Loading...Several people misunderstood what I was trying to say in my post yesterday about Paul’s knowledge of Judas Iscariot. It was probably my fault for not being clear enough. I was *not*, decidedly *not*, trying to argue that the tradition that Judas betrayed Jesus was unhistorical. Quite the contrary, for reasons I’ll explain in a second, I think this is a completely historical tradition. I was simply asking whether Paul himself knew about it. He may well have known about it. But he gives no indication in his surviving writings that he did – either because he was in fact ignorant about it, or because he assumed his readers already knew all they needed to know about it, or because he had no occasion to bring it up in his surviving letters, or for some other reason.
But I do indeed think that – whatever Paul did or did not know about the matter – that Jesus was betrayed by one of his own, Judas Iscariot. In my judgment, this tradition passes all of our standard criteria for establishing authentic tradition from the life of Jesus, especially:
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!!
I still wonder why Jesus told Judas to go and do what he had to do. That always leads me to think they both had this planned…we disagree. However, perhaps you could comment on why Jesus has sure knowledge of what Judas was to do when he left the supper before he did it. I don’t believe Jesus was psychic.
This is very interesting. I look forward to your next post.
Yes, in the later Gospel traditions Jesus of course “knows” what has to happen. But that doesn’t mean this motif is “historical”!
I understand…I just wonder why that was added. Thank you.
Todd,
I think the first question to answer is why do so many believe that the gospels/Acts are true life drama? Why can’t they be what explains them best — which is fiction? For example, compare Queen Helen of Josephus’ Ant. Book 20, chapter 2 with Acts 8’s, Queen Candace and the Eunuch conversion to Christ.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm
Can’t one easily see the antiSemitic Lukan parody here? Isaiah 53 being read versus Genesis 17? Conversion to Christ over conversion to Judaism? CASTRATION OVER CIRCUMCISION (the Eunuch versus King Izates)? The New Testament is best explained as a clever tendentious parody, malicious overwriting, intended to minimize Jamesian teaching and aggrandizing a church-invented mythical Christ — redeeming followers with a doctrine of sacrificial salvation as an inversion of ascetic blood-purity observances at Qumran.
One prominent scholar has suggested that Judas revealed that Jesus was the Messiah, a betrayal because it was against Jesus’ wishes. But I wonder if Judas revealed it because he believed it, or because he did not believe it.
You mentioned Paul’s surviving letters in the first paragraph. Do we have any idea how many lost letters there might have been (or least a count of the ones we know are lost) and/or who they were written to?
Unfortunately, we have absolutely NO idea! I wish we did!
I agree that multiple attestation and dissimilarity make a solid case for the historicity of Judas’ betrayal. Indeed, if I was a betting man, I would probably put my money on that as the best hypothesis. But I still find it hard to argue it with confidence. It remains plausible that the tradition was made up / speculated upon in the oral traditions in the same way that conspiracy theories about the government’s involvement in 9/11 have become (to some people) “historical” truths. The story of a betrayal-from-within would have added some spice to the narrative and it gives the hearer of the story a sense of ownership – i.e. “Not only did the Jews and the Romans not understand him, but some of his own followers too! But you’re special because you DO understand!”. This is what typically gives conspiracy theories wings. Add to that the fact that the earliest Christian writer, Paul, whom supposedly knew Jesus’ brother and Peter, makes no reference to the betrayal in a passage in which he very well could have, I find the ground of the historicity of the betrayal quite shaky. But I agree, that it remains the best hypothesis available.
is there any strength to the argument that seeing Paul, the earliest source doesn’t seem to know about it (as you have said he surly would have) and possibly still thinks there r 12 combined with the fact that the story seems generally unlikely (it reads like a plot from the bold and the beautiful) that perhaps there was a fall out with Judus and so he became the “bad guy” and hence forth a lot of mud got throw this way?
having said that to have the amount of mud throw his way from different sources suggest he must have done something very upsetting and a betrayal does fit that. Sounds like he did something bad but the true details are prob lost through time
Yes, these are debated points!
I’m not sure it would have been so easy to just follow Jesus, especially if he had an entourage around him. Or, at least, it wouldn’t have been easy to follow him without being seen. Are there any examples in the ancient world where the authorities did something like that before arresting someone?
Today, if you’re assigned to follow someone, you can call for backup once the target is in a good place for the arrest to be made. Without modern communication technology, that would have been far more difficult.
I don’t know of any other instances! But such things did happen before cell phones. (two people can tail one….)
I love your ideas, facts, and traditions on Judas. Before reading anything you wrote on Judas, I had my views set in stone. But you demonstrate how certain traditions could be misleading or maybe even wrong. You get us thinking!!
What I do not understand is that one strong argument in your book about the historicity of Jesus is that Paul reports about his meeting with James, “the brother of the Lord”, in Jerusalem, and Acts also. If this is indeed historical, then Paul knowing potentially everything that James knew about the ministry of Jesus has to be considered historical as well. I remember that Paul swears that he did met James, and some scholars take this to imply that Paul was sometimes suspected of unbelievable claims, but I read that you take the oath to be sincere. How do you reconcile all that? Do we simply lack the letters where Paul expands on Jesus’ life or is it that Paul believes that Judas did God’s bidding by betraying Jesus?
Just because Paul knew James doesn’t mean that he knew everything that James knew. I’ve lived with my wife for 15 years, and I don’t have a healthy understanding of *most* of the things she knows (e.g., about Shakespeare, something we’re both interested in).
I know from your writings, as I’m sure many of us do, what you think Judas betrayed. And I agree that it’s possible. But it’s also possible that Jesus *had* been open about it, and his followers later made no mention of that because they wanted to portray him as having been unjustly arrested.
The point I want to make is that I don’t believe the authorities would have been able to identify and arrest Jesus unless one of his intimates betrayed him. Not only was there no photography in those days, Jesus and his twelve companions would all have been of the same ethnicity, in the same age bracket. A general description of any one of them probably would have fit all of them. And no outsider would have known *when* Jesus might suddenly start preaching to whoever was within earshot!
I believe it was the Temple priests who ordered him arrested. They themselves couldn’t have moved quickly enough even to find and follow the group of thirteen (or however many would have been together). Nor could their hired agents; no outsider could anticipate when or where Jesus might do something to attract attention.
You may be right. But if the Temple priests were the ones who ordered it, it would have been because of the disturbance he caused in the Temple, and they would have seen it. Moreover, the charge against him was not disruption of the Temple, but claiming to be the King of the Jews (which on the surface has nothing to do with disrupting the temple cult).
I think the Temple priests simply wanted to get rid of him, as a religious troublemaker. After all, who witnessed the interrogation before Caiaphas, and reported it so that it ended up with the gospel writers? What the Gospel writers say here has to be guesswork deduced from the publicly known Roman accusation. So the Temple priests strongly disliked his behavior in the Temple area, they knew he had had been hailed as some sort of a Messiah on the arrival (did they need Judas to tell them that? ). I think Judas was clever. He understood that after the public demonstration on the entry into Jerusalem and the temple disturbances, all the apostles might be in deadly peril as well. So he got out of it by offering a small service.
Yes, I pretty much agree; but it’s important to remember that hte priests didn’t execute him.
Going out on a limb here: I think one possibility that has to be considered is that Jesus really *did* want to be executed – and really *had* told his intimates he would raise “this temple” (his body) up again after three days – because he’d deluded himself into believing that would actually happen. I don’t think it’s *likely* he believed such a thing…but since he seemingly did believe he was God’s special “Messiah,” it’s not impossible. It would, in fact, be easier to understand his followers’ belief he’d risen from the dead – more precisely, refusal to accept that he *hadn’t*! – if he really had predicted it.
Dr. Ehrman,
I know how you feel about trying to reconcile the different gospels, but I’m curious to hear your take on the following reconciliation of the two accounts of Judas’ death found on the Watchtower Online Library site (I grew up one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, so I use this resource a lot) at this address: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002541
“According to Matthew 27:5, Judas hanged himself. But Acts 1:18 says, “pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out.” Matthew seems to deal with the mode of the attempted suicide, while Acts describes the result. Combining the two accounts, it appears that Judas tried to hang himself over some cliff, but the rope or tree limb broke so that he plunged down and burst open on the rocks below. The topography around Jerusalem makes such an event conceivable.
