Loading...Several people have asked me to comment on whether Paul shows any evidence of knowing about the tradition that Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot. As a first step, it’s necessary to point out that Paul says very little indeed – surprisingly little – about the historical Jesus — that is, about what Jesus said, did, and experienced between the time of his birth and his death. (Paul obviously says a *lot* about Jesus’ death and resurrection, just not much about his life.) The following are about the only things he tells us:
- Jesus was born of a woman (Gal 4:4)
- He was born a Jew (Gal 4:4)
- He had brothers (1 Cor. 9:5); one of whom was James (Gal 1-2)
- He ministered to Jews (Rom 15:8)
- He had twelve disciples (1 Cor. 15:6)
- He held a last supper the last night of his life (1 Cor. 11:22-24)
- Paul indicates what Jesus said at that meal.
- Paul indicates two other teachings of Jesus: that Christian ministers should be paid for their work and that Christians should not get divorced (1 Cor. 7 and 9)
- Jesus was crucified
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member, if you don’t belong yet, JOIN, WILL YA????
Thanks for posting this! Very interesting!
It seems like his affirmation that Jesus was born of a women is a no-brainer….unless there were people who thought at a very early date that Jesus wasn’t born but was something like an angel who suddenly appears as an adult human…
Yes, I puzzled voer that for many years — till about six months ago, when I realized that Paul thought of Jeuss as a pre-existent angel who became a human, and so needed to clarify that unlike angels in the OT who become human, Jesus was actually born and was *really* a human.
Perhaps some were doubting Jesus was actually a man on earth. It would explain why Philo of Alexandria didn’t write about him.
We don’t have any record of anyone doubting that until modern mythicists. Philo probably didn’t write about him for the same reason he didn’t write about nealry anyone from his time in Palestine — he just wasn’t historically important at the time.
I all my research thus far, I have come to believe that Yeshua(Jesus) did not pre-exist as a Angel, but was born as a human in the mode of Adam.
How do you use (against) the criteria of independent attestation on the matter of “handed over?” The NT mentions PARADIDOMI 119 times, PRODIDOMI once, Romans 11:35. But the TONE while reading the Gospels has to be meant as betrayal in my opinion. Why would Judas commit suicide if he just “handed him over?” Since Matthew and Luke have two different stories on Judas from their sources. That’s if you believe Luke used Q and not Matthew.
I think Paul is being like many Christians today. They see a bad thing happen and turn it to a better liking, mentioning it as “the will of God.” Paul could have known of the betrayal, but clearly wanted to mention it as a will of God and that God was in control the whole time. No arrest, no dying, no salvation. Don’t mention the bad things to new believers. It may stall the cause.
Does this change your view of why Judas would betray Jesus, he called himself KING and didn’t believe him or got tired of waiting? You mentioned this in your books or on the radio.
I’m not saying that Judas simply handed him over. I’m saying he betrayed him. But Paul doesn’t konw about that.
A short topic, but fascinating! I keep reading over the years about words that have questionable or unlikely translations from the Greek that we lay people never hear about. Maybe you should write a book about this topic (possible mistranslated words and how they affect our interpretation of the bible)!
Even without any reference to Judas, the use of ‘paradidwmi’ in 1 Cor 11 still seems to represent a point of contact with the language that Mark used subsequently in this same context of this final meal. I’m curious to hear your interpretation of the significance of this last supper for understanding the historical Jesus. If historical, was it perhaps some kind of prophetic gesture in which Jesus signified his freely accepted martyrdom, his witness toward some kind of coming apocalyptic feast in the imminent kingdom? What are some of the more likely scenarios for understanding this very early tradition about the historical Jesus?
I go back and forth on it; my sense is *either* that the details of that last meal and what Jesus said then were made up by later story tellers (before Paul, obviously) and exaggerated (possibly — I’m not sure!) OR that Jesus did actually see the hand writing on the wall and realized his time was up. But I definitely do not think that he imagined that his death would be for the sake of others. That part is surely later Christian theologizing, imho.
I don’t see how Jesus, as well as his followers at the last supper COULD NOT have been concerned that their time was up. Mark 14:1,2 states very clearly that powerful people within the Jewish hierarchy at Jerusalem were attempting to kill Jesus after Passover. According to this reference, as soon as the Passover meal was over, so was the grace period given to Jesus and his followers by the Jewish leaders. At the conclusion of the meal, they would have become hunted by some very powerful and wealthy people.
