Loading...In my previous post I indicated that there are several things we can say with relative certainly about the historical Judas Iscariot (and indicated why I think we can be pretty sure about all of them): he really existed, he was one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, he was therefore an apocalyptic Jew from Palestine, and he really did hand Jesus over to the authorities to be arrested.
But what is it exactly that Judas did that led to Jesus’ arrest, and why did he do it? Here we move from the grounds of relative historical certainty to issues of probability and speculation. The question of Judas’s motives for his act has intrigued Christians from the time before our earliest sources and continues to intrigue scholars today. The reality is that any discussion of motive is almost entirely speculative. If you can’t accurately describe my motives in writing this particular blog thread the way I have – and I can assure you, you don’t know my motives (and even if I *told* you, you couldn’t be sure! Who knows what I might say or why!) – then you can’t come close to knowing what might have motivated a virtually unknown figure whom you not only have never seen or heard, but about whom you are poorly informed from sources which themselves had no possible access to knowing Judas’s motives.
And so, the Gospels don’t actually help us much here. Mark, our earliest Gospel, does not speculate on Judas’s motives, but does indicate that after he turned Jesus over he was handsomely paid for it. So maybe he wanted the money. That’s explicitly what Matthew’s Gospel indicates, that Judas turned Jesus over out of greed. Luke puts a different spin on the matter and indicates that Satan entered into Judas prior to the betrayal, so in this more theological account of his motives, the Devil made him do it. In John’s Gospel Judas is himself called a devil, and so here one might infer that he does his act of betrayal because he has some kind of inherent mean streak. All four Gospels account for the betrayal differently, and all four were probably just guessing. Modern scholars have come up with other explanations that I don’t need to go into here. Everyone has their favorite and the options are well known to anyone who has put the least work into looking into the matter. But these modern explanations, like their ancient Gospel counterparts, are like them based on nothing more than educated or not so educated guess work.
We are on somewhat more solid grounds, however, when it comes to asking what it is that Judas actually did that led to Jesus’ arrest. I would judge that these grounds are
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!
I should say at the outset that the two Gospel sources that discuss the matter have a simple view of it: Judas showed the authorities where they could find Jesus virtually alone so that they could arrest him without the presence of the crowds gathered together to celebrate Passover. This may indeed be all that Judas did, but I have to admit that I’ve always wondered about it. Maybe I’ve seen too many bad movies and read too many bad detective novels. But if the authorities wanted to arrest Jesus when there weren’t any crowds around, why didn’t they simply do so by having someone follow him and report back? Why did they need to secure the services of one of his followers?
I’m not sure there is a good answer to that, and it makes me wonder if something more significant was going on. Here are the data that I think can contribute to an answer to the problem.
One that might seem irrelevant at first glance, but that is actually the key to the question is that Jesus was executed for calling himself the King of the Jews. I think this is about as certain a historical datum as we can find from the passion narratives of the New Testament. For one thing, it is multiply attested in our sources, all over the map, in a variety of the relevant narratives. Moreover, this is not a datum that the early Christians would evidently have made up, since we have no indication in any early source that the title “King of the Jews” was preferred, or even used, by the early Christians when speaking or thinking about Jesus. In other words, the grounds of the crucifixion pass the critierion of dissimilarity.
But ironically, we have no indication that Jesus publicly portrayed himself as the King of the Jews or called himself the King of the Jews in any of his preaching and teaching. If he ever did so, we have no record of it in our earliest sources. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke – and so far as we can tell, in all of their sources (Q, M, L) – the term King of the Jews does not appear on anyone’s lips until the Passion narrative.
If Jesus didn’t proclaim himself King of the Jews, why did the Roman authorities try him for calling himself King of the Jews? And why, if tried on these grounds, did he not simply deny it, if this is not in fact what he called himself? This is the penetrating question posed by that most penetrating of NT exegetes, Nils Dahl, in his rightly acclaimed and insufficiently studied essay, “The Crucified Messiah”
To answer the question we should reconsider the apocalyptic character of Jesus’ proclamation. For even though Jesus did not publicly proclaim himself the King of the Jews, he did publicly proclaim that there was to be a future Kingdom. By their very nature, kingdoms have kings. Who would be king of the future kingdom? In public, at least, Jesus never said, so far as we can tell from our sources. But he did teach his disciples something about the matter privately. As we have already seen, Jesus told his disciples that they, the twelve, would be the rulers of the twelve tribes of Israel in the future kingdom. And who would rule them?
Jesus was their master in the present evil age. Would he be their master then as well? Did Jesus teach his followers that he would be the future king of the future kingdom, ruling over his vice-gerents just as he was leading them now in the days approaching the coming of the kingdom? That would make sense of all the data that I take to be historically certain: Jesus was killed for calling himself the King of the Jews, he did not actually call himself that in public, but in private he did teach his followers that they would be rulers in the future kingdom, and that he would be the one ruling over them. The Roman authorities learned that this is what Jesus taught, and put him on trial for political sedition, for thinking of himself as the Jewish king when only Caesar could appoint a Jewish king. Why did Jesus not defend himself against the charge? How could he? This is what he actually thought.