Also related to his death is the question of who bought the burial field with the 30 pieces of silver. According to Matthew 27:6, 7, the chief priests decided they could not put the money in the sacred treasury so they used it to buy the field. The account in Acts 1:18, 19, speaking about Judas, says: “This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness.” The answer seems to be that the priests purchased the field, but since Judas provided the money, it could be credited to him. Dr. A. Edersheim pointed out: “It was not lawful to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things, money that had been unlawfully gained. In such cases the Jewish Law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor, and, if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it for something for the public weal [well-being]. . . . By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1906, Vol. II, p. 575)”
Yes, there are all sorts of ways of trying to reconcile the accounts, most of them — in my opinion — fairly humorous, making both texts say something they don’t say. But the manner of death is not the only discrepancy in the accounts. Look closely and ask: who bought the field? And why was it called a field of blood?
The quotation in my first post also offers an explanation for who bought the field and why the description of Judas’ death differs between the two accounts. The answers seem logical to me.
As to why it was called a field of blood, both accounts provide the same reason. Matthew says it’s because the field was purchased with “blood money” and Acts says it’s because the field was purchased “with the reward of his wickedness”. Some interpret the account in Acts to suggest that Judas bled all over the purchased field, but Luke does not actually say that.
No, that’s not why Acts says it was called the field of blood. Look again! And it has a different party purchasing the field.
I am aware that Acts seems to indicate that a different party purchased the field, and that was addressed in my first post. In summary, the priests purchased the field and publicly attributed the purchase to Judas. My first post above explains why this is a feasible explanation.
As for why it was called the field of blood, Acts basically says that Judas purchased a field with the wages of his wicked act of betrayal and that he died a violent/gory death. When the people in Jerusalem heard about this (both how Judas purchased the field and his death) the field came to be called “Field of Blood”. Acts does not say that Judas died in the field, it simply says that he purchased it with ‘wicked funds’, i.e., blood money. That’s how the field got it’s name, according to both Acts and Matthew.
Reconciling Judas’ death using Matthew, Acts, Papias and the Gospel of Judas: Judas hangs himself while similtaneously being stoned by the disciples. Judas’ wounds cause him to swell so large that a passing charioteer becomes distracted, smashes into the tree, which results in Judas falling headlong into the field. Checkmate 😉
That’s IT!!
In gJudas, Judas dreams he is stoned to death by his fellow disciples because he is not ‘Judas’ but a stand-in for JAMES THE JUST, who was stoned to death by his fellow disciples (Hegesippus via Eusebius, Clement, Recognitions LXX). Judas ‘rules’ over the others (gJudas 46:23) and brings “THE TWELVE” to completion, indicating he is brought to completion as well as bringing the other disciples to completion (36:1), an indication that he is a realized Master, and that he is *their* Master. ‘Judas’ is the sacrifice, also, at 56:20 — not Jesus. That’s just ignorance of gnostic teaching to think otherwise. The “handing over” at the end is a sop to the canon version, too well known to leave out.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.lxx.html
I should point out, as Dr. Robert Eisenman noted in “James the Brother of Jesus”, that the same exact term “headlong fall” is used for both James’ death in Clement’s Rec. 70, and Judas’ death in Acts 1. Joseph Barsabbas JUSTus is then the clincher tip-off in Acts that ‘Judas’ is James there — as the “defeated candidate” this time covered as the putative “son of” Joseph (‘bar – abbas’ Joseph, the JUST One: son of Joseph the father of Jesus, James the Just — brother of Jesus). Judas is also seen in ‘the Betrayal’ as James the Just inverted, in a host of other ways. I can go into them later.
i don’t see how you can make a case for “multiple attestation” when the 4 gospels clearly build on each other and even wholesale change major parts of the narrative in an additive way.
The story arch of a close friend/acquaintance/relative betraying someone is a common theme expressed throughout all ancient cultures writings far predating the gospels.
