Loading...My recent post on Judas Iscariot generated more interest than I expected, and a lot of readers wanted to hear more. I’ve posted on Judas a number of times over the years, but maybe it’s a good time to give the full scoop. If you want a lot more information, you might want to check out my book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. That book was prompted by the discovery of the Gospel of Judas; I was not involved with the discovery or the restoration of the Gospel, but I was part of a small team of scholars asked by National Geographic to study it as they decided whether it was authentic and important. Uh, yeah. But one has to look carefully at these things before deciding (as pointed out in yesterday’s post an recent academic fraud).
I may talk about my involvement with the project later on the blog, but for now: my book on Judas arose out of it, and does indeed talk about the Gospel of Judas based on my preliminary study of it. But I use it as an occasion to talk about Judas Iscariot himself, who he was, what we can know about him, what he did, and why he might have done it.
The first issue — one that has been raised by a number of readers over the past few days — is a very basic one. Did he really exist? Or was he “made up” by Christian story tellers who wanted to explain how Jesus ended up in the hands of his enemies? Often it is pointed out that “Judas” sounds like “Jew”: did Christian story tellers come up with the “Jew” who “betrayed Jesus” in order to make a theological point?
I have a definite view about that. I think he was a real person. Actually one of Jesus’ disciples. And the one who betrayed him to the authorities leading to his arrest and crucifixion.
Why should I think so? The following explanation is based on the discussion in my book.
First, in general: What kinds of sources of information do historians look for, when dealing with persons – such as Jesus or Judas – from the distant past? The best sources, of course, will be from the person’s own time, preferably a contemporary who actually knew the person. If you have a lot of eyewitness accounts, you are in relatively good shape. If the accounts are not actually by eyewitnesses but by later authors who knew eyewitnesses, that’s not as good, but still not so bad. If they are by later authors who talked with people who once knew someone who claimed to have once heard an eyewitness, well, that’s not nearly so good.
What historians want are lots of contemporary reports, if possible. It helps if these reports are independent of one another. If you have two sources of information about a figure from the past, but one of these sources got his information from the other one, then in effect you don’t have two sources but one. If you have two independent sources, that is obviously better than having to rely on one, especially if these sources corroborate what the other has to say. Moreover, it is useful if the sources of information are not overly biased in their reporting. If a source has an obvious agenda, and if the information that it conveys embodies that agenda, then you have to reconstruct the real historical situation, the actual historical data that lie behind the slanted account.
In short, historians want numerous sources close to the events themselves, which are independent of one another, yet agree on the information they provide, while not being biased in their reports.
How do our sources of information about Judas stack up against this wish list? Unfortunately …
You can keep reading the post if you’re a blog member. It’s never been easier to join. Well, or harder. Just join. We still have free memberships; and if you do choose to pay the small membership fee, it won’t cost much and all proceeds go to charity. And you’ll learn so much about the New Testament and early Christianity that your family and friends won’t be able to stand you.
I’ve read that many scholars translate Judas’s epithet Iscariot as ” the man from Kerioth”. However, other scholars believe it is related to sicarius, possibly linking Judas to the Sicarii. I’m curious as to your thoughts on this.
Ah! See today’s post.
Every time I read about Judas‘s betrayal of Jesus and then alleged suicide, I wonder how Jesus would’ve handled it if Judas was still alive after His resurrection? Knowing Judas obvious remorse for betraying Him, would Jesus have forgiven and reinstated Judas like he did Peter for denying Him three times, or would He have forgiven Judas and not reinstated him in the Twelve? Or maybe Jesus wouldn’t have forgiven Judas at all because even though Judas was remorseful, his heart may not have been repentant. Either way it would’ve been very telling and a great teaching moment, but we’ll never know.
Outside of Judas are there any characters, individuals, that are fictional, creations of the authors of the Gospels?
Yes, almost certainly. Was there really a “Lazarus” (Gospel of John) for example? I doubt it.
Nicodemus in the Gospel of John? The character seems to exist primarily for rhetorical purpose and does not appear in the other Gospels.
Yup!! And others.
Would you agree that the primary “evidence” for most evangelicals and fundamentalists for the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels comes from Papias, a man whose unsubstantiated claims include that Judas Iscariot was so fat that he could not pass between the buildings on either side of a city street?