But how did the authorities know that this is what Jesus was teaching, if in fact he never taught any such thing in public but only privately to his disciples? One of the disciples must have told the authorities.
Judas Iscariot is known as the one who handed Jesus over to the authorities. But he may have done something far more significant and far more scandalous than indicate where they could find Jesus alone apart from the crowds. He may have revealed the private teachings of Jesus about his own role in the coming Kingdom of God, that in fact he was to be its king. The traditional name for the future king in Judaism, of course, was the term “messiah.” In a sense, then, one could argue that Judas was the first to betray the Messianic Secret of Jesus.
Several obvious objections to this view may occur to you, and as they are obvious I won’t go into them. But I do want to say that this solution to what Judas betrayed makes sense of the relatively certain data that are otherwise very difficult to explain. These are, to repeat: the fact that Jesus was executed for calling himself something that he does not call himself throughout his public ministry of teaching and preaching, that someone must have told the authorities that this is what he was saying about himself, that he evidently never defended himself against the charge, that he must have taught his disciples that they would be rulers of the kingdom, and that he himself would have a special role when the kingdom arrived. Those who adhered to his teachings would be the ones who would enter this kingdom; they would be governed by the twelve disciples; and the twelve would be ruled then, as they were being ruled now, by Jesus, the future King of the Jews.
Judas may have been pressured by a family member who was concerned with his involvement in ostensibly illegal activity, “look, you have to save your own skin by going to the authorities and telling them what you know about this.”
That sort of thing happens nowadays all the time.
But if that was the case, then the perception must have been that association with a seditious rebel was sufficient to be punished in those times, yet none of the 12 were executed along with the leader.
Perhaps Pilate was reluctant to get involved with petty religious politics and the story of a nutter and fringe “rebel” who had no money or actual ability to become king.
It is reasonable to surmise that the temple pharisees despised the Jewish Christians just as much as Paul despised them a few years later on (Paul described his own personal animosity).
There probably were fervent temple pharisees who wanted Jesus (and anyone who thought Jesus was the Christ/Messiah) dead.
Perhaps Pilate saw the whole mess as relatively silly and ridiculous. In the end Pilate might have said, “okay here is the body of the heretic you despise, now shut up, will you?”
But what really happened to Judas?
He appears to have died soon after the event in connection, in some way, with a potter’s field in jerusalem that was (because of the red soil?) the field of blood. I wish we knew the details.disabledupes{8c905ca26fb05520846bddd2c5fc907b}disabledupes
Professor Ehrman,
I know it would just be speculation, but do you have any thoughts about *why* Jesus thought he was the future King?
My sense is that we don’t really know why anyone thinks what they think. They probably don’t either. Thoughts occur! Sometimes we get convinced by them.
What are the “several obvious objections”?
You’ll need to explain the context in which I said that so others can see what you’re asking and I can then answer it (so they see what the objections are too). So, ask again “What are the several objections” to the idea that…. And I’ll give it a go.
Apologies. This was the context:
> In a sense, then, one could argue that Judas was the first to betray the Messianic Secret of Jesus.
> Several obvious objections to this view may occur to you, and as they are obvious I won’t go into them.
What are these “obvious objections”, to whether Judas was the first to betray the Messianic Secret?
Ah, good question! Now I wonder myself what I was thinking!! Maybe that this explanation is not found in any of our sources at all?
1. Is it thought that Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Passover because he thought the son of man was coming during this Passover?
2. So he came to Jerusalem to wait for the coming of the son of man, not to preach his message?
3. I was thinking if he preached his message in the temple area and drew some crowds around him, then the Roman solders would arrest him for at least causing a commotion. So no handing over needed?
4. Did the authorities care if an unknown trouble maker was arrested in public or private?
1 and 2. It’s possible but there’s no way to know; 3. They would have if it was a huge commotion, absolutely. My sense is that it was very small-time, unlike the Gospels indicate, and it irritated the Jewish leaders but wasn’t a big enough event to cause any real consernation. 4. Not if he was unknown. It’s another reason for thinking that Judas’s betrayal was not about simply where Jesus could be found.
Professor Ehrman, do you think that Judas did not believe Jesus when he taught that they, the twelve, would be the rulers of the twelve tribes of Israel in the future kingdom? Why would he, Judas, risk loosing that for 30 pieces of silver?
There are lots of ways that’s been answered; most commonly that he came to see it simply wasn’t going to happen, that Jesus never did take the steps necessary to start a revolt, or that he came to think it was all pie in the sky with not chance of actually taking place.
“He may have revealed the private teachings of Jesus about his own role in the coming Kingdom of God, that in fact he was to be its king.”
Up to that moment, the Pharisees had nothing sufficient to charge Jesus with? Then suddenly it fell into their laps? IMO it passes the common sense threshold.
The Pharisees do not appear to have been involved with Jesus’ arrest or trial; it’s all teh Sadducees and those connected with the temple.
The Pharisees do not appear to have been involved with Jesus’ arrest or trial; it’s all teh Sadducees and those connected with the temple.
Dr. Ehrman – your statements regarding the relative certainty of a few historical aspects of Judas are bold. Thank you for the concise summary of your research.