Looking at this scenario from a forensic perspective, Jesus and the 12 would have probably used this gathering to discuss how, or IF, their movement could survive this immediate, powerful and certain threat. Using modern terminology, an “arrest warrant” had been issued and “roadblocks” would have kept them trapped in Jerusalem, an unfamiliar territory where they would have had minimal support. It would not only have been their lives at stake here. The future of their movement, which was essentially an attempt to reform and challenge the existing Jewish hierarchy, must have looked grim.
If these men are looked at as simply mortal men, then criminal science can be used to predict what actions they might have taken. This is done regularly in modern times by law enforcement to try and predict if an arrest subject will hide, fight or flee. Personality, extenuating factors like degree of loyalty to a cause, environment, past actions and group cohesion are all a part of the equation. In the case of Jesus and his followers(who were endangered by their proximity to Jesus) flight out of Jerusalem would have been difficult due to the roadblocks(gateblocks?). Hiding would be only a temporary solution and they would have had few places to hide since their base of support was not in Jerusalem. Hiding would also have endangered the lives of any supporter who helped them hide, further endangering the future success of their movement..
That leaves “fight” as their only option, although to fight in the common sense with weapons would have been futile against the vastly superior trained and equipped Roman centurions.
We know that Jesus was unusually intelligent from the story where he amazed people with his knowledge of Jewish law in his childhood. Jesus’ remaining option would have been to “fight” using the only weapon he had; his intelligence.
Again, looking at this aspect of the historical Jesus from strictly a forensic standpoint, I think that Jesus would have seen clearly that he would probably be captured and killed but the future of his reform movement could continue only if his close followers lived. Since it would have been evident that his death was likely, his best option would be to devise a scenario where he would be the only one to die. To keep his followers from being arrested and killed with him, he would have to distance himself from his followers and convince his captors that he alone should be killed.
To increase the likelihood that his plan would succeed, Jesus would have had to plan the circumstances of his arrest to make this pretense more believable rather than leaving the time, circumstances and venue of the arrest to chance. Setting the venue of his arrest in an isolated spot lessened the chance that any supporter involved in hiding him would be arrested also. Making sure that he was alone when arrested would lessen the chance that the 12 would also be arrested. Praying alone in a grove of trees would have been a perfect chosen venue (especially since the centurions, who would not have been Jews, would not have found a Jew praying alone to be unusual.)
But how would the centurions know where and when Jesus wanted the arrest to happen? They would have had to be told either in written form or by someone in person. The best option would be to do it in person by someone who would seem credible to the authorities; someone close to Jesus who had a respected position within the group.
Judas would have been the best candidate for this. If Judas was the treasurer, it would have indicated that he was also intelligent and respected within the group.
As one possible scenario, it may have been part of Jesus’ plan to have Judas go to the Jewish leaders with a pretense as a defector. Judas would have had to convince the authorities that Jesus was the sole instigator of the group and that the remaining members of the group would present no threat to their authority once Jesus was removed. Succeeding in this, Judas would have then told the authorities where Jesus would be, and the arrest would have been made – but on Jesus’ terms, not by chance and on the terms of the authorities, and in such a way that his followers –and his movement–might survive to keep fighting.
That could be one explanation of why the term is “handed over” and not “betrayed.” In this scenario, Jesus did sacrifice himself for others, but those others were his family members and followers so that his movement could live, even after his torture and death.
Although this is pure speculation, this behavior would be consistent with the psychology of people within a group or movement who suspect that their leader is about to be arrested.
Is it possible that Paul had knowledge of the twelve post-resurrection disciples, including Matthias, without knowing that Matthias was a replacement for Judas? His use of “twelve” in that context wouldn’t require a metaphorical interpretation.
Possibly, but I’m not sure the Matthias tradition is historical….
Paul didn’t really seem interested in Jesus’ life other than he is the Messiah and they he was crucified.
