(19 votes, average: 4.84 out of 5)
Loading...My post a few days ago about whether Paul knew that Jesus had been betrayed by Judas Iscariot — in which I concluded there really was no solid evidence one way or the other — generated several follow-up questions. Many of them simply asked: well, did it really happen? Here is an example, and my response.
QUESTION:
I may be showing my ignorance here but could it be that Paul doesn’t know/write about Judas’ betrayal because it never happened? Yes, it is in all four gospels but as you’ve pointed out the four gospels do not agree on who showed up at the empty tomb, what they saw, and what they did next so…. If they get that wrong could it be that the Judas betrayal is also a fabrication/legend?
RESPONSE:
It’s a great question, and I’m completely sympathetic to it. But I have to say that I think Jesus really was betrayed by one of his own, Judas Iscariot. In my judgment, that’s just where the evidence points.
As many of you know from the blog and other sources, when trying to determine what really happened in Jesus’ life, we have good news and bad news. The good news is that we have four ancient accounts (all in the New Testament); that’s more than we have for 99.999% of the rest of the human race at the time! So that’s good! The bad news is that these accounts were not produce by eyewitnesses, they are from 40-65 years later, written by authors who did not know Jesus or probably any of his followers, in a language different from Jesus’s, in other countries, based on stories that had been in circulation for decades, and often they are at odds with one another. Ugh.
Scholars therefore have devised criteria for exploring the sources for the life of Jesus — and they are, in fact, virtually the same criteria historians use for establishing just about everything from the past. For example: does the same tradition appear in different sources that didn’t get it from one another (“independent attestation”)? If so, then it is more likely something that happened. By no means does it *prove* it — lots of things are multiply attested that didn’t happen. But it adds to the likelihood.
Moreover, if a tradition runs counter to what the people telling it would *want* it to say (as when a mother is required to testify in court about her son’s alleged alibi), then it is more likely trustworthy (called “the criterion of dissimilarity”: the account is “dissimilar” to what the story tellers would prefer to say.
The betrayal of Judas passes both criteria with flying colors. (It’s not that one cannot *imagine* it was made up; it’s that on the balance of probability, it really does look like it happened.
And so, for example, …
To see the rest of this post you need to be a member of the blog. But THAT is incredibly easy! We still have free memberships available for nearly two weeks. JOIN! And if you are willing to pay the regular, small membership fee, even better. Every dime that comes it goes directly out to charities dealing with our crisis, helping the hungry and homeless.
Yes, please, I’d love to hear your ideas concerning “what” Judas betrayed…
> Maybe I’ll talk about that in a later post if anyone’s interested.
What a tease! Of course we’re interested! Talk on!
The cliffhanger ending is intriguing! I have also always found the “away from the crowds” explanation as unconvincing. Did he blab the messianic secret (which presumes there was such a thing)? Or maybe Jesus had plans for another, bigger disturbance like the cleansing of the temple? It could be as simple as agreeing to provide witness against Jesus (which I guess is the same as blabbing the secret). But if Judas did testify (or agree to), why doesn’t any Gospel report it?
BTW, thank you for the free access during this period. I have been thinking of joining for some time, but I am super cheap. Now that I have had a taste I don’t think I will be able to stay away.
It’s likely that the temple guards had Jesus and his followers under surveillance since the previous weekend when he caused the disturbance in the Temple where the moneychangers did business. Consequently, the Jewish authorities and probably the Roman leadership knew exactly where Jesus was while he was in the Jerusalem area. So the idea that Judas betrayed Jesus whereabouts is unlikely.
As to what Judas told the authorities, that’s obvious from the inscription that the Romans nailed to the cross, namely, “King of the Jews”. Judas told the Jewish authorities about the private teachings of Jesus to his apostles in which he claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, hence, King of the Jews. That was enough to have the Jewish authorities find him guilty of blasphemy and for the Romans find him guilty of sedition, which is a capital offense.
Why he betrayed Jesus is not clear. I don’t think that 30 pieces of silver is the reason.