The story in the Gospels as to “how” Jesus was turned over has two points suggesting a pre-planned, orchestrated event.
First, when Judas leaves the supper, Jesus doesn’t cry out, “Oh by the way, Judas, we will be at the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives at 2 in the morning. Make sure you bring the Sanhedrin guards there and not here!”
The passages describing how Jesus takes the remaining disciples out to this location, and frequently must wake them to be ready for his arrest, makes no mention of shelter, or tents – probably not a place they frequented at night. Jesus must have pre-arranged with Judas where to bring the guards.
Second, Jesus foretells he will be betrayed and by whom at the supper. This suggests pre-arrangement, but it could also simply mean Jesus caught wind of the betrayal beforehand.
I’ve heard that the recently discovered Gospel of Judas also indicates Jesus asked Judas to turn him over to authorities. Is this correct?
Not quite. In the Gsopel of Judas Jesus praises him for being about to do so. “You will exceed all of them [the other disciples] for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”
In this passage is Jesus *telling* Judas he will turn him over rather than *asking*? Doesn’t this still suggest a pre-planned event? If so, it’s interesting that a document that is 1700 to 1900 years old collaborates a pre-planned interpretation of the Canonical Gospel story.
He’s not asking, no; it’s a statement.
I remember reading in Schweitzer’sbook about this conjecture:
A volunteered service to the priests by Judas,revealing secrets.I feel that adding creatively to the perception of Judas’ evil is unnecessary.
In Mark,Judas didn’t ask for money.
Jesus was not questioned by the Sanhedrin as”king of the Jews” but by Pilate.The priests were interested in blasphemy.Jesus provided plenty.
Jesus entered Jerusalem as the King of the Jews.Erratically,Mark says the crowd greeted him with “Hosannah, Son of David”.
No secret was betrayed. Blasphemy,triumphal entry,Temple riot,frequent confrontation with the priests over Jewish law,and the crowds worried them.
Jesus was not caught by Roman soldiers, but by priests and Pharisees.Judas could never have foreseen crucifixion.
Chronologically,the clear intent of the NT writers was to scapegoat Judas.
1.Mark: For no reason we know,with Jesus’ knowledge,Mark approaches the priests.
2.Matthew:Judas wanted money.Here we ” do know the motive”:greed.
3.Luke:Judas was possessed by Satan.In our criminal trials,a defender could say that he lost his mind,snapped,or was manic deppressive,which explains his suicide too.
4.John:Judas was always evil.He was Evil itself.Unfortunately,John is not as historical as we would want him to be,and his bonafide credentials as a Jew hater are abundantly manifest.
Judas( and Jesus),in their lack of political skills and in complete apocalyptic faith made a colossal,tragic mistake.
“Chronologically,the clear intent of the NT writers was to scapegoat Judas.”
That is interesting. Paul seems to indicate the 12 apostles were still a unit when Jesus appeared after death (1Cor15:5-8):
“he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”
Paul would not have indicated that there were 12 apostles after Jesus died if he heard that Judas had fallen out, such that there were now only 11 apostles (unless one of the broader 70 stepped-up to replace Judas).
The 1 Corinthians epistle predates the gospels so perhaps Mark (or a redactor in the 2nd century) was up to no good. Celsus indicated edits were happening: “I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the original writings three, four, and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism.”
I think Paul here is referring to the replacement apostle.
Is there any indication the Roman authorities asked the other eleven disciples about the “you will be rulers” theme? I’d think they would have wanted to be sure the Messianic Message didn’t carry on after Jesus had been removed from the scene. Of course, the message did carry on, so perhaps the Romans just had sloppy police work(*).
(*) Did Rome ever have anything like a secret police force or internal intelligence service? Gestapo, FSB, FBI etc.
No. They didn’t even arrest the others to question them. They thought Jesus was a minor trouble maker so got rid of him. That sometimes happened. If there was a relatively small and obviously powerless group of supporters, there was no reason to go to the bother of wiping them all out. They’ll just go home and start to mind therir own business. And no, in a place like Judea, there wasn’t a lot of espionage going on or needed.
Just an observation:
We can assume that Jesus sayings passed through “anonymous oral tradition” until they were written by “anonymous authors”. But this is actually Just an oversimplification.
To put a more accurate model, we can say that Jesus was preaching in the Jewish community and his teaching propagated within the Nazarene community via the Aramaic language. So, let us imagine that Jesus is in the center and around him a box that we will call the “Nazarenes”. The Greek Christian community stated from about 20 years from the center, so let us imagine a larger box around the “Nazarenes” and let us call this box the “Greeks”.
The sayings of the center propagated in the first box for about 40 years and there were bilinguals who passed these sayings from the first box to the second, and these sayings started to propagate in the second box, and then these sayings (in the second box) have been written by “anonymous authors”.
However, the data about the first box is almost blank. So, from the perspective of the second box, the center is not Jesus, it is the first box.
—–>>
—–>>
Therefore, the attestations and dissimilarities criteria are related to the first box and not to Jesus. These criteria can differentiate the first box sayings from the sayings that were invented in the second box.
So, we can say it is certain that the 12-thrones prophecy is a saying from the first box, regardless whether it is said by Jesus or it was invented later in the first box.
So, there is a need for another set of criteria to analyze the sayings gathered from the first box. For example, prophesies have two types: open-ended and close-ended. The destruction of the temple is open-ended; because even if the temple was not destroyed until now, still the prophecy is not necessarily wrong. The 12-thrones prophecy is close-ended; because it speaks about a specific event in a specific time.
I am assuming (but not sure) that there are one or two close-ended prophecies related to Jesus in the whole gospels. If so, then I can conclude that Jesus is not used to give close-ended prophecies, which could reduce the probability that Jesus have said the 12-thrones prophecy.
Although it may have been a betrayal, I can just as easily see one or more of the disciples boasting around Jerusalem that their master was soon to become the king of the Jews. Oops! A fatal mistake. but it could have been a mistake that got spun into a betrayal. More dramatic that way, and early Christians may have thought that fit better with what they saw as prophecies of it happening (e.g., Psalm 41:9).
Yup, it’s possible! (Maybe Judas in fact!) disabledupes{7dba6f0d8b3342171f583fdc37b86f03}disabledupes
if I were to plays Devil’s advocate (pun intended) and taking the perspective that much of the NT involves a drama “based on a true story,” can you really say that we know WHAT Judas betrayed more than WHY Judas betrayed Jesus. If the dramatic story includes your protagonist (Jesus) and an antagonist (Caiaphas), why not spice up the story with a betrayer (Judas). Plus, the other cast of characters instrumental to the dramatic climax of Jesus’s crucifixion. In fact, as wackadoodle as the NT can be at times, it’s as if Jon Lovitz may have originated the notion that Judas betrayed WHERE Jesus could be found. “Yeah, that’s the ticket.”
But on a serious note, if Jesus wanted to keep this identity secret, why wouldn’t he have at least dazzled Pilate with some sophistry to evade crucifixion. Pilate was pretty clear that he wasn’t playing games. If Jesus expected to become King of Jews as a living, breathing person, you would think he would have done something to stay alive.
Or he may have been in shock, since this isn’t what he thought was going to happen. I wish we knew what was really going on in his head.
Pilate questioned Jesus and Jesus’ response (Mark 15) makes the sage and prophet sound dumb:
2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “You have said so,” Jesus replied. 3 The chief priests accused him of many things. 4 So again Pilate asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.” 5 But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.
This exchange in the earliest gospel is so unimpressive… might that suggest it actually happened (the dissimilarity criterion), or was it part of Mark’s secrecy theology (or maybe it was what actually happened — Jesus was dumbfounded and in shock — but the silence worked for the messianic secret theology)?
It’s not clear to me that it’s dissimilar to what Christians story tellers would have wanted to say. It could be a fulfillment of the idea tha the “suffering servant” of Isa 53 was silent (or didn’t say much). And yes, I think Mark is portraying Jesus as in shock at the end. It gets seriously changed in the Gospel of John! Check that back and forth out!
If we look at the possibility that Judas and Jesus secretly planned without telling the other disciples to use Jesus to draw out the Roman soldiers and Temple Guards out of Jerusalem so the “Barabbas” insurrection could have a better chance of success we will see that all of the actions of Passion Week suddenly make sense including the ignored verses like in Mark where the disciples stop everyone from carrying things in the Temple area. Judas and Jesus’ plan: 1. Jesus acts like he thinks he is the Messiah, 2. Disrupt the sacrifices for the week to get the priest’s attention (they couldn’t eat), 3. Convince the authorities to leave the city. 4. “Barabbas” group attacks gate houses.
Does the criteria of multiple attestation still hold if we consider Matthew to have known Mark, Luke to have known both and John to have known the first 3? Mark Goodacre has made a pretty strong case for it.
It would hold only for traditions in the later Gospels that were not drawn from Mark. E.g., the traditoin of Jesus hanging himself in Matthew isn’t Markan, so either Matthew made it up or it came from M. The traditions of John as to why Judas did it are not in the Synoptics so it either came from another source or he made it up. Acts of course has an entirely different set of stories about Judas’s demise, so they come from a differnet source, or he mad them up. I’m not convinced that Luke knew Matthew or that John knew the three, though I know that *our* Mark (Goodacre) is quite strong on it!
It seems to me the newer crop of scholars is adopting those views along with a late production of Luke-Acts and an even later production of John. I wonder if it’s the force of Goodacre’s arguments or just a cultural swing that may reverse later on.
Perhaps he or Steve mason would be a good guest for something like that? And a back and forth (friendly) debate on why you aren’t convinced likewise. I remember in a previous lecture series in a Q/A you got a bit into it saying the method for Luke hand copying Matthew just doesn’t work. Perhaps scholars hashing it out (cordially) for us laymen will be a good insight into how this textual criticism works.
Yup, I’ve thought about it! Maybe on my Misquoting Jesus Podcast sometime down the line….
