In Mark 12:12, after telling the The Parable of the Wicked Tenants his second day in Jerusalem, it says “When they realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went away.”
Then in Mark 14:14 they are further stating their intention to arrest him and escalate it to killing him: “It was two days before the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus[a] by stealth and kill him, 2 for they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.””
That implies they clearly know who Jesus so it wouldn’t be necessary for Judas to say in Mark “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.”
The whole storyline of Jesus foretelling being betrayed seems designed to make his death more dramatic than simply being arrested by the authorities and killed. Jesus betrayal is never even alluded to by Paul, which is further evidence that the story of Judas’ betrayal is a literary device.
Yeah it does make you wonder. I think we can assume all Mark’s stories have some theological significance. My question is how Jeus could have made it off the Temple mount unscathed after a disturbance in the Temple? The typical rejoinder is that it would have been a minor disturbance. Were there “minor” disturbances in the Temple during Passover? I suspect he would have been arrested outright. Of course that assumes the incident in the Temple was itself historical. The trials as recorded seem unlikely and some scholars have speculated that the Judas episode might have either originated in an anti-Revolt polemic or perhaps was part of the attempt to shift the blame for Jesus’ death on the Jews rather than the Romans.
It is possible to read Mark 14:43 as stating the crowd that arrested Jesus was sent by the religious leaders but did not include them. The arresting party, kind of like police in our day, would not necessarily have known who Jesus was, so a betrayer of sorts could have been necessary to identify the person to be arrested. A betrayer could also been helpful in locating where Jesus could be found.
ctsu – “Jesus betrayal is never even alluded to by Paul”
Paul says “on the night he was betrayed”
Its the same word all four gospel writers use to describe Judas’s “betrayal” of Jesus
Paradidomi is vague and is used to name a lot of different sorts of handing over. Even in the exact verse Paul uses it to describe the message he had been entrusted with.
From a post (Does Paul Know that Judas Betrayed Jesus?) by Prof Ehrman on Nov. 12, 2016 in response to a question about Jesus’ “betrayal” in Paul.
I think the word “betrayed” is a mistranslation of the Greek of the verse I’m not alone in that. It’s a fairly widely held view. Here’s why.
The word Paul uses in the passage is PARADIDOMI. It is the word that literally means “handed over.” So the passage says “In the night in which he was handed over, the Lord Jesus took bread….” What does that mean though? Traditionally it has been thought that it means “the night Judas betrayed him.” The problem is that there is a different, and related, word that means “betrayed.” That is the word PRODIDOMI. If Paul wanted to refer to Judas’s betrayal, he would have used that word. Instead he uses PARADIDOMI.
Paul uses PARADIDOMI on other occasions, and when he uses it in reference to Jesus, it is *not* to an act of Judas, but to an act of God. Paul talks about God “handing Jesus over” to his fate. As an example, see Romans 8:32: God did not spare his son but “handed him over” for us. That appears to be what Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 11:23 as well. It is a mistranslation, then, to translate PARADIDOMI as if it were, instead, PRODIDOMI. Paul is saying that the last supper happened the night in which God handed Jesus over to fulfill his destiny.
Nevertheless, Ehrman believes the account of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus is historical because of the criterion of embarrassment and that the account is multiply attested. Until relatively recently I thought this argument compelling. The problem is that if John knew the synoptics (or just Mark) and Paul is not even referring to Judas as seems likely, then this story goes back to one source, Mark. And this story could easily fit into Mark’s rather jaundiced view of the disciples of Jesus. Having the women at the tomb not tell anyone or Peter denying Jesus wouldn’t be any less “embarrassing” than the betrayal by Judas. Many doubt those episodes are historical.
I’m coming more and more to the point of view that the gospel writers are committing literature not history. I am in no danger of becoming a mythicist; there is a historical core behind these accounts. But the fine details are lost to us. I begin to suspect the reality of a hypothetical oral layer of transmission.
“Paradidomi is vague and is used to name a lot of different sorts of handing over. Even in the exact verse Paul uses it to describe the message he had been entrusted with.”
Is it possible that the author of Mark read “paradidomi” in 1 Corinthians and decided to write a backstory of the betrayal?
“Paul uses PARADIDOMI on other occasions, and when he uses it in reference to Jesus, it is *not* to an act of Judas, but to an act of God. Paul talks about God “handing Jesus over” to his fate. As an example, see Romans 8:32: God did not spare his son but “handed him over” for us. That appears to be what Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 11:23 as well. It is a mistranslation, then, to translate PARADIDOMI as if it were, instead, PRODIDOMI. Paul is saying that the last supper happened the night in which God handed Jesus over to fulfill his destiny.