Off topic question: Do YOU believe it is possible for a Bible scholar to be objective in his scholarship if he believes that he perceives the presence of the resurrected Jesus within him?
I’d say it’s a piece of the evidence; but there is a lot more to it than that, including the ancient traditions apart from Papias about the authorship of the Gospels.
My (rather strong) view is that since history, including biblical scholarship, is not rooted in mathematics, it is not an “objective” discipline no matter who does it.
Dr. Ehrman:
Not that “Jew” and “Judas” is compelling to me or even the conspiracy-like theories about “Iscariot” having some kind of meaning like “assassin” or the other speculations I’ve read, but the fact that his name was Judas, a close (possibly Greek) variation of Judah remains the only thought that at least murmurs “midrash.” It was Judah (Judas) who “handed over” Joseph to be sold into slavery, but as we know Joseph was glorified and became the unsung hero. It was Judah, the people, who rejected their savior and crucified him outside the gates of the “Holy City.” It’s not that I believe it, per se, but it makes sense, and with all the other old testament illusions in Mark and Matthew, I wonder if the story-telling element of a real character was at least “inspired” (you know, “based on a true story”) of the man who “betrayed” Jesus but personified and renamed to bring forth an old, historical tradition. Any thought a on this connection? Thank you, as always, for devoting time to your readers.
It’s hard to say. Judas/Jude was a common name: Jesus himself had a brother named that, and another disciple besides the betrayer.
Dr. Ehrman,
In the earliest tradition the risen Jesus appears to the 12. Do you take the view, like a number of scholars do, that the 12 was more of a nickname for the inner group of followers rather than an actual head count of people numbering 12?
Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 15? I’ve posted on that issue a couple of times. Either “12” was just the name of the group however many people were in it, or Paul didn’t know about the tradition of Judas killing himself.
You cannot do Source Criticism here because we have no identified sources. So there is no credibility. All you are doing is Literary Criticism which does not yield much conclusion weight. As far as these sources agreeing establishing anything the only thing they all agree on is that Jesus was resurrected which you, me, Bob Dole and the Israeli people know didn’t happen. And what sources claim Judas existed? The ones in my previous sentence.
So on to Literary Criticism. Paul, the only significant extant author before “Mark” famously writes that Jesus was handed over at night. “Mark” writes:
6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon?
13:12 ” And brother shall deliver up brother to death,
14:43 “…Judas, …
44 Now he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him, and lead him away safely.”
Brother (or at least the same name) handing over brother at night. You don’t see it as odd that Jesus was arrested at night, well before the invention of lighting?
Your evidence is better (that Jesus existed) because it is positive. It’s just not very good.
>It seems unlikely that a Christian storyteller would concede that Jesus had no more charismatic authority than *that*,
I’ve often wondered about this, Dr. Ehrman. There are many ancient stories where someone important is betrayed by one of their own. I’m not saying its made up, but the value of a vindicated hero is even more meaningful if defeat seems assured: it certainly makes a story dramatically compelling. Then there’s the prospect of what Mark may have wanted to say about Jesus enemies. The old synecdoche angle.
It’s certainly possible. The only way to balance out the probabilities is to consider what else we know or can posit about the earliest Christian story tellers and what they say in order to heighten the status of Jesus and how they tell stories in order to heighten the tension and literary value. My sense is that the former is by far the dominant feature; but it’s a judgement call.
Dr. Ehrman,
In his May 19, 2020 post on your blog, Hugo Mendez wrote regarding the Gospel of John:
“Over the past decade, an increasing number of scholars have concluded that the author probably knew one or more Synoptic gospels as well (at least Mark, but possibly also Matthew and/or Luke). But our author was also creative, inventing large amounts of his material (dialogues, scenes, individual details, etc.).”
Do you agree with this and if it were true, would it have any implications on using John as an independent source?
If John were a forgery, would it be able to be used as a reliable source at all?
I would say “increasing number” doesn’t tell us much about about the overall consensus. But I don’t know what the consensus is. If John did know the others, yes, it would compromise his value as an independent source for the stories that they share where it could be argued he simply edited what he received from them. But I don’t think he used the Synoptics. And yes, forgeries can still be valuable historical sources. An author who lies about his identity is still giving us information, and it still needs to be evaluated.
For me, I think the Jew that betrays Jesus for money is more in line with the later negative portrayals of Jews as Christ killers. I’m just not buying it. It fits too neatly into that agenda.
My sense is that there was a historical Judas Iscariot and he believed like many of the disciples that Jesus was a political messiah. He didn’t “betray” him but “handed him over” which is what he thought Jesus wanted in order to fulfill his political mission to replace the Roman Empire with the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of David. Judas thought he was getting the ball rolling and it was what Jesus wanted. He may have felt ashamed, confused, or embarrassed that it led to his crucifixion. All good stories need a villain and he is a great candidate. His story becomes embellished as an antisemitic polemic as the rupture of Judaism and Christianity widens.
Melito of Sardis, in his (attributed) Peri Pascha, explains: “Nevertheless, Israel admits, I killed the Lord! Why? Because it was necessary for him to die. You have delivered yourself, O Israel, rationalizing thus about the the death of the Lord.
“It was necessary for him to suffer, yes, BUT NOT BY YOU; it was necessary for him to be dishonored, BUT NOT BY YOU; it was necessary for him to be judged, BUT NOT BY YOU; it was necessary for him to be crucified, BUT NOT BY YOU, nor by your right hand.” (Upper case my emphasis.)
“Israel” should have “cried aloud” to god asking deliverance from this, um, task. “Israel” did not do so. “Lawless Israel.”
Pilate (and therefore the Romans), according to the good bishop, was innocent. This guy had all the answers, and provided them ad infinitum and quite ad nauseam.
“You dashed the Lord to the ground; you, too, were dashed to the ground, and lie quite dead.”
“That means that we have accounts of Judas in a number of early Gospel sources: Mark, M (source of Matthew), L (source of Luke), John. There is also a tradition about him independently inherited by the author of Acts.”
Wouldn’t L and Acts be the same source since Luke and Acts have the same author?
The normal view is that the author had *various* sources for his Gospel — as he himself indicates in 1:1-4 — not a single source. And the material in Acts must come from other sources since it is not about the life nad death of Jesus.
Prof Ehrman,
Please, would you kindly consider a post on the topic: The journey and the evolution of the Christian Church and Science (natural philosophy) and the how the renaissance affected it both?
That sounds more like a book! It’s a very complicated subject, for both Chrsitainity AND science, let alone the relationship of the two. But highly important. Maybe I could post on some *parts* of it. I’m obviously not an expert on science or the early modern period….
A part or an aspect would likewise be greatly appreciated. Much grateful.
Watched your session with Reason & Theology, I found it so fascinating as it appeared you had been lured there to be quizzed on Catholic sentiments. You couldn’t help but ask again the subject for discussion
Ref
Bart May 29, 2020
That sounds more like a book! It’s a very complicated subject, for both Chrsitainity AND science, let alone the relationship of the two. But highly important. Maybe I could post on some *parts* of it. I’m obviously not an expert on science or the early modern period…
“If we are looking for the bedrock of historical fact about Judas, a critical examination of our sources yields at least three pieces of information: his name was Judas Iscariot; he was one of Jesus’ twelve disciples; and he “betrayed” Jesus by turning him over to the ruling authorities.”
Once again, which is more likely:
1) Judas betrayed Jesus.
or
2) Jesus was not resurrected.
Which is more likely, an apple or an orange? 🙂 These are not commensurate statements subject to the same criteria of evaluation.
No problem. The question was largely rhetorical as the answer is obvious. The real question is why you refuse to answer.
I refuse to answer because I don’t think you can compare an apple to an orange.
Since Paul is unaware of Judas as betrayer and Q which might predate Mark is also unaware (Mt 19:28, Lk 22:30 about the Twelve sitting in judgement of the 12 Tribes), can we perhaps assign the Judas-as-betrayer idea to Mark?
Probably not. We don’t know what was not in the Q source, so we don’t know; we also don’t know if Paul was unaward of it — he never indicates one way or the other. Matthew, Luke, and John all have independent traditions about Judas, so it seems unlikely Mark made it up (otherwise one couldn’t explain the other traditions). Acts, of course, does as well.
Thank you.
My feeling is the gospel writers were doing a lot of inventing not strictly tradition-reporting. Especially, of the four, John.
Actually, Matthew gets quite carried away when Jesus dies what with an earthquake, the raising of “saints,” and so forth.
Some of such occurrences would have been noted by other writers, Josephus perhaps.
And that’s all pretty foolish on Matthew’s part. Why would such extraordinary events be tied by the John or Jane Doe of the time to one of the people being crucified that day?
If Paul was aware of the betrayal, his rendering of “handed over” is pretty blase. And while
“The Twelve” might have been “shorthand,” it, as we know, might indicate he doesn’t know of a betrayal.
So my take is Mark invented the betrayal or is reporting an invention.
I don’t see why it would be an invention if Paul didn’t know about it. That would just mean Paul didn’t know about it, but it wouldn’t mean that it was necessarily invented by someone else. I give a historical argument that it really happened in my book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot.
Thank you and thank very much for being such an available (and prolific) author.
Yes, I own a copy of that book of yours. Reading it has spurred my interest in these questions.
Q didn’t know about the betrayal either it seems.
Either Paul didn’t know about it, or he knew about and “downplayed” it with his “handed over” remark, or it was invented.
Paul, of course, is closer to the event in time than Mark (possibly Q is closer as well) when the sting of betrayal is some 20 years newer.
It’s clear the Gospel writers were inventors, Mt and Lk’s birth narratives and preposterous genealogies, for instance.
They had to be inventors, writing so long after Jesus’ life.
Mark had to be inventing Jesus’ vision upon being baptized and the subsequent Satan temptations, unless Jesus spoke of these.
There was too much inventing, contrasting and otherwise (and too few Jesus details from Paul) to be SURE of anything it seems.
That’s the way I see it.
Thank you again.
We don’t know if Q had any knowledge of the betrayal. ANd, as I said, whether Paul does either. But three independent sources do!
Quote: “The same consideration does call into question a number of the portrayals we have about Judas (i.e portrayals that are so much LIKE what some Christian story tellers would want to say that it’s not clear they could be historical). For example, Judas is sometimes denounced as a stereo-typical “Jew” in sources that are otherwise anti-semitic in their tone – where he is portrayed as a money-grubbing, God-denying, demonically inspired Christ-killer.”
Comment: My understanding is that the money-grubbing stereotype originated in the middle ages. Is that not correct? Obviously an 11th century portrayal of Judas doesn’t need its credibility called into question — it never had any to begin with.
I’m not sure when the stereotype first arose, but yes, it became a standard trope in the middle ages (and because, of course, Cristians forced Jews to be the money lenders)
Just wanted to get your present opinion on this.
1. How likely do you think Judas and his betrayal was historical?
2. Do you think he betrayed Jesus to “rush” the incoming of the kingdom of God?
1. Very. I have an extended discussion of the matter in my book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. 2. No.
I see. So you stand that is was potentially to get Jesus out of the spotlight?
Nope, I didn’t say that either! One could imagine lots of options. I talk about it a bit in my book on Judas.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Is Judas modeled on Ahitophel the person who betrays David and then hangs himself? (2 Samuel 17:23)
So, does this make Judas a fictional character?
Thanks
Some scholars have argued that the *story* is modeled on Ahitophel. But that would not make Judas himself a fiction. There are fictional stories told about George Washington and, say, Barack Obama, but that doesn’t mean the people themselves didn’t live.
Do you think Jesus really said what he said in Matthew 26:24 (“The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”)?
If so, how do you make sense of it with the idea that Jesus didn’t talk about eternal torment?
No, I don’t think Jesus knew that he would be betrayed and cruciied. But Jesus actually never does use the term eternal torment. He speaks in some places of eternal punishment, but that’s because the annihilation coming to sinners would be permanent. It was a punishment that would never be reversed, eternal.
Thank you, that makes sense. If the author of Mark put this on Jesus’ lips, why did he put it like that? Did the author believe in eternal conscious torment, was he simply stating that Jesus was using strong language to say how bad it was what Judas was doing (or something along those lines)?
The verse doesn’t say anything about eternal conscious torment; readers just read it into what it says.