I don’t think it is so certain that Jesus called himself King of the Jews, even in private. Is that even a messianic title (king of only Judea instead of all Israel)? King of the Jews is actually old King Herod’s title so perhaps the soldiers were using Jesus’ crucifixion to mock King Herod, knowing that his son (Antipas) would see the sign when entering Jerusalem for the Passover. That may have been Pilate and his soldier’s way of saying to Antipas “This is your father”. In other words, at Pilate’s orders they put that sign above Jesus just to insult Antipas and the Herodians (assuming Pilate hated Antipas as much as Luke 23:12 claims). If so, Pilate may have put that sign on other crucifixion victims whenever he knew Antipas was coming to town. Judas may have wanted Jesus arrested in order to stop a bloody revolt that he feared the Jesus movement might start. But, who knows, perhaps Judas simply had a terrible clash with Jesus and simply wanted revenge.
Yesterday I ordered the New Oxford Annotated Bible. I ordered it from the Oxford University Press website. What are your thoughts on this Bible translation?
It is not a translation but an annotated edition (i.e., it has interoductions to each book, notes to explain confusing issues of interpretation, maps, etc.). The translation it uses is the NRSV. That’s the best translation out there, imo, and this is one of the two best annotated editions in my view, very helpful.
Great! Thanks 🙂
I received my Bible purchase in the mail today. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV).
Are there any significant differences between the RSV and NRSV?
Many many. It took years and years for a committee of internationally known scholars to produce teh NRSV (by revising the RSV). It was a huge undertaking.
Wow!
I was their research grunt for the final three years of the project. Yikes they put in a lot of work….
I noticed in the RSV the Hebrew Bible is called the Old Testament but not so in the NRSV.
The times, they are a’changin’….
Thank you for the blog Bart. Very useful.
Doesn’t this mean that Judas actually help the inception of Christianity to a certain degree? Without his betrayal of jeasus there would not have been the arrest, crusfixion & resurrection.
Yup!
That’s very interesting!
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
What do you think of the impostor hypothesis as an explanation of the resurrection appearances – in particular, as elaborated upon in the “Nature”-praised work “The Gospel of Afranius” (please see the most recent topic in The Historical Jesus section of the Forum – this particular version also accounts for the empty tomb, among other things)? It seems to be a better explanation for mass appearances and also for the lack of recognition (e.g. at the road to Emmaus or Lake of Gennesaret appearances) than bereavement visions?
I don’t think the actual narratives we have of the resurrection appearances need to be explained as to what “really happened” at them, since I don’t think they are historical in any sense. What is historical, in my view, is that some of Jesus’ followers claimed they saw him alive afterward. This is a common phenomenon — living persons “seeing” or “hearing” those very close to them who were recently deceased. Lots of studies on this in the psychological literature. I don’t know of much comparable evidence of intentional impostures (or any, now that I think of it). Bereavement visions happen to about 1/8 of us. So it doesn’t seem implausible ot me. I go into the matter at greater length in my book How Jesus Became God.
Another question:
How did a nobody like Judas Iscariot get an audience with the authorities?
Why would the Romans listen to Judas Iscariot or care what he said about another unknown person such as Jesus?
In these accounts he has dealings with the Jewish authoritiees, not the Roman. I suppose, historically, if the Jewish leadership wanted some grounds for charging Jesus it would make sense for them to contact someone who knew him well.
1. Would the Jewish authorities be the Sadducees?
2. How would they have heard about an unknown Jesus and why would they care about him?
3. Would the Jewish authorities want to turn a fellow Jew over to the Romans for crucifixion?
4. Once a person starts thinking about this entire situation, it seems like we are missing part or parts of the story, right?
5. It would seem to make more sense that Jesus did something to draw attention to himself…start preaching about the son of man coming, the Romans being taken out of power, God’s kingdom being on earth, Jesus being the king, etc. A commotion was created, the Roman soldiers show up, they see Jesus is the ring leader, he’s arrested and crucified.
The story of a kiss from an inside man, the Jewish authorities turning him over to the Romans and then a crucifixion just seems to be made up.
1. Historically, yes? 2. If he causes a ruckus in the temple they would ave been told. 3. Yup, if he was a troublemaker, definitely; 4. Most of it, as in every story from the ancient world. 5. Yup: it was the temple incident.
The temple incident being the commotion of turning over the money changers tables?
Something else? More than one thing?
That’s often thought to be the main thing. And possibly his preaching of the coming end and destruction of the temple.
So the thought is that Jesus caused a commotion in the temple by turn over the money changers tables, started preaching about the end times and possibly saying that he will become king, the Sadducees reported him to the Romans, and the Romans arrested him and crucified him?
yup.
So no turning over or kiss by Judas was needed or even happened?
Depends what he “betrayed.” The standard line is they needed to find him when no one was around, and Judas did that. But it may be that they wanted a capital offense, and claiming to be the king would do that — so maybe that’s what Judas betrayed.
Your theory that Judas betrayed the Messianic Secret makes good sense of the data, but I still wonder if something more had to be going on to bring Jesus to the attention of the authorities. It seems to me a bit of a stretch to claim that Jesus was arrested just on the word of some random dude who walked in off the street and claimed that Jesus was calling, or thinking of himself, as King of the Jews. I know you don’t put any stock in the Triumphal Entry story, but do you think something like the Temple incident would have been enough to make Jesus a wanted man? The authorities must have been concerned that whatever Jesus was doing had the potential to draw crowds and perhaps instigate a riot. To my mind, there had to be something else to get Jesus noticed beforehand, and that what Judas betrayed was more the “icing on the cake”.
I don’t think the Triumphal Entry happened, tho he certainly entered Jerusalem, and possibly some of his followers started rejoicing that the king wsa now coming to his kingdom, and possibly word got out. So too the Temple incident: something happened that maybe got around, tho it would not have been a huge deal. If the authorities got word of a troublemaker, they may well ahve wanted to track him down just to make sure it didn’t turn into something more significant.
Dear Bart,
I hope you don’t mind an off-topic question. I’ve been researching Matthew’s infancy narrative and have thoroughly enjoyed Raymond Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah. In it, he argues that Matthew made use of midrashic traditions in composing the infancy narrative and shows how some of these are found in Philo and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. (Brown1977:114-5)
As we would expect at least a handful of years to pass before Antiquities became available to the author of Matthew, this suggests the infancy narrative could not have been composed much earlier than c100. However, the majority view is that Matthew was composed c85. Do you think this is strong enough evidence to sustain Brown’s hints that the infancy narrative was composed independently and later added to Mt3-28?
Ah, I don’t think he’s saying that Matthew got them from Josephus, but that these traditions were independentlyknown in various sources. Or am I getting that wrong?
My apologies – I have been a little sloppy in my presentation of Brown’s theory. His theory is that Matthew adapted an existing pre-Matthean infancy narrative (a proto-version of the one we find in GMatt), and it is the author of this pre-Matthean infancy narrative who was the one who used parallels of Pharaoh vs Moses from Exodus and Midrashic traditions to flesh out the existing ‘Angel/dream’ framework (see final para on p.111). Matthew then (later) added some more material to this pre-Matthean infancy narrative when he added it to his gospel (which would push this further into the 2nd C).
Although some of these Midrashic traditions of Pharaoh vs Moses can be found in the medieval period, Brown identifies the earliest traditions as found in Philo’s Life of Moses and Josephus’ Antiquities, with most being found in the Antiquities. (p.114)
Unique materials from Antiquities include:
1. Pharaoh learned of Moses’ birth from scribes (cf. Mt2:4)
2. Pharaoh was startled when he learned of Moses’ birth (cf. Mt2:3)
3. Moses’ father learned from a dream that Moses would “deliver the Hebrew race from their bondage in Egypt” (cf. Mt1:21)
None of the peer reviews of Brown’s work have objected to this theory – most praise it.
I forgot to add a question to my last comment. In light of the proposed Antiquities parallels Brown identifies, do you think this is enough to see Matthew’s infancy narrative as an early 2nd C addition to the gospel?
I’m keen to hear what you think, as I know you see Luke’s infancy narrative as secondary, but not Matthew’s, so I’m interested to learn if you’ve ever considered Brown’s theory before.
I”m not convinced about Matthew, no. I’m obviously open to it. But the first two chapters tie so closely to Matthean themes otherwise (unlike Luke’s) (and John’s Prologue) that I can’t see good grounds for thinking the ame author didn’t produce them.
Given the paucity of distinct sources (what wouldn’t you give BTW to have all the texts that were immolated by the first Dictators of Doctrine?) compelling scholarship to “move from the grounds of relative historical certainty to issues of probability and speculation,” your list of five, credible particulars about Judas may, unfortunately, be exhaustive.
Likewise, your speculation that his betrayal of Jesus wasn’t in arranging for a convenient arrest, but in revealing the private conversations he had with his inner circle about the coming kingdom. Absent public pronouncements, that is the only reasonable explanation for the sedition charge.
While Mark does not ascribe a motive, his specific mention of remuneration by the Sanhedrin certainly carries insinuation. Matthew is less reticent, explicitly making this accusation.
In fact, if there is a sixth datum for your list, it is probably safe to say that money must have changed hands.
Luke and John double down on presuming an other-worldly ability to glean Judas’ motive by making it, too, other-worldly, rather than asserting venal greed — perhaps because both authors (IMHO, correctly) recognized how antipathetic that would have been for someone who obviously embraced the group’s itinerant, vagabond lifestyle.
[cont]
I’m more inclined to the hypothesis that “Iscariot” is an allusion to Judas’ former life as a member of the Sicarii, grown disillusioned by Jesus’ overt and uncompromising pacifism.
The key, as you note, may lie in connecting the dots WRT “aspects of the traditions about Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion.”
Reports in the gospel accounts that Pilate was skeptical of the charges against Jesus are entirely plausible. He was probably both disdainful of the Temple leadership and likely suspicious that he was being used by them to take down a harmless preacher who was guilty of nothing more than embarrassing them before hoi polloi.
Though undoubtedly a ruthless governor who wouldn’t have given a withered fig about some peasant, spiritual wannabe from the northern, hinterlands, no one likes being made a cat’s paw. It’s disrespectful. For this reason it may also well be true that he tried to pass the buck to Herod.