Nevertheless, Ehrman believes the account of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus is historical because of the criterion of embarrassment and that the account is multiply attested. Until relatively recently I thought this argument compelling. The problem is that if John knew the synoptics (or just Mark) and Paul is not even referring to Judas as seems likely, then this story goes back to one source, Mark. And this story could easily fit into Mark’s rather jaundiced view of the disciples of Jesus. Having the women at the tomb not tell anyone or Peter denying Jesus wouldn’t be any less “embarrassing” than the betrayal by Judas. Many doubt those episodes are historical.
I’m coming more and more to the point of view that the gospel writers are committing literature not history. I am in no danger of becoming a mythicist; there is a historical core behind these accounts. But the fine details are lost to us. I begin to suspect the reality of a hypothetical oral layer of transmission.”
I’ve arrived at that point of view as well.
For those of you who believe Jesus’s betrayal by Judas is a literary device …
Please raise your hand if you would have also argued that the Last Supper was a literary device if it had not been included in 1 Corinthians 11?
Said another way, take away 1 Corinthians 11, and on what basis is there for you to argue that the Last Supper was not invented by Mark, just as Judas’s betrayal was?
“For those of you who believe Jesus’s betrayal by Judas is a literary device …
Please raise your hand if you would have also argued that the Last Supper was a literary device if it had not been included in 1 Corinthians 11?
Said another way, take away 1 Corinthians 11, and on what basis is there for you to argue that the Last Supper was not invented by Mark, just as Judas’s betrayal was?”
Great question. Yes, I believe the author of Mark had a copy of 1 Corinthians. From Paul’s letter he got the story of the Last Supper. He then decided that “paradidomi” meant that Jesus was betrayed by one of the disciples (not just handed over to those who came to arrest him) and decided to invent a backstory to the betrayal.
The author of Matthew then came along and mucked things up by writing in 19:28 “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel”, which indicates that Jesus was not betrayed.
There is a book done recently, under the tutelage of Brodie, attempting to show how Mark used 1 Corinthians, including the whole lord’s supper/ last supper issue.
As far as Judas’s betrayal being a literary device, I am all in. I find Mark using the story of Absalom, and also using another writing that had already used the story of Absalom: Zechariah 9-12.
Absalom had two key people: an advisor and a general. The advisor dies by hanging himself once he realizes that Absalom has been tricked. I think this is used by Matthew 27:3-10. Also from the Absalom story is money offered to betray Absalom. I soldier found Absalom hanging in a tree, and Joab says the soldier would be receiving ten shekels(?) if he had killed Absalom on sight. (The soldier did the smart thing. David had told everyone to treat Absalom gently.) The offer of money is found in all three gospels, but in Mark it is not a factor in Judas’s decision.
Other aspects of the Absalom story find there way into the Judas tales as well. Absalom’s general, Amasa, dies in an unusual attack. Joab is pursuing the rebel Sheba. Amasa had been appointed to follow Sheba but failed to be timely recruiting his forces (he was now working for David, after Absalom’s death). Joab, chasing Sheba, comes across Amasa at Gibeon. He draws near and drops his dagger (into his hand?). Amasa does not see the sword, and Joab grabs Amasa’s beard as if to give him a GREETING KISS. He then guts Amasa, which is how Judas dies in the book of Acts.
So, the offering of money for betrayal, the greeting kiss, and both forms of Judas’s death seem to come directly from the story of Absalom. Perhaps I will make a post outlining all the ways Mark directly uses the Absalom story to flesh out his Jesus.
The gospels are partly a retelling of Julius Caesar.
Julius Caesar had a last supper and was betrayed: Jesus had a last supper and was betrayed.
Twelve Caesars by Suetonius
Jesus was Caesar by Francesco Carotta
Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell
I do not doubt the Julius Caesar was betrayed.
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction.
One of those characters was Julius Caesar.
Steefen said:
It is a mistranslation, then, to translate PARADIDOMI as if it were, instead, PRODIDOMI.
I also feel this is a gross mistranslation, to translate παραδίδωμι as betray. Προδίδωμι would me a much better choice if the meaning the author wanted to convey was indeed ‘betray’. The way the text stands now, it just means that Judas handed Jesus over. It has the connotation of betrayal, of course, but this is not what the Greek says.
Also, you’ve confused Steefen and Stephen.
I’m the cute one.
Reviving these old threads has its dangers.
Vergari wrote
For those of you who believe Jesus’s betrayal by Judas is a literary device …
Please raise your hand if you would have also argued that the Last Supper was a literary device if it had not been included in 1 Corinthians 11?
Said another way, take away 1 Corinthians 11, and on what basis is there for you to argue that the Last Supper was not invented by Mark, just as Judas’s betrayal was?
It seems a fairly reliable historical tradition that the events leading up to the crucifixion took place during Passover. It’s relatively easy to see how a Passover Seder that included Jesus and his disciples could turn into a “Last Supper” when viewed and interpreted in retrospect.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert