Did Judas Iscariot Actually Exist? Or Was He “Made Up”?

Does Paul Ever Refer to (or Even Know About) Judas Iscariot?

Prof Ehrman has been posting a series of comments about Judas.  I don't know if he's done yet but he's far enough along that I want to go ahead and respond. 

I never used to even consider the possibility that Judas might not be a historical figure.  It simply seemed absurd that somebody would make him up.  That Jesus would select a disciple who would turn around and betray him doesn't speak well for his management capabilities (to put it in modern jargon.)  The so-called Criterion of Embarrassment seemed to kick in.  Why would someone make this up?  

But now I'm not at all sure.  It's interesting to revisit the old arguments, as Prof Ehrman does, after I've spent years reading literary and narrative approaches to the gospels, emphasizing their qualities as stories over a historical-critical approach. Of course these two approaches to interpreting the gospels aren't at odds.  They complement each other quite well.  Even so we're left with some interesting questions.  So let's ask them, shall we?

First of all Prof Ehrman relies on the principle of multiple attestation.  He still sees the gospels as continuing separate, independent sources.  But this is precisely the argument that has undergone the most critique as of late. Prof Mark Goodacre has made a compelling case that, far from independent,  Luke knew Matthew and Mark, and raises the possibility that John knew them all.  So we're not dealing with four separate literary traditions but with one, originating with Mark, supplemented by sources unique to at least Matthew and John.  Consequently the suggestion that the story of Judas is in "all our traditions" becomes much less compelling. 

So let's cut to the chase. What we're dealing with here is Mark.  Many of the core components of the Jesus story seem to originate with Mark.  Interestingly many of these core components are absent for our only earlier witness, Paul.   This is certainly true of Judas, as Prof Ehrman himself demonstrates in his post linked above. 

So why would Mark (or someone) invent Judas?   I suggest there is a deeper embarrassment here than that one of his disciples deliberately betrayed Jesus to his enemies.  And that’s the fact that all of Jesus’ disciples seem to have abandoned him to his fate at the hands of Rome. The creation of a figure like Judas and a story of deliberate betrayal might serve to cover a multitude of sins.   

But it's also worth highlighting the long recognized aspect of Mark's story that he has a very jaundiced view of Jesus' disciples in the first place.   Remember he has Peter himself deny Jesus publicly.  But for a fleeting reference in Mark 16:7, Mark leaves Peter out in the dark and cold. (Now we have no surviving variants that exclude "and Peter" but I will betcha a boatload of shekels that this is a later interpolation meant to rehabilitate Peter.) 

My growing doubt about Judas rests also on my view of Jesus' arrest and execution.  I won't belabor this since I've discussed it before but I doubt very few of the narrative events in Mark are historical.  I think he had the frame story and surviving credos, like Paul, but most of Mark's gospel is literary creation, not collections of stories collected over decades and passed along by members of the Jesus community.  (For example I think Mark probably knew that Jesus was executed sometime around Passover and he made it the day he did in his gospel for his own agenda. For his depiction of the crucifixion he lets Psalm 22 do the heavy lifting.)     

If we assume that there was some kind of "incident" in the Temple that led to Jesus' arrest, then we have to wonder how Jesus got off the Temple mount unmolested?  I have suggested that the more likely historical account is that Jesus was arrested in the Temple outright and that the story of a trial before the Sanhedrin was created by Mark, just as unlikely as the trial before Pilate.  Consequently there was no need for Judas, and he was created to pull focus away from the larger Jesus community who all got away somehow.  (Or cynically, Judas was just one more bad disciple.) 

Have I tied up all the loose ends?  Of course not.   I'm merely suggesting an alternative scenario that tries to make sense of the obvious loose ends in our surviving gospel narrative.   

ps: A natural question is that if I'm going to question the historicity of Mark's narrative why assume the incident in the Temple actually happened?  Fair enough.  But something brought Jesus to the attention of the Romans and some sort of prophetic "acting out" in the Temple around Passover - maybe Jesus expected the Parousia then and there? - seems like a logical candidate.   

Robert said

 

  

Episode 3 is now available The fourth and and final episode should be available in about a week.

Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion

Leadership and The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfiets - A Christian Guide to Discernment, Emotional Manipulation, Boundaries and False Compassion

The Sin of Empathy | Doug Wilson and Joe Rigney

The Sin of Empathy — Joe Rigney & Albert Mohler

Is Empathy a Sin? A Clarifying Debate

Note: I don't expect anyone here to actually read these books and watch all these videos unless you're really interested.  I linked to them to demonstrate that even if many Christians are unaware there is a conversation going on amongst Evangelicals.  There's more - much more.  These are merely the chief "influencers."   

As I've pointed out before the future of the church in America as it loses it's privileged place in our culture is a subject of ongoing interest to me. Over the last five years or so I've noticed the growth of an interesting topic of conversation among Evangelicals.  The so-called Culture Wars never cease but they often assume strange shapes.  Why would Evangelicals become consumed by the subject of "Empathy?" 

First of all what do we mean by the word, "empathy?"  (It's interesting how often these folks attacking the concept fail to really define what it is they're attacking.)  How is "empathy" distinguished from its cousin, "sympathy?" 

Sympathy means feeling compassion or pity for another's suffering.  It retains a distance between subject and object. Empathy means to identify with another's suffering and in some sense to share it.  It compresses the distance between subject and object, even in some circumstances to eliminate it.  

Sympathy says: I am sad that you are sad.

Empathy says: I share your sadness.

Now this distinction is certainly the stuff of moral philosophy but why does it so obsess Christians?  Aren't these feelings their very bread and butter (or would that be wine)?   I mean, John 3:16, right? Philippians 2, right? 

Weeelll...no.  

(Am hoping this isn't evangelizing!)

Coincidence?  I think not. 

A close friend used to take delight in hearing about all the things that had changed around him that he hadn’t even noticed.

Yep.  It's so hermetically sealed over here.   Bruce I bet you know lots more about what's happening in the States than anybody over here knows what's happening in Europe.   Nowhere else exists unless there's somewhere to bomb or we hear about a natural disaster. 

God Bless The USA  

Stephen said

Helen Young said
Stephen
 
Well, regardless, we shouldn't be destroying this Earth.

Well, in truth, the earth is not in danger. It has been rolling along for billions of years and will survive for billions more. What we are destroying is our place on the earth which got along fine before us and will do so after us. What is happening is best described, not as a murder, but as a suicide.

I was there for a month early last summer. 

The longest I've ever been away is four years.  When you'd go back then, you could sense the change and get just the slightest snippet of what Rip Van Winkle must have felt.  A close friend used to take delight in hearing about all the things that had changed around him that he hadn't even noticed.

Heaven = the region of the Lord of Heaven, Baal Shamin. Hegra its why it has so many Roman military retirees there

it's funny

Rock-cut = "not made with hands"

Have a good trip! How long has it been since you were over here? I'll be interested in your impressions.  

Nor does the fact that he was not an emperor. The overwhelmingly vast majority of existing people throughout history were not emperors.

Nor does the fact that he is reported by the Roman historian Tacitus to have suffered capital punishment under Pontius Pilate. Whether you judge this prophet or the unnamed Samaritan figure as more or less consequential is likewise of little relavance. Again, the overwhelmingly vast majority of existing people lead lives of relatively inconsequential effect on major contemporary events and subsequent historical records.

Not to mention the fact that the unnamed Samaritan figure had no subsequent following, while the apocalyptic prophet was at the center of a movement the subsequent literary artifacts of which and it's continuing tradition eventually became the largest religion in the world, with an estimated 2.4 to 2.6 billion of adherents, accounting for roughly 29% to 31% of the global population. That seems rather consequential, and I'm not sure how to additionally estimate the number of non-Christians who also hold him and his teachings in very high regard.

The fact that this person soon became a legendary figure, eg, having a virgin birth or working miracles will certainly lead both Christian and non-Christian historians to try and differentiate between likely historical elements of these stories from legendary and mythical elements. Many known figures of history also achieved legendary status with similar miracle deeds attributed to them. Even some contemporary people have such high ghly unlikely stories told about them. 

That the overwhelming majority of historians and scholars do not see grounds for seriously doubting the historical Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by Pontius Pilate should give you pause, Steefen.

There are still places on earth where one can behold the heavens unimpeded!

Thankfully, there are. 

We'll be finally heading back to the States and will be there until about a week before Christmas.  If things go according to plan, we'll head up north one weekend. While we might miss out on the peak fall colors, the stars will be still be there, and visible, weather permitting.