If you’d care to start a list of more-likely-than-not facts about the trials (there already being at least two: first by the Sanhedrin and then Pilate), a third one by Herod is, at least, worthy of consideration — notwithstanding that it relies on a sole source.
Hi Bart,
The suicide accounts of Judas, as different as they are, suggest remorse to me. Do you think we can assume that Judas likely committed suicide because of the outcome of his betrayal?
Can we assume that Judas regretted the outcome of his betrayal?
And I guess that might indicate that Judas wanted to speed up the timing of the Apocalypse.
I”m not sure how Judas died. But neither Acts nor Papias indicates that it was a suicide, or suggest remorse.
Do we have any historical instances in the ancient world where religious leaders pay bribes to disadvantage their religious or political adversaries? To me (very much a layman), the stories about Judas accepting 30 shekels of silver always felt more like a later character assassination. “Look at this jerk! He agreed to betray our lord for a paltry sum”
Also, would Judas’s testimony *really* have been enough to have Jesus arrested by the Roman authorities? I understand that the nail in the coffin was Jesus’s refusal to deny the charge, but still. Seems like awfully weak evidence to kick off a trial that could end with capital punishment.
I’m sure there must be loads of instances, but off hand I don’t have them in my head. Actually the 30 pieces of silver would have been a lot; but in any event, it’s meant to be a fulfilment of Scripture — Zech. 11:12-13. And yes, if Judas let them know that he planned to be the future king, it would be enough.
I think the most important key to a solution is the likely link between the Temple Incident and the betrayal. If Jesus arrived to the temple court delivering blissful Sermon On the Mount like speeches, no priesthood would have been out for his scalp and there would have been nothing to betray.
Judas may have not foreseen the buildup of tensions and may have reacted to it as it surprisingly unfolded, mainly driven by Jesus himself. Or else Judas would simply have left the group quietly, way ahead of the festival. So why did he not like the turn of events?
I wish we could get in his head to know!
Is there any significance to the idea that Jesus was to be king of a people, not king of a region, hence “King of the Jews”, not “King of Judea”? I believe later Germanic tribes had kings of people, such as “King of the Visigoths”, but those tribes were somewhat mobile and moved around occasionally. As far as I know, this was not the case with the Jews at the time of Jesus.
It’s a good question and heard to figure out. That term “King of the Jews” is not used prior to these accounts in the Gospels, and it’s a strange term, since “the Jews” were resident of all sorts of regions/areas/lands/cities….
I think one of the most interesting aspects of the betrayal of Jesus and the passion narrative is that all of our authors present us with a very unusual, similar set of circumstances which they inexplicably seem to think speak for themselves (since they provide practically no commentary). It is odd that on many particulars, John agrees with Matthew and Mark: that Judas decided to betray Jesus the anointing in the fashion of the ancient Kings (with oil) and that there is a conflict at this occasion. Apparently the implication was clear as only after this is Jesus asked if He is King of the Jews. There is also broad agreement that Jesus was slapped for blasphemy before the priests regarding His nature. However, two points interest me increasingly. One is the implication that Jesus and Judas had a confrontation about the impending betrayal (explicit in Matthew and John). The second is that the synoptic Gospel writers portray the same confusing behavior in the garden as if it is apparent what is being said. Why should Jesus say, “Watch and pray lest you fall into temptation.” Temptation to do what? And what are they watching for?
I think you need to differentiate what is being indicated in the *story* and what is plausible *historically*. Within the story, they are to keep watch to make sure Jesus is not attacked and they are to pray that they not be tempted to flee if he is.
Naturalistic explanation of why the Judas story is fictive:
1. If he existed at all, he was a literal follower, not a casual supporter. He travel to Jerusalem as a member of the core Jesus group, and believed that Judgement Day was at the door. What is the point of money to someone who believed that? Why would he toss away his chance at eternal paradise after having been a committed Jesus lover?
2. The betrayal at the Garden of Gethsemane hours after the “Last Supper” is inordinately dramatic. It’s the sort of tale that would grow in the telling. Given that the gospels were written a generation+ after the crucifixion, it’s more likely that Jesus wasn’t captured while deep in prayer in a moonlit grotto. I think what may have happened was some fragment of a betrayal story circulated throught the Jesus-believing communities, and after 40 years became legend.
I suspect Jesus was picked up while publicly proclaiming he was the king of Israel. I think the Last Supper, the Judas Betrayal and the Garden narrative is a little too fabulous to be true.
“ I think what may have happened was some fragment of a betrayal story circulated through the Jesus-believing communities….”
Yep, I agree..
Bart’s arguments in https://ehrmanblog.org/does-paul-know-that-judas-betrayed-jesus/
are quite compelling for the conclusion that “Paul makes NO DEFINITIVE REFERENCE to Judas or the betrayal”
But ….
From 1 Cor 11:23-26 we know that Jesus was having dinner , presumably with some of his followers , and then he was “handing over to his fate”.
The fact that in Paul’s account Jesus says “Do this… in remembrance of me.. you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” makes me think Paul’s supper just as Mark’s supper was in fact his “Last”.
