Was Jesus betrayed by “Judas Iscariot”? It has been questioned. The alternate theory derives from the fact that the name “Judas” is related to “Jew” – and as time passed, early Christians placed ever more blame for Jesus’s death on “the Jews.”
Dr. Ehrman doesn’t believe they would have invented a story in which Jesus had so little control over his disciples that one of them could betray him. But when the Gospels were written, they had him knowing and accepting many bad things that would happen – to “fulfill prophecies.”
In 1 Corinthians, Paul says the resurrected Jesus had appeared to “the twelve.” That may have been a group name for the disciples when there really were twelve; but it seems odd that Paul would have used it, if he knew about “Judas.”
There was no real need for anyone to “betray” Jesus. If he’d angered the priests, they could have had him arrested, and told the Romans he claimed to be the Messiah (or at least wasn’t denying it). That had different meanings – but to some, it meant “future King of the Jews.”
I have no firm opinion on this. What do others think?
Hey Wilusa, thanks for sharing that in such an open-minded way. I know what you mean, it does seem kinda weird that Jesus would need to be betrayed. Yet the betrayal seems like a major theme. Remember at the same time – since you mention Dr. Ehrman – that it can be argued for the legitimacy of stories because “who would have changed them to something more embarrassing”? (it’s a criterion, anyway, AMONG OTHERS)
So, according to that criterion, you have this tension. On the one hand, Jesus stood for truth, he’s our Lord, so we better had stick to what we do know. On the other hand you have this criterion of embarrassment – for example “having so little control over his disciples that one of them could betray him”, i.e. in order to stick to what we now understand to be true of Jesus, this story we have heard cannot be true. The fact that this story stood, at least for the sake of this criterion of embarrassment, is therefore evidence in my view that there was a specific betrayal going on here, albeit one we do not fully understand now, much as we would like to. It is not the whole picture, but according to the criteria you have so far mentioned, I believe it is the most likely.
Wilusa said
Was Jesus betrayed by “Judas Iscariot”? It has been questioned. The alternate theory derives from the fact that the name “Judas” is related to “Jew” – and as time passed, early Christians placed ever more blame for Jesus’s death on “the Jews.”Dr. Ehrman doesn’t believe they would have invented a story in which Jesus had so little control over his disciples that one of them could betray him. But when the Gospels were written, they had him knowing and accepting many bad things that would happen – to “fulfill prophecies.”
In 1 Corinthians, Paul says the resurrected Jesus had appeared to “the twelve.” That may have been a group name for the disciples when there really were twelve; but it seems odd that Paul would have used it, if he knew about “Judas.”
There was no real need for anyone to “betray” Jesus. If he’d angered the priests, they could have had him arrested, and told the Romans he claimed to be the Messiah (or at least wasn’t denying it). That had different meanings – but to some, it meant “future King of the Jews.”
I have no firm opinion on this. What do others think?
I doubt it. There are at least three important persons named Judas in the gospels, Judas the brother of Jesus, Judas Iscariot and Judas son of James. A later 2. century tradition even identifies Simon the Zealot with Judas the Zealot. If somebody fabricated an archetypal “Jewish traitor”, he/they did a poor job, by not leaving out the others. I think the common use of Judas for important persons of high standing indicates the the Christian communities in the first and second century did not think that the name “Judas” was inferior.
Another indication is that the gospels try to make sense out of it , theologically, without succeeding. One the one side they try to make Judas a part of God’s plan, on the other side they hate Judas and give him a nasty death.
Finally, it is hard to identify the historical core. Judas, for some reason, cooperated with the temple authorities. If he had been forced after having been captured on a shopping trip walking alone or something similar, he would have been sent to Pilate as well, or released and able to explain the situation to the disciples in hiding. The rest of the Gospel stories concerning Judas is guesswork. One may speculate on the possibility that he understood that the situation after the temple episode was really nasty, and that he also was fed up with the lofty fantasies of a Kingdom never to come. So he decided to save his own life. But why didn’t he then just escape quietly, leaving the city?
I intended to acknowledge in my original post that “Judas” (with its variants) was a common name, supposedly also borne by another disciple and by one of Jesus’s brothers. I left that out to stay under 200 words.
But it was a “very Jewish” name. As decades passed after Jesus’s death, most new converts were Gentiles; they were the ones who sought to blame his death on “the Jews.” And they probably had no acquaintances named Judas! As a matter of fact, I’m sure Jesus’s brothers weren’t named in all the Gospels; and in some, the name of that other disciple was given as Thaddeus. Without looking it up, I’m guessing there’s at least one Gospel that uses the name Judas/Jude only for the “betrayer.”
