership in the group of twelve and that he left the group at a critical moment, by an act of treason. These points have high scores applying the traditional authenticity criteria.
Earlier than Mark? What is earlier than gMark is history, Hasmonean/Jewish history. If gMark is dated pre Antiquities, (93/94 c.e.) then that writer did not use Antiquities. If Josephus embellished his account of Antigonus with themes taken from the Jesus story then some interesting questions would arise. Either way, whichever story was first – the connection, the linkage between the two stories, the Josephus Antiquities story about Antigonus and Herod I and the gospel story about Jesus and Judas – remains.
Antigonus was a historical figure. Whether or not Josephus embellished his account of the execution of Antigonus – we don’t know. What we do have is similar themes between the Josephus account of the execution of Antigonus and the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. There is no wild speculation here. A Josephan story is being placed alongside the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. That these two accounts display similar themes is evident.
That Judas was a member of the group of twelve is a fact of the gospel story. It is not a fact of history. To assume it is a fact of history is an assumption.
maryhelena said
gavriel said
In order to think that Mark borrowed the themes from other authors, you will have to point to sources earlier than Mark.Further, there is a difference between wild speculations and informed guesswork. Among the safest “facts” in the Judas story are his membership in the group of twelve and that he left the group at a critical moment, by an act of treason. These points have high scores applying the traditional authenticity criteria.
Earlier than Mark? What is earlier than gMark is history, Hasmonean/Jewish history. If gMark is dated pre Antiquities, (93/94 c.e.) then that writer did not use Antiquities. If Josephus embellished his account of Antigonus with themes taken from the Jesus story then some interesting questions would arise. Either way, whichever story was first – the connection, the linkage between the two stories, the Josephus Antiquities story about Antigonus and Herod I and the gospel story about Jesus and Judas – remains.
Antigonus was a historical figure. Whether or not Josephus embellished his account of the execution of Antigonus – we don’t know. What we do have is similar themes between the Josephus account of the execution of Antigonus and the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. There is no wild speculation here. A Josephan story is being placed alongside the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. That these two accounts display similar themes is evident.
That Judas was a member of the group of twelve is a fact of the gospel story. It is not a fact of history. To assume it is a fact of history is an assumption.
I think there is no evidence of literary borrowings from Mark into Josephus, in particular because Antigonus is beheaded in Josephus’ version, contrary to that of Cassius, who have him crucified. Josephus is known to have borrowed extensively from the writings of the historian Nicolaus of Damascus, Herod’s contemporary and friend and adviser who was an eyewitness to Herod’s last years. So far the “borrowing of themes” have no support in this case, unless you can come up with some evidence.
Please note that I wrote “fact” in double quotes to indicate that they are not secure historical facts, but that they may be given plausibility by applying sensible criteria of authenticity, coupled with the most reasonable “model” of early Christianity. The execution (but may be not the method of execution) of Antigonus II is on the other hand accepted as a reasonably secure “fact”, because there is more evidence for it than for the existence of Judas.
I hope we can stick to the current topic – the reason for Judas’ betrayal, assuming that his status as an apostle and his betrayal are fairly secure historical events. But feel free to debate that, too.
gavriel said
maryhelena said
gavriel said
In order to think that Mark borrowed the themes from other authors, you will have to point to sources earlier than Mark.Further, there is a difference between wild speculations and informed guesswork. Among the safest “facts” in the Judas story are his membership in the group of twelve and that he left the group at a critical moment, by an act of treason. These points have high scores applying the traditional authenticity criteria.
Earlier than Mark? What is earlier than gMark is history, Hasmonean/Jewish history. If gMark is dated pre Antiquities, (93/94 c.e.) then that writer did not use Antiquities. If Josephus embellished his account of Antigonus with themes taken from the Jesus story then some interesting questions would arise. Either way, whichever story was first – the connection, the linkage between the two stories, the Josephus Antiquities story about Antigonus and Herod I and the gospel story about Jesus and Judas – remains.
Antigonus was a historical figure. Whether or not Josephus embellished his account of the execution of Antigonus – we don’t know. What we do have is similar themes between the Josephus account of the execution of Antigonus and the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. There is no wild speculation here. A Josephan story is being placed alongside the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. That these two accounts display similar themes is evident.