If Jesus actually lived (I know you are probably rolling your eyes at my non-sense, and I am still reading your book! I am at page 25 lol) it seems that Paul was disinterested in Jesus’ life on Earth. If Paul is really disinterested in Jesus’ life, it isn’t too surprising that he doesn’t mention Judas. Judas wasn’t a primary disciple like Peter and John. What shocks me though even more than Judas is that Paul never mentions John the Baptist. John the Baptist seems way more important than Judas was because he allegedly baptized Jesus. As far as the 12 appearance goes, who knows why they are still called the 12. Twelve what? 12 Disciples, apostles, eunuchs, what does he mean by 12? It seems Paul and early Jews were never were one to focus on the tiniest of details. Bart, in my view, and this might be some other historians views, this might have to do with a low-context/high-context society. Perhaps Jews/Gentiles would have took this information for granted. Even Paul said that all that really matters was Christ crucified. So Judas would have probably would have been irrelevant even if it was historical tradition.
1 Corinthians 2:2 “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” ESV
But Paul does speak a fair amount about baptism, and Christian baptims may indeed be rooted in John the Baptizer’s movement. But the holes in our knowledge about the reality behind Paul and the later gospels is profound. Only plausible speculation can attempt to fill in the gaps.
Could “paradidomi” refer to the act of transferring Jesus from the Jewish authorities to the Romans?
It wouldn’t seem to mean that in 1 Cor. 11:22-24, since the text gives no hint that Jesus was in the hands of the jewish authorities.
But 1 Thessalonians 2,14-15 does, which, if authentic, would also be pre-Pauline. The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know the context of the pre-Pauline tradition in 1 Cor 11 so we cannot exclude coherence with pre-Pauline tradition from 1 Thessalonians.
Is the Acts 1:26 account not trustworthy then, suggesting that Paul maybe was never told about the embarrassing fact of Judas’ existence and his knowledge of the 12 was of the later 12? Is there some kind of overlap between Matthias the replacement and Matthew the Tax Collector who might actually have been named Levi as a result of that very name confusion?
I’m not sure the Matthias tradition is historical. And this Matthias is a different person from Matthew, who was one of the original twelve, although sometimes the two are confused.
Bart.
So do you think a misunderstanding of the word in question played a role in the development of the “Judas the Betrayer” tradition?
No, I just don’t think Paul knew about that tradition.
Bart.
No, I meant a misunderstanding by later Christian writers of the word Paul used…
As we know, the epistles of Paul predate the gospels by decades. So it is just as surprising that the recipients of the epistles did not demand more information about the earthly deeds and sayings of Jesus.
They may have done — but Paul in his letters was writing about other things….
You said: “The former word PARADIDOMI, can *possibly* mean “betrayed,” but that’s not its primary meaning”. Are there any examples from other ancient greek texts in which the word is used to mean “betrayed”?
I often hear historians argue that the betrayal is historically probable because there’s little reason to think that Christians would have wanted to make up the story. That’s plausible, but I’m not convinced. If Jesus was simply arrested by the Romans, with no conspiracy or betrayal required, wouldn’t that make him seem even more insignificant? I think it’s just as plausible that the ‘betrayal-from-within’ story helps serve to give the story of Jesus’ arrest a greater sense of importance and romanticism – a literary device to help build the tension – that would have been attractive to early converts and hearers of the gospels.
sorry, I’m away from home and don’t have my books handy to check (I’m suffering for the cause at the beach just now….). On the betrayal, see my post today for my explanation of it.
This is just an opinion statement related to Judas.
I think he’s gotten a bad rap for two reasons:
1. If Jesus was trying to bring about an apocalyptic confrontation with the authorities and he needed someone to hand him over then Judas was doing what Jesus wanted him to do. At the last supper Jesus tells Judas to go and do what he must do. I don’t see that as betrayal. He was doing a job for Jesus.
2. Judas killed himself (if he actually did since the two stories vary so much) because Judas (and even Jesus) may never have thought it would come to a death sentence and Judas was in an extreme state of remorse.
This idea is likely way off base but I think about it being possible from time to time.
Prof Ehrman
So how did “betrayed” come to be favored over “handed over” in translation?
If the betrayal by Judas is not historical then why would that story have arisen? Isn’t it kind of embarrassing to have one of your “inside guys” turn you in? Why would you make that up if it didn’t really happen and you were forced to account for it somehow?
thanks
See my post today.