So he was having dinner with his companions and all of a sudden … he was crucified.
Mark’s overnight express trial by the council and a Pilate ready to finish the task on the same day sounds to me a little “fabricated”.
But a “historical” betrayal would explain how Jesus was having dinner one night and crucified the day after and since his movement was not as “peaceful” as depicted in the gospels ,they resisted with arms, so there would be no need to wait so much for a trial to crucify him.
Lately I’ve been reading the Gospel of Mark with some care, because I signed up for both James Tabor’s and Bart Ehrman’s Mark course. The passage that has always seemed most intriguing to me is 14:51-52, which is part of the arrest story: “A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.” In trying to learn about those 2 verses, I spent some time researching the possibly (probably?) forged “Secret Gospel of Mark” and found this 1998 article by Miles Fowler,
https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/fowler.html#ref47. Fowler identifies the lightly-clothed youth as the “beloved disciple” and as the resurrected Lazarus, whom Jesus loved and who lived nearby, in Bethany with his sisters Mary and Martha. John 13:23 tells us the beloved disciple was reclining next to Jesus at the Last Supper.
Is it possible that Judas was jealous of the beloved disciple? Did he think Jesus had betrayed him, Judas, and so decided that it was only fair that he should betray Jesus? That he did it with a kiss seems significant.
I think these are valid possibilities, even if Secret Mark is a forgery.
I discuss that passage today on my Misquoting Jesus Podcast (just briefly, in the ending Q&A). Yes, these identifications go back a long way in the discussion of the passage. The problem with saying Judas was jealous of the Beloved disciple is that the latter figure is found only in the Gospel of John, and it’s not clear he’s even a historical figure. If he is he’s not mentioned by the other Gospels and never put in relation to Judas. So who knows?
“But if the authorities wanted to arrest Jesus why didn’t they simply do so by having someone follow him and report back? ”
Absolutely !!!
Of the many inconsistencies of Jesus’s arrest story this is one of the most notorious.
I think that what “Judas” really did was to conduct the Romans to Jesus’s hideout, his movement was not a peaceful one (that’s why the “disciples” were armed in Gethsemane).
In your series of articles about Polycarp martyrdom, you pointed in the first article : “ the account narrates numerous parallels between the deaths of Polycarp and Jesus”.
So it is very interesting that in the “The Martyrdom” Polycarp we can read:
“ it was indeed impossible for him [Polycarp] to remain hid, since those who betrayed him were of his OWN HOUSE …while they who betrayed him should undergo the same punishment as JUDAS”
So Polycarp was hiding and the “betrayer” was the one who conducted the “police and cavalry…with their usual arms” to Polycarp’s hideout.
I think it is by no means impossible that by the time “The Martyrdom” was written there was tradition/gospels about a hiding Jesus and a betrayer Judas telling the authorities where Jesus was hiding.
What I wonder is how did Judas really die? Did he hang himself in Matthew’s account or did he die from a fall in Luke’s account? Both of them suggest a violent end. Has anyone speculated that Jesus’ disciples might have caught up with and murdered him? Needless to say that would not make it into the historical record since no one is going to admit to murder.
There’s yet another account in Papias! I’ll be talking about it on the blog next week or so.
Isn’t it more likely that the Judas betrayal story was a tale that cropped up among later followers to try and focus blame on an evil-doer? After all, why would a Jesus believer opt for money when the End of Days was at the door?
Well, lots of people still do! Think, Prosperity Gospel. But beyond that, one theory is that he did not expect a cosmic end of the age but a coming messiah and was finally convinced that Jesus wasn’t interested in being that one.
Is there any tradition of Judus himself being redeemed? Or is he simply the first apostate ?
I suppose the closest thing is in the Gospel of Judas, where he is superior ot all the other apostles but even so will not be able to enter the blessed place (and *they* have no chance…)
Another commenter pointed out that Judas’s betrayal was a catalyst for Jesus’s messianic sacrifice. If that’s the case, why did early Christians villainize Judas so much? If I remember correctly, it is implied that he was embezzling the apostles funds once or twice in John, and also John has Jesus calling him a “devil”.
Seems to me like Judas was just playing his role in the salvation plan. How did early Christians square their condemnation of Judas with his integral role in kickstarting the faith?
Exactdly. This has always been one of the dilemmas. Or why are the Jewish authorities or even “the Jews” villainized for their part in Jesus’ death. Shouldn’t they be *thanked*? (And since it was Pilate who condemned him and his Roman soldiers who crucified him, why did Christians call *Jews* Christ killers and persecute them? Why not the Italians??)
What about Mark himself?
Mark has Jesus saying:
“To that man through whom the Son of Man is DELIVERED up;
good were it to him if that man had not been born”
(Mark 14:21 – Young’s Literal Translation)
Very strong words !
But Judas was not the only who DELIVERED Jesus , we have also:
The chief priests
“The chief priests.. DELIVERED HIM over to Pilate (παρεδωκαν πιλατι).” (Mark 15:10)
And Pilate
”Pilate, DELIVERED HIM (παρεδωκεν τoν ιησοuν) to be crucified.” (Mark 15:15)
So