That Judas was a member of the group of twelve is a fact of the gospel story. It is not a fact of history. To assume it is a fact of history is an assumption.
I think there is no evidence of literary borrowings from Mark into Josephus, in particular because Antigonus is beheaded in Josephus’ version, contrary to that of Cassius, who have him crucified. Josephus is known to have borrowed extensively from the writings of the historian Nicolaus of Damascus, Herod’s contemporary and friend and adviser who was an eyewitness to Herod’s last years. So far the “borrowing of themes” have no support in this case, unless you can come up with some evidence.
Please note that I wrote “fact” in double quotes to indicate that they are not secure historical facts, but that they may be given plausibility by applying sensible criteria of authenticity, coupled with the most reasonable “model” of early Christianity. The execution (but may be not the method of execution) of Antigonus II is on the other hand accepted as a reasonably secure “fact”, because there is more evidence for it than for the existence of Judas.
I hope we can stick to the current topic – the reason for Judas’ betrayal, assuming that his status as an apostle and his betrayal are fairly secure historical events. But feel free to debate that, too.
As to literary borrowing from Mark into Josephus – I did say ‘if‘…
Yes, Antigonus was beheaded. That does not rule out being hung on a tree, stake, cross, prior to being beheaded. That Josephus does not mention this does not rule it out. Being hung up, impaled, on an instrument of some sort was a very degrading punishment. The OT saying, and the NT upholding the idea, that one hung on a tree was accursed. If all that happened to Antigonus was that he was beheaded then he would have suffered an honourable death, even a martyr’s death. Being hung on a stake/cross and scourged brought dishonour. A dishonour that would enable Herod I to secure his own position.
Yep, as you wrote, ”The execution….of Antigonus II is…..accepted as a reasonable secure ”fact”. There is no historical evidence for Judas. That, of course, does not mean that Judas was ahistorical – it simply means that there is no historical evidence to support his existence.
The current topic is ‘speculation’ regarding why the gospel Judas betrayed the gospel Jesus. Since the historical existence of both these gospel figures is not established – all one is doing is placing one assumption on top of another assumption.
I am suggesting another alternative. Consider history. What in Jewish history could have contributed to the Judas betrayal story in the gospels? I’m suggesting that the history of Antigonus II and Herod I has ample themes available for the gospel story writers for their story about Judas and Jesus.
People remember dramatic historical events for years afterwords. They even remember where they were when they heard the news. The assassination of John Kennedy being a prime example. People even remember in what city the assassination took place. Dallas will forever be infamous. And the city where Antigonus was executed by Rome? Antioch.
.”…..and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called “Christians.” (Acts 11.16)
The last King and High Priest of the Jews was executed by the Roman Marc Antony in the city of Antioch – a city that the NT says was the city in which Christians were first called by that name……coincidence? Or a NT reminder that what happened in Antioch had relevance for early christian origins.
——————————————————
Also keep in mind that the Dead Sea Scrolls:
What has long been overlooked is that a Qumran text, widely acknowledged to have been authored at about this very time, speaks directly of a Jewish ruler being “hung up alive”—just like Dio Cassius’s account of the fate of Antigonus Mattathias. This is found at 4QpNah 3-4 i 8-ii 1, which is a pesher unit consisting of a biblical quotation followed by its interpretation. The text introduces this unit with the words: “concerning the one hanged up alive on a stake it is proclaimed:”, or “to the one hanged up alive on a stake he (i.e. God) proclaims:”.
A Narrative Argument that the Teacher of Righteousness was Hyrcanus II
** you do not have permission to see this link **
————————————————–
maryhelena said
People remember dramatic historical events for years afterwords. They even remember where they were when they heard the news. The assassination of John Kennedy being a prime example. People even remember in what city the assassination took place. Dallas will forever be infamous. And the city where Antigonus was executed by Rome? Antioch.
And more often than not they get the facts wrong regardless of how dramatic they may have been. See Bart’s upcoming book.
gmatthews said
maryhelena said
People remember dramatic historical events for years afterwords. They even remember where they were when they heard the news. The assassination of John Kennedy being a prime example. People even remember in what city the assassination took place. Dallas will forever be infamous. And the city where Antigonus was executed by Rome? Antioch.
And more often than not they get the facts wrong regardless of how dramatic they may have been. See Bart’s upcoming book.