After having read much of your material and others who differ with you regarding the historicity of Jesus, it appears that the early christian writers and church faith wasn’t based on the need for a literal Jesus witnessed by historical records. How can Philo completely miss this story? If there was a man named Jesus, it was his teachings, mainly esoteric that fueled the christian movement. His life is more symbolic/mythic of the power of every human being to attain godhood.
I say this because if a movement is grounded on a literal person, ie., Jesus as the Unique Savior of Mankind then the early writers were VERY CARELESS in documenting his life and words, so as to prevent many versions of his life. In other words, we have too many historical loopholes that created too many “Christianities.” If Paul’s writings are the first record of the Godman, how could he just ignore so many detailed facts of his virgin birth, life teachings, latter days on earth (betrayal of Judas) and the resurrection. Paul’s Christ seems more heavenly than earthly, in contrast to the Gospels which came much later. This not an admission that there was no man named Jesus. It just seemed that to the early Christians it didn’t matter as much as we today make it matter.
Intersting points!
I myself don’t find it at all surprising that Philo didn’t mention Jesus. Of course, if Jesus was raising the dead and walking on the water and casting out demons and so forth, it would have been a bit more surprising. But I don’t think he was doing any of these things, or making any kind of “big splash.” So why would Philo mention him or any other Galilean Jew?
Yes, if the ancient followers of Jesus were trying to document his life in ways satisfying to 21st century historians, they did a miserable job. But I don’t think that’s what they had in mind.
For what concerns historical Jesus, in Rom 1:3 Paul also tell us that Jesus was a descendant of David.
Do you consider this as a relevant historical point?
I’m not sure it’s “historical” in the sense of being historically accurate, but it ‘s something Paul appears to believe. I didn’t include it in my list because it is not a datum referring to what Jesus said, did, or experienced from the time of his birth to his death. (It’s about his family tree.)
I believe Paul knew about Judas Iscariot. According the account at Acts 1:15-27, not longer after Jesus’ ascension, Matthias was selected to replace Judas as one of the foundational twelve apostles due to Matthias having been a disciple of Christ since Jesus’ baptism, a close associate of the apostles, and a fellow witness of Jesus’ resurrection. And later on in Acts, Matthias is apparently included in a reference to “the twelve” (Acts 6:1,2). If we accept this account as accurate, then the early Christians reckoned Matthias as one of “the twelve” by the time of Pentecost and thereafter.
So if Paul also viewed Matthias as one of “the twelve”, then he was evidently including Matthias in the reference at 1 Cor. 15:5. Even though Matthias was not one of the 12 apostles at the time of the resurrection appearances, Paul was likely referring to the men regarded as “the twelve” by the early Christian community, with Matthias taking Judas’ place. And if Matthias was among the disciples mentioned at John 20:26-29, Paul may have been referring to that same resurrection appearance.
I”m not sure the Matthias story is historical (let alone that Paul knew about it). The author of Acts has theological reasons for wanting to make sure there are always “12” (the twelve provide the link between ancient Israel – with its twelve tribes — Jesus — with his twelve disciples — and the church — founded on the work of the people that Jesus called.
Or the Twelve refers to some kind of body in the early church, which could itself be the inspiration for the later enumeration of twelve specific disciples during his ministry.
Since it seems there was no consensus as to the identities of the Diciples in the Gospels and given the significance of the number twelve in Jewish history, shouldn’t we take references to “the twelve” more figurativly than literally?
Could be. Another option is that Jesus himself was intent on having a figurative number of followers (for apocalyptic reasons: in the age to come, they represent the “true” Israel/people of God)
Professor Ehrman,
While on this subject of what Paul knew (or didn’t know), can you speak on whether Paul’s gospel was really approved by James the Just and those at Jerusalem? Or did Paul merely make up the apostolic approval he received (though insistently telling the Galatians “before God, I do not lie”) which was also perpetrated by the author of Acts?
My sense is that the two agreed on the essential Gospel message that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead, all in accordance with the Scriptures. But they probably differed on what that meant when it came to whether Gentiles could be followers of Jesus without first becoming Jewish and keeping the law.
So if Paul’s view of justification through faith without works of the Law was not in agreement with James’s views of keeping the Law for justification, in what sense is Paul saying that James approved of his ministry to the Gentiles (Gal. 2.9)?
I don’t think James the brother of Jesus wrote the book of James. Long story! Maybe I’ll post on it!
That’d be great!