I see a parallel between the “betrayal by Judas” story and the “empty tomb” story. In 1 Corinthians – written long before the Gospels, but after Paul had met Peter – Paul doesn’t reveal a knowledge of either one. That doesn’t prove anything; he could have known either or both to be true, and simply chosen wording that didn’t include them. But it does make one wonder. Dr. Ehrman thinks his omitting mention of the “empty tomb” story casts real doubt on it; if so, the same should hold true for the “betrayal by Judas” story.
I’m not sure I’m qualified to have an opinion but here it seems the Criterion from Embarrassment does have some utility. If you’re inventing the story then why have one of Jesus’ own disciples betray him? You could have easily skipped that step and had either the Jewish authorities or the Romans themselves take him because of the incident in the Temple. It seems an unnecessary detail unless you have a tradition you couldn’t deny that Jesus was betrayed by one of his own.
Wilusa said
I intended to acknowledge in my original post that “Judas” (with its variants) was a common name, supposedly also borne by another disciple and by one of Jesus’s brothers. I left that out to stay under 200 words.But it was a “very Jewish” name. As decades passed after Jesus’s death, most new converts were Gentiles; they were the ones who sought to blame his death on “the Jews.” And they probably had no acquaintances named Judas! As a matter of fact, I’m sure Jesus’s brothers weren’t named in all the Gospels; and in some, the name of that other disciple was given as Thaddeus. Without looking it up, I’m guessing there’s at least one Gospel that uses the name Judas/Jude only for the “betrayer.”
I see a parallel between the “betrayal by Judas” story and the “empty tomb” story. In 1 Corinthians – written long before the Gospels, but after Paul had met Peter – Paul doesn’t reveal a knowledge of either one. That doesn’t prove anything; he could have known either or both to be true, and simply chosen wording that didn’t include them. But it does make one wonder. Dr. Ehrman thinks his omitting mention of the “empty tomb” story casts real doubt on it; if so, the same should hold true for the “betrayal by Judas” story.
But the gospels already have a Jewish institution and a Jewish crowd, who are made responsible for the execution. They did not need a betrayer from the inner circle in addition to that. There is a clear embarrassment element in this story, with Jesus not being able to exclude Judas Iscariot in advance. The Gospel writers try to explain it by making it into a part of Gods plan for atonement. At the time of the writing of Mark, the author knew that Jesus and the Twelve were Jews.
It occurred to me to ask Dr. Ehrman whether Paul had met Peter before he founded the church in Corinth; Dr. Ehrman said he had. So in the relevant passage of 1 Corinthians, Paul wasn’t telling the Corinthians things they didn’t – presumably – already know. With that being the case, I think it’s more likely that he just made a slip in wrongly referring to the group of eleven disciples as “the twelve.”
Why can’t “the twelve” just be some symbolic number? According to a website I just consulted, “12” is used 187 times in the Bible (I think they count both the OT and NT). This doesn’t count the number of times multiples of 12 are used like the use of 144,000 (12 squared times 1000) in Revelations, or the walls of New Jerusalem being 144 cubits high (12 squared) or the city being 12,000 furlongs square.
Twelve by itself is used in a LOT of recognizable places like the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 sons of Jacob, 12 sons of Ishmael, Jesus being 12 years old when he first speaks in Luke, etc etc etc.
I’ve always been suspicious of “the twelve” disciples. Maybe “the twelve” is derived from oral tradition and wound up in Mark and then obviously was used in the other gospels. I can imagine oral tradition gravitating towards a harmonious number like 12 as the main or core group of followers. The gospels tell us he had a larger group of followers. I’m no expert in the use of numbers in the Bible, but when I look at how other numbers are used the use of 12 in other parts of the Bible (12 tribes being of most importance in my opinion) the fact that there were “twelve” disciples, or primary followers, seems most apropos. The 12 tribes created the original kingdom of Israel (before Judah split) and with his disciples Matthew 28:19 says to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” so one could think of them as the founders of his “Christian kingdom”. That said, Jesus obviously had an apocalyptic message so I’m sure what he would have though of that.
gmatthews said
Why can’t “the twelve” just be some symbolic number? According to a website I just consulted, “12” is used 187 times in the Bible (I think they count both the OT and NT). This doesn’t count the number of times multiples of 12 are used like the use of 144,000 (12 squared times 1000) in Revelations, or the walls of New Jerusalem being 144 cubits high (12 squared) or the city being 12,000 furlongs square.Twelve by itself is used in a LOT of recognizable places like the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 sons of Jacob, 12 sons of Ishmael, Jesus being 12 years old when he first speaks in Luke, etc etc etc.