Having Jesus followed would not necessarily result in finding him alone; maybe the authorities needed an insider to prompt Jesus to go to a place where he could be found by the arresting party without the Jerusalem crowd about him?
Paula Fredriksen emphasises the inconsistency in the Gospel accounts; that Jesus’s popularity with the crowd on Thursday evening was still such that he had to be taken in secret; while later that same night the crowd is calling for his death. She proposes that the hostile crowd is a later construct – exculpating Pilate and the Romans.
In this narrative, although Jesus is executed as a political threat to Roman rule, neither Pilate nor the Jewish leadership can have believed such a threat to be real, or the disciples would have been on crosses beside him. Rather Jesus died as a result of his continuing popularity with the Jerusalem crowd (maybe this Passover, more so than ever before); as a public lesson and warning. Hence the need to crucify him at Passover, with the pilgrim crowd still present to see; rather than holding him in chains to be disposed of later.
This is endlessly fascinating. Where do “scholars” get this claim of the Gospel being written 40-70 years after Jesus? If it’s to do with the earliest manuscripts then this proves nothing.
Please don’t say it’s because Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple and “the future hadn’t happened.”
Why wouldn’t people write this down, being eyewitnesses, plus given the commission to take this out into the whole world – as David put it. “… proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!” You don’t leave this to oral tradition.
Jacob spoke of Israel ending with the Messiah, and Daniel spoke of the Romans destroying the sanctuary, Jerusalem and the Messiah (but that He would not die for Himself.) And we can be sure David, Daniel and Jacob didn’t live in the Second Century.
No, it’s not related to the dates of the earliest manuscripts. It’s a rather complicated matter; I’ve talked about it a few ties on the blog. Just search for Date of the Gospels
I can’t recall where I read this, but there is a theory that Judas was acting as a go between for Jesus and Caiaphas. According to the theory, Jesus wanted concessions and support from Caiaphas, and Caiaphas wanted Jesus to tone down his criticisms and not be so disruptive. Judas was supposedly arranging for them to meet under a kind of truce. Later authors then changed it to Judas betraying Jesus. Have heard of this, and what are your thoughts on on it?
Not sure I’ve heard of that one, but yes, one can imagine someone coming up with it! As you probably know, nothing in the texts suggests it and historically it’s not plausible, since Caiaphas would have never heard of Jesus and certainly would not have anything to do with an illiterate peasant from some other country (Judas) who happens to be in town.
That’s what I had thought. The author had been arguing that neither Judas or Caiaphas was responsible for the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus. They tried making a case for Caiaphas being sympathetic towards Jesus and his movement, but was bound by politics. Which as you stated is not very historical or plausible.
My guess is that Jesus and Judas had philosophical differences and there was a parting of ways. Humans, who place great importance on placing blame, decided to heap that blame on Judas. It could be as simple as Judas getting sick and dying and the rumor spreaders deciding to assign him the blame for Jesus being captured and crucified.
Judas was letting them know that Jesus said he is the King of the Jews, right?
If you were to argue the other side, that Jesus was not betrayed by Judas, how would you do that?
That’s what I think. But it’s a minority opinion. If I had to argue that side, I’d say that “Judas” is too conveniently close to “Jew” that it looks like he was a made up figure to blame “the Jew” for Jesus’ death.
What’s the majority opinion of how Judas betrayed Jesus?
By turning him over to the authorities in a quiet place with no one around.
So the texts of canonical gospels and apocrypha talking of a fairly big amount of soldiers which went off to arrest Jesus a battle are not considered accurate according to what u said by the common scholarship?
Depends on whether they thought Jesus’ followers might want to fight them off….
> I think something much bigger, more significant, and more profound was in fact involved.
> Maybe I’ll talk about that in a later post if anyone’s interested.
Ooh, can I guess? My hunch is that it has to do with the Messianic secret, the “12 thrones” saying, and the peculiar “King of the Jews” charge against Jesus (a title otherwise unattested). Am I on the right track?
Yup.
I´m interested..:)
I have often wondered why Judas is so vilified. Jesus told his disciples that one of them would betray him which, in fact, is what happened. He knew it in advance. That said, it seems to me that Judas was a necessary part of “God’s plan” for Jesus, in effect, fulfilling the “prophecy.” Comment?
It’s an irony people often raise!
> That said, it seems to me that Judas was a necessary part of “God’s plan”
In that respect, Judas seems similar to Pharaoh in Exodus. They were players in a per-determined plan Yahweh was choreographing to make a larger point.
Yes, please share the bigger, more significant, and more profound facts you have on Judas!
“I think something much bigger, more significant, and more profound was in fact involved. Maybe I’ll talk about that in a later post if anyone’s interested.” Consider me interested.
1. “Judas” = Jew which is the first suspicious characteristic.
2. If the earliest source (Mark?) says it was Judas and the other Gospel writers simply followed suit, then that’s not multiple attestations.
3. Paul, our earliest Christian writer makes no mention of Judas and simply says he was “handed over.”
4. Given the increasing antisemitism in the early Christian writings doesn’t it make more sense that “Judas” as the epitome of the Jews was invented or modified to accuse the Jews? Maybe a disciple did betray that Jesus thought of himself as the “King of the Jews” but later that was changed to “Judas?”
I can envision a disciple becoming disillusioned with Jesus and turning him over, but I think the evidence for “Judas” is pretty thin.
1. Yup 2. The others have different stories about him, so they are not dependent only on Mark. 3. Yup. 4. It would make more sense apart from the fact it’s independently attested (Mark, M and L, John, Acts) and passes the criterion of dissimilarity rather well.
Historical approach to the Bible fails in hermeneutics. The Gospels are not history and historical approach will not be able to reconstruct their history. The Gospels are prophetical genre and they should be deciphered by typology. All of the types of Jesus in the Old Testament indicate that he was not going to be crucified literally, but his crucifixion refers to the fact that his mission was to give way to the Antichrist (who is Paulus). Jesus reminds us time after time in the Gospel that the real betrayer is Peter, just remember that he said he will make him the fisher, because this is the background of it:
Habakuk 1: 13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? 14 And makest men as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them? 15 They take up all of them with the angle, they catch them in their net, and gather them in their drag: therefore they rejoice and are glad.
My view of *why* he did it was to fulfil the plan of God for salvation (Theologically and Christianity) that one of the chosen twelve Apostles would betray the Messiah. Without the betrayal no Christian movement of salvation would of started. The *what* he betrayed is the confidentiality Jesus had with his Apostles in claiming/revealing to them he was the chosen Messiah and the king of the Jews and hence Judas revealed this to the authorities and thus his arrest/conviction of blaspheme. I agree with you, the other reasons found in the Gospels don’t make much sense to me either. I also give some weight to a theory I read where Judas was more concerned with the fate of his own people, the Jews, having their beliefs squashed by this new uprising(Christianity) that was beginning to take off. I think the former is more believable but nonetheless still difficult to assert with certainty. No doubt an argumentative post and thoughtful.And I too believe it happened.
Yes, please discuss what is betrayed by Judus.
I’ve always thought that Judas got a bad rap. Wasn’t judas’s betrayal sort of necessary to the narrative? What if there were no betrayal, no arrest, no cruxifiction? What if Jesus married the Magdalene, lived a long life of carpentry, raised a dozen kids? How would Paul make a church out of that?
I probably don’t need to add my voice to the chorus I anticipate will want you to elaborate further, but here it is anyway. 🙂
The theory that Judas betrayed because he was evil holds water for me.
In 2013 I founded a multi-faith charity that formed partnerships between different faith groups to help the poor, the sick, the persecuted and the lonely. So we managed to get faith groups from different religions working together in helping the homeless, those suffering from poor mental health, combatting faith hate and social isolation. It was great – we raised around £125k in five years and recruited 108 faith groups across the city to membership. Our chair of trustees was retiring and another guy came in, a friend of mine and took over the role. We were quite close and would socialise outside of work.
But then suddenly things started to go wrong and he kept coming up with these vague complaints about my work. He reassured me it would be fine, as he was sorting it, but things kept getting worse. Suddenly I was sacked without explanation. I later learned he did this in his day job, befriending staff before suddenly sacking them on trumped-up charges – it was his ‘thing’. He would befriend, deceive then betray. He was a Christian, but I concluded he was simply evil.
It’s interesting that somebody would ask if Judas Iscariot really betrayed Jesus. It falls on the line of the same type of question I asked in a earlier blog. I had originally asked why Simon Peter was portrayed in the gospels so negatively. Judas’s betray is found in all four Gospels but, so was Peter’s denial of Jesus. One has to ask, if that account of Peter’s denial was really historical or was it later invented due to some christian communities having a bias toward Peter? Which makes it so fascinating because it’s a grey area. I think Judas had some type of part of the turning Jesus to the authorities but I’m not sure if it was a betray. Because we don’t really know what happen and how his story played out over time. It’s a good question.
I am interested so please continue on.
Maybe Judas suggested waiting to arrest him at a quiet time. Telling them Jesus spends every night on the mount of olives and he could quietly show them where.
Seeing the chief priests hand him over to the Romans may have caused a riot but waking up to find him held as a criminal by Rome might have turned the crowds against him.
“I think something much bigger, more significant, and more profound was in fact involved. Maybe I’ll talk about that in a later post if anyone’s interested.”
Yes, please! I’ve never bought this part of the story, either. As you say, it would seem they could have found him at an opportune moment without resorting to paying for the information.
I’m inclined to think that “what” Judas betrayed was that Jesus thought he really was the Messiah, soon to be King of the Jews. That is what Pilate put on the cross, and I think that is why the Romans killed him. His claim to be King of the Jews would have eventually led to a rebellion against Rome, likely sooner rather than later.
Yup. Me too.
You dangle some incredible juicy tidbit in front of us and wonder if anyone might be interested! You’ve got a bunch of inquiring minds hanging out here, and we all know what inquiring minds want: we want to KNOW!!
Here is a hypothesis: Judas recognized that Jesus was a fraud– he had “the goods” on Jesus, so to speak. He decided to nip things in the bud. He probably had no reason for remorse and used his payment wisely. Stories about suicide and other lurid details were fictions created by loyal followers of Jesus, and I would liken them to cult followers. Somewhat brainwashed. Determined not to give up the dream. Judas failed.
The motive for Judas you mentioned “ Or that Judas thought that Jesus needed to be forced to call for the rebellion and he thought that would happen if Jesus had no choice, once he was in his enemies’ hands.”
This is a basic plot point in the 1977 miniseries “Jesus of Nazareth.” It really tries to redeem Judas to some degree where his intentions are good….he wants Jesus to rise up and be king of the Jews to throw off the yolk of Roman oppression so his betrayal is almost accidental as he is a pawn of a fictional character in the Sanhedrin.
Is it possible that something in that vein occurred? I personally don’t buy the predestination argument where Judas was evil and this was his purpose in life type of thought. However, what does seem the most logical and plausible is that Judas was at first a follower of Jesus but turned on him for either person or political motives.
A powerful argument but it does raise some questions. How could Jesus have created some kind of disturbance on the Temple grounds and managed to get off the Temple Mount unmolested? At perhaps the most religiously and politically charged time of the year? With military personnel on the lookout for just this kind of disturbance? Having committed an act that would be seen by both Jews and Romans as an implicit attack on the Temple system, punishable by death?
Don’t the events between the “incident” in the Temple and the crucifixion reflect varying degrees of improbability? The trial scenes especially seem to rest on the assumption that Jesus’ enemies would have treated him special. (Are we to suppose the thieves crucified with Jesus also got a personal interview with Pilate?)
