This past weekend I sponsored the fourth annual “New Insights into the New Testament” conference, with an array of speakers giving talks for non-scholars on a particular topic. This year the topic was “Apocrypha and Canon” which was dealing with books that did not make it into the New Testament — other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses.
The most recent significant discovery in this field was the Gospel of Judas, and we certainly had a paper on that. It made me wonder when I last discussed Judas Iscariot on the blog and I looked — and it’s been years.
So I thought I should give it another go, either to refresh years-old memories or to inform others who were not here among us at the time.
For starters, if he’s called Judas Iscariot — what’s Iscariot mean? It turns out, the question is much debated. Here is what I say about it in my book. The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot (Oxford University Press, 2006), which includes a long section on the “historical Judas”
******************************
The Name Judas Iscariot
Sometimes knowing the names of persons from antiquity can give further information about them. People of the lower classes did not have last names, and so to differentiate people with the same first name, descriptive designations were often added. For example, there are several different Marys in the New Testament. “Mary” was one of the most common names in first-century Palestine. And so each New Testament Mary is given some kind of identifying feature: Mary “the mother of Jesus”; Mary “of Bethany”; Mary “Magdalene.” This last designation indicates
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Is it possible that Judas Son of Simon never had the named Iscariot in his lifetime? He was only given that name/description by the author of the Gospel of Mark who made up the “I_scario_t” name to associate him with the sicarii (sikarios – Greek or sicarius – Latin) who were known anti-Romans and active before and during the Jewish Rebellion just before Mark was written. Since all the early Christians viewed Judas Son of Simon as a betrayer, the author of Mark wanted to make him look as bad as possible to his contemporary Roman Christian audience (early ’70’s). Since the other Gospel writers later used Mark for their source, they just continued using the name Iscariot in their writings.
It’s possible, but I don’t now of any evidene to make us think so. He is not portrayed as an insurrectionist in the Gospels, but as, say,a thief.
(Apart from that, I don’t know of early Christian interpretations of John that read the name in light of a potential Latin etymology; if you do know of any, let me know. That would be interesting. But it would have no bearing on where the name actually came from. )
Dr. Bart,
It is such a shame that Christians fill your wikipedia page with negative reviews (regarding your books).
I remain blissfully ignorant. My view is that everyone has the right to critique a position, and everyone has the right to see if the critique is spot on or completely bogus or something else. I usually just tell people: read my book; read what the other person says; and see who has the better argument….
Your chuckle alone can destroy the positions of these critics, Bart.
Dr. Ehrman,
You have spent decades applying rigorous textual criticism to the New Testament, showing variants, later additions, and theological changes. Your own shift from Christian belief to agnosticism was shaped by that method.
As Muslims, we claim the Quran is the final revelation, perfectly preserved in its original Arabic text with no variations or alterations, supported by the earliest manuscripts. Why have you not applied the same critical standards to the Quran’s manuscript history and transmission? What conclusions would a textual critic reach?
I would value your reasoned response.
THere are Quran scholars who have done just that and shown that in fact its not true that all Quran manuscripts are exactly the same with no variations and alterations. You may want to check out the course I did with Javad Hashmi where we compared New Testament textual criticism and Quranic. You can find it here: https://courses.bartehrman.com/bibleandquran?widget=courses
Out of curiosity, why do you expect Bart to do the same with the Quran as he does with the New Testament?
He is specifically a New Testament scholar; should he apply his method to every other sacred text that exists?
The Kerioth of Jesus’ day was about 15 kilometers west of Arimathea.
“I had long wished to go there, but there were obstacles. One of them was that I could not find it on my map.” – Freya Stark (1893–1993)
Not sure everyone will catch the irony of your first sentence! The second should help….
I did 🙂
In a scene from the movie Jesus Christ Superstar, one of the high priests says something like this to Judas, “Isn’t it better for one man to die than for a whole bunch of upheaval and a whole bunch of people to die?”
I keep “theorising” that maybe Jesus sent Judas to turn him in and have him captured, because he knew if he didn’t die, a good number of other people, his followers, would die.
It’s just like me to make a good guy out of everyone and have everyone saved, even Judas. But still, I wonder if there might be a touch of possible truth in this. – Just saying.
What’s truly curious to me is that in Vetus Latina MSS (but not Vulgate) and D/05, Iscariot is almost always spelled Scariot (and var.) without the initial iota as in Greek. It’s nearly a clear dichotomy. Makes me wonder if it is related to sicarii. Which was the earliest spelling? Mark’s spelling of non-Greek terms is rather rough, whether Aramaic or Latin.
Also, it’s intriguing that in our earliest list of the Twelve (Mark 3:16-19), Judas Iscariot is obviously last for a reason, but just before him is “Simon the Cananean/Zealot.” Truly curious that the last two could easily be a zealot and a sicarius. And it’s also interesting that in Luke 6:15-16 (and Acts 1:13), “Judas son of James” (replacing Thaddeus) is inserted in between Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, maybe to diminish this zealot/sicarius connection. Both terms would be anachronisms in Jesus’ day because it sounds like the Zealots formally organized for the Revolt, and the sicarii a few years earlier, so neither group were a known entity until decades after Jesus. It’s kind of like speaking of the UN before WW2, instead of League of Nations. Mark might be using post-60s terms for Jesus’ day.