I’ve always been suspicious of “the twelve” disciples. Maybe “the twelve” is derived from oral tradition and wound up in Mark and then obviously was used in the other gospels. I can imagine oral tradition gravitating towards a harmonious number like 12 as the main or core group of followers. The gospels tell us he had a larger group of followers. I’m no expert in the use of numbers in the Bible, but when I look at how other numbers are used the use of 12 in other parts of the Bible (12 tribes being of most importance in my opinion) the fact that there were “twelve” disciples, or primary followers, seems most apropos. The 12 tribes created the original kingdom of Israel (before Judah split) and with his disciples Matthew 28:19 says to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” so one could think of them as the founders of his “Christian kingdom”. That said, Jesus obviously had an apocalyptic message so I’m sure what he would have though of that.
The use of the number twelve is a very ancient middle east religious tradition. The number is probably ultimately derived from the twelve months of the year that could be observed (well, approximately) thousands of years back, and came to be seen as a part of God’s creation, and that’s the reason it also became a religious tradition and symbol. The tribal union of twelve in ancient Israel may have been any odd number, but it became stylized in later literature, to fit in to the holy scheme of things. Likewise Jesus selected a group of twelve, to give it a deep religious significance. I think.
Like another member said, I am unsure whether or not I am qualified to respond to this discussion. I am not, as I gather many of the members responding here are, a student of Professor Ehrman. I have, however, read two of his books, and have watched YouTube debates between Professor Ehrman and other academics. I am middle-aged, and consider myself a perpetual student, always in search of knowledge and understanding.
To the matter at hand, did Judas betray Jesus? Perhaps the arguments for the name “Judas” referring to the Jews, all Jews (?) as a scapegoat to explain the betrayal of Jesus is putting greater emphasis on a situation where none is due. It may be a sophomoric point of view, but maybe the story is meant solely to teach us about friendship and betrayal. How often have each of us felt betrayed by a close friend or even family member? How has each of us responded in such cases? Do we forgive? Forget? Accept the consequences?
Thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion.
I am just responding as a new member to this blog with admittedly no seminary or other credentials. A few things have always bothered me…If Jesus had been carting around the north country in Galilee, doing all these miracles and the whole episode in the temple (more recent to the betrayal), wouldn’t Jesus be well known enough by Jewish and Romans alike? Why a need to have someone on the inside of the group betray Jesus to his enemies. Also, the Romans should have responded sooner than three years of all these miracles going on. It seems they would have recognized this threat earlier, from a practical stand point.
gmatthews said
Why can’t “the twelve” just be some symbolic number? According to a website I just consulted, “12” is used 187 times in the Bible (I think they count both the OT and NT). This doesn’t count the number of times multiples of 12 are used like the use of 144,000 (12 squared times 1000) in Revelations, or the walls of New Jerusalem being 144 cubits high (12 squared) or the city being 12,000 furlongs square.Twelve by itself is used in a LOT of recognizable places like the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 sons of Jacob, 12 sons of Ishmael, Jesus being 12 years old when he first speaks in Luke, etc etc etc.
I’ve always been suspicious of “the twelve” disciples. Maybe “the twelve” is derived from oral tradition and wound up in Mark and then obviously was used in the other gospels. I can imagine oral tradition gravitating towards a harmonious number like 12 as the main or core group of followers. The gospels tell us he had a larger group of followers. I’m no expert in the use of numbers in the Bible, but when I look at how other numbers are used the use of 12 in other parts of the Bible (12 tribes being of most importance in my opinion) the fact that there were “twelve” disciples, or primary followers, seems most apropos. The 12 tribes created the original kingdom of Israel (before Judah split) and with his disciples Matthew 28:19 says to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” so one could think of them as the founders of his “Christian kingdom”. That said, Jesus obviously had an apocalyptic message so I’m sure what he would have though of that.
I can explain everything about Judas. It was all a coverup of James the Just. In the Gospel of Judas, the 12 are ELEMENTS in gnostic cosmology, not disciples. There is no Matthias. He hadn’t been invented yet in the canonical tradition at the time the gnostic tradition formed. Judas is ‘replaced’ by HIS MASTER, ‘Jesus’. HE is the “man” that bears “me” (Jesus).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)