I know you’ve heard all this before and I don’t expect any pat answers but wouldn’t the simplest historical reconstruction be that Jesus was immediately arrested at the Temple and turned over to the Romans and the trials and betrayal stories arose for theological reasons by authors who already assumed Jesus would be treated special?
Thanks!
Yes, I deal with that issue in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. It’s implausible that Jesus created a MAJOR disturbance in the Temple; he would have been arrested on the spot. But he apparently did something: maybe overturned a few tables and caused a ruccus. But on a very small scale, later embellished by his followrs.
I don’t understand why the Romans would “need” a betrayal. It’s not like the CIA trying to influence the Chinese government. If they decided this problematic Jewish preacher was a threat to the state they would just kill him. I don’t see what real influence judus could have had on the situation
Yes, historically they wouldn’t need one. But the question is how Jesus came to their attention. He would have just been one of thousands of visitors to town that no one had ever heard of (including the jewish leaders)
Its easy to see the betrayal as real regardless of details. What bothers me there is sword play at the arrest and only Jesus gets arrested. That does not sound real. Also, John said, both Sadducies and Pharacies were present. I thought they hated each other as much as they did Zelots?
Yes, teh sword play is a bit hard to conceive of as historical. I’m not sure which verse in John you’re referring to.
John 18:3 Sadducees are the temple priests?
Ah, right. Yes, that does seem weird — not that the chief priests would have soldiers but that the Pharisees would. They definitely would not. And would not be in cahoots with the Sadducees about the matter. This is a later account that is trying to lump together ALL the Jewish authorities as if with one voice they opposed jesus.
Prof Ehrman,
If Sanhedrin comprised both representatives from the Sadducees and Pharisees Jewish sects.
1. Wouldn’t it make the assembly of the Sadducees and Pharisees a plausibility in the arrest of Jesus?
2. Did the Sadducees also believe in the concept of a ‘Saviour Messiah’?
Reference
Clair May 22, 2020
Its easy to see the betrayal as real regardless of details. What bothers me there is sword play at the arrest and only Jesus gets arrested. That does not sound real. Also, John said, both Sadducies and Pharacies were present. I thought they hated each other as much as they did Zelots?
The Sanhedrin appears to have comprised Sadducees but not pharisees. And belief in a messiah did not fall out on party lines.
Please continue the discussion it is compulsive.
Have you not found any reason convincing why someone might make up a story about Jesus being betrayed? I’m sure you’ve heard many potential explanations. A simple one that comes to mind is the tragedy of it. He’s betrayed by someone close to him. Perhaps it wasn’t so cliche back then, but that’s a story been told many times. Given that Mark portrays the disciples as never getting it, and that the disciples flee/Peter denies three times, why not have one disciple betray him?
Yup, it’s possible. But it seems to run counter to the purpose/motifation of most of the other stories about Jesus. And teh problem is that it’s not just in Mark: M, L, John, and Acts have their own versions, so none of them could have made it up and it was widely thought at an early time in the tradiiton, before there were narratives about it.
Is there solid reason to believe, one way or another, whether M or L knew of Mark? I don’t have a hard time believing Judas really did betray Jesus. I ask that more as a side question. Although if M and L knew Mark, as Luke/Acts clearly did, that makes it easier to say Mark (or an earlier source) simply made the story up.
By definition the answer is no, they did not. In reality, though, there is no way to know. But if there is any hint that a story in M or L was taken from Mark, then it doesn’t count as M or L. BUT, we dont’ know what M and L were: were they separate full Gospel sources? Oral traditions? Various written traditions? Simply material added by Matthew and Luke out of their own heads?
How then can you say that M and L independently speak of anything? If Matthew and Luke knew Mark, and they are our only sources for M and L, it seems plausible that the “M” and “L” material could be influenced by Mark. For example, a story in Matthew that differs from Mark and is absent in Luke could simply be Matthew changing Mark Or Matthew could have invented a Judas story after learning about him from Mark. How can you differentiate those possibilities from the M material being independent?