Yes, first you have to do a source analysis to determine which of the sources behind the four Gospels were independent of each other (e.g., Mark, Q, M, L, John), etc.!
Dr. Ehrman. I hope you are still following this thread.
I struggle with the notion of the historical Judas for perhaps
a very simple reason. He was named by Mark as “Judas”.
I mean “Judas” as is “Judah” is the one who betrayed
Jesus. Isn’t that just too pat of a plot line? It is Judah
who betrayed Jesus, as in the Land of Israel. That seems
to fit in so well with the Gospel message and the reasons
for the turn to the Gentiles for the message. I guess I would
feel different if it were “Fred Iscariot” who betrayed Jesus.
It just seems too easy. Am I wrong?
I don’t agree myself (Judas was a common name — several people, including one of Jesus’ brothers — have it just in the NT). But there are scholars who have agreed with you!
There is also, “He who saves” — Yeshua — for Jesus… 🙂
Judas didn’t betray Jesus for money. Judas was disillusioned with Jesus. Judas was a loyal follower until they got to Jerusalem. Then, Judas suddenly turned against Jesus, probably after Jesus’ wild behavior at the Temple. This incident may have alienated and angered Judas. Judas probably respected the Temple and its practices. Jesus was out of line. Jesus wasn’t living up to messianic expectations. Judas thought that Jesus should be stopped, although Judas may not have wanted Jesus to be crucified. Judas didn’t foresee that.
Prof. Ehrman: I’ve read in a few places that Judas’ betrayal and death (i.e.: the 30 pieces of silver and hanging) in Matthew might be a reference to Old Testament stories and/or other Jewish texts. Could you please say something about that? Is this Matthew simply changing the story to accomodate some theological point?
Yes, Matthew frequently will quote a Scripture in support of a historical event, when the Scripture itself seems to be talking about something else (for example, more obviously, in his birth narrative where he indicates that Jesus fulfilled scripture by being born of a virgin and being a “Nazarene.”)
In the case of Judas’ betrayal and death what stories did he use and what theological point you think they make?
Among other things that it was all predicted and according to what God had in mind all along; it was not a monkey wrench thrown into Jesus’ plan.
I know this is an old thread, but…
All these theories about why Judas betrayed Jesus seem a bit contrived. Surely someone has considered the more banal possibility that Judas just got pinched by the authorities and ratted him out to save his own skin?
What are your thoughts on the reason why Jesus’ disciples weren’t crucified with him?
I know Paula Fredriksen has argued that it’s specifically because Jesus had preached publicly in Jerusalem in the past, so the Romans knew about him already and knew he and his followers weren’t really dangerous.
Do you find that likely, or do you see an alternative explanation for why none of his disciples were crucified?
They clearly thought *he* was a problem. It’s not obvious why they didn’t think so about the disciples.
This may be a good question for the mailblog:
Have you read Paula Fredriksen’s article “Gospel Chronologies, the Scene in the Temple,
and the Crucifixion of Jesus”?
The major thesis of the article is: “John provides us with some critical purchase on the scene at the Temple, and on the way that it functions in what has become a new orthodoxy in Historical Jesus research. I will also argue that, alone of our canonical choices, John provides us with the sort of picture that can point us towards an historically coherent reconstruction of the shape of Jesus’ mission, of the circumstances around his death, and of the growth and spread of the earliest movement in the years following his crucifixion.”
If this is an argument your familiar with, I’m wondering if you’d be willing to write a blog post engaging with some of the ideas. She critiques EP Sanders’ arguments about the Cleansing of the Temple and proposes taking the triumphant entry at face value (assuming something like John’s chronology). I personally found her article very persuasively argued, so I’m wondering what your thoughts are on the arguments she makes? Would this be something you would be able to write a blog post about if you’re familiar with what Fredriksen has argued?
I haven’t read it, but I’ve read her more popular version in her book on Jesus. As much as I respectd her as a scholar, I’m afraid I side with Sanders on this one. ; If I get back to a thread on the Passion narratives, I may post on it — but just now I’m embarking on a (long) different journey!
Because Judus and Jesus are one and the same.