Sure they do….the point, however, is that there was a dramatic historical event for people to get their ‘facts’ about that event wrong. After all, Kennedy was shot in Dallas – however wrong the conspiracy theories are…..
As to dating the Roman execution of Antigonus:
Daniel Schwartz: Studies in The Jewish Background to Christianity: (page 177)
”…….for Josephus did not count Herod’s years from the conquest
of Jerusalem, although Schiirer and numerous others say he did. In fact, if one
takes the statement in the scholarly locus classicus on Herodian chronology
(SVM I, p. 326, n. 165) that
Josephus states that he reigned 37 years from the date of his appointment (40 B . C . ) , 34
years from his conquest of Jerusalem, 37 B . C . Cf. Ant. xvii 8 , 1 (191); B 7 i 3 3 , 8 (665)
and checks the references, he will find that Josephus in fact counts the thirtyfour years from the execution of Mattathias Antigonus. But Antigonus was executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony {Ant. 14.488-490; Strabo, apud Ant.
15.9),”^ and, as is shown by the latter’s movements, that occurred in the late
autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in
September—October 37.”‘ Thus, there is nothing here to contradict the usage
of an autumn 37 era. Apparently, Josephus, or already Herod, was only
willing to count the new king’s regnal years after Antigonus was completely
removed.”
As Price argues, Judas’ betraying kiss (Mark 14:44-45) would seem to derive from 2 Samuel 20:7-10, where Joab, backed up by armed men, greets Amasa as a brother, kisses him, then stabs him (Miller). This identification, Helms notes, is secured once we realize that Luke has modeled his version of Judas’ miserable death upon that of Amasa. 2 Samuel 20:10 LXX tells us that Amasa’s “bowels poured out (execuqh) upon the ground,” precisely as Luke tells us (Acts 1:18) that when Judas died, “he burst open, so that his entrails poured out (execuqh).”
I wonder if historical minimalism will ever make its way into the churches. lol
I’ve decided to write out some of my thoughts before reading others’ at length…
I don’t accept even the existence of “Judas” as undisputed fact. But in these speculations, I’ll assume he did exist. And I’ll also assume that Jesus’s actions in the Temple – overturning the tables of the moneychangers, denouncing them – were (as Dr. Ehrman believes) a relatively minor fracas, by our standards. (I’m picturing a scuffle at one end of a crowded mall.) But I think the “minor” incident had major consequences.
I’m speculating that Judas’s upbringing had been slightly different than Jesus’s.
Jesus was a “rube,” seeing the Temple for the first time. And he was shocked by the activities of the moneychangers. He may have believed (rightly or wrongly) that the exchange rate was out of line, and the priests were getting a “cut.”
But Judas may not have been seeing it for the first time. Perhaps his family had been able to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem when he was growing up, and his father had seen all these practices as acceptable. Whether or not or not that was the case, he may have been taught that extreme reverence was required in the Temple. He could accept apocalyptic teachings…predictions that the Temple would be destroyed, after God had left it. But he saw actual “bad behavior” in the dwelling place of God as blasphemous!
In this scenario, that was why he turned against Jesus…and reported his “blasphemy” to the priests.
The priests had, of course, already heard about it. Perhaps, if they themselves (more sophisticated than Judas) had been on the scene, they wouldn’t have perceived it as blasphemy. But they’d had to hear from the Temple guards what the guards had heard from the angry moneychangers; the details had almost certainly been exaggerated.
How did the “King of the Jews” concept figure in this? I’m speculating that the priests wanted to have Jesus executed for blasphemy. But (again, as Dr. Ehrman believes) only the Roman Prefect could sentence anyone to death. And the Romans wouldn’t recognize “blasphemy” as a crime, let alone a capital offense.
I’m speculating that the priests found a way of getting around this. So many harmless crackpots claimed to be the “Messiah” that they normally ignored them. But now, when they wanted an excuse to have a man being called the “Messiah” executed for blasphemy, they made an issue of it: told the Romans that “Messiah” meant literally “anointed one,” and referred to the person’s being the rightful king, descended from David. So anyone who claimed to be the “Messiah” was calling himself the “King of the Jews” – a capital offense!
Jesus may not have been publicly claiming to be the Messiah. But some of his followers had doubtless been calling him that; and there might have been reports that he hadn’t denied it. In that era, that would have been evidence enough.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)