M and L could not be influenced by Mark because they tell stories that precisely are not *in* Mark. And yes, its possible that Matthew and Luke simply made up stories whole cloth, and those would be M and L. But we already know from Mark and Q that their editorial proclivity is in reworking earlier materials, so that lends more probability to the idea that they each had access to more sources than the two that we happen to know about (as Luke himself tells us)
How strong do you think multiple attestation, or any of the other criteria, are on their own? On one hand, if Mark, John, M, Acts and Paul all agreed on something, that would seem pretty darn good. Then again, one could always say it just showed up early in the oral tradition and spread. Dissimilarity seems like it might fair better, but it might be easy to falsely conclude that people living 2000 years ago in another context wouldn’t think a certain way. I get that more criteria met is always better. But can you be someone confident based on one?
That’s right: it’s multiply attested that Jesus walked on water, but I don’t think he did. You have to evalaute all the evidence and then render a probability judgment, Attestation is part of the picture, but not the whole thing.
Bart,
You say the last thing Jesus wanted was to get crucified. Seems plausible. But don’t the events of the last phase of his ministry suggest a desire to participate in or bring about a confrontation that would lead (force?) God to intervene in history in a dramatic way? His goal would not be to be crucified, but to be rescued and vindicated in dramatic fashion. An arranged “betrayal” could be part of that, couldn’t it? Obviously this scenario requires Jesus to be deeply convinced of his special relationship with God and of his role in the impending Kingdom, but is such a conviction implausible?
Tom
I think it’s possible. But it seems likely that Jesus expected the imminent intervention in history of the Son of Man from heaven; he didn’t seek a betrayal because he didn’t think God’s intervention was motivated by his own life or death; he would be the ruler of the kingdom, but it would not require a betrayal or death.
its very heavy stuff to attempt interpret what is reliable and true based on any criteria, and at this point almost irrelevant
because the story of the betrayal is just as much part of the fabric of Christianity as the virgin birth or the crucifixion.
i have always found when the light hit just right on the Jesus/Judas story it reflected something bright and crucial.
Ok. I’m interested. Please talk about it as I’ve always been curious as to why.
Dr Ehrman, Would you please expound upon this post? I have used these theories you mentioned in my Bible School class especially about the forcing of Jesus’ hand. Please share with us what you think the bigger issue is. Thanks.
OK, will do!
Thanks for addressing this! Two questions come to mind: (1) by what authority did the chief priests “arrest” Jesus? Judas could report that Jesus believed he was the Messiah, but did first-century temple authorities really have “arrest” power? (2) if Judas really turned Jesus over to the authorities, what should we make of Jesus’ promise about the 12 thrones in the new kingdom for the twelve apostles? Doesn’t this suggest that Jesus didn’t know/suspect Judas would turn him in, and, if so, doesn’t this violate the principle of dissimilarity as readily as the belief that Jesus couldn’t control those nearest to him?
1. I’m not sure they did. But if they thought he had become a public nuisance that would be reason enough. 2. Yup, that’s exactly what it must mean. I’ll be talking about it later int he thread.
‘I think something much bigger, more significant, and more profound was in fact involved.’
We’re waiting!
Today’s post!!
You may have covered this before and I just missed it, but exactly how much was 30 pieces of silver worth at that time? I’ve read a lot that indicated it wasn’t a significant amount, certainly not enough to betray a friend over, little alone someone considered the Messiah. Can you give us an indication of just what Judas could have bought with 30 pieces of silver?
I don’t really know. I’ve seen estimates of $200-$600, but it’s hard to say. Think about it this way: what would a silver dollar from 1949 be worth today? So if a Gospel written 70 years after Judas, what the money was worth in one day may not be closely related to what it was 70 years later…. But we’re probably talking hundreds of dollars; an if the average person earned $100 a month then that’s a lot of money. But if $100 a day, not as much. My usually thinking is that it is two or three months worth of wages. But maybe others on the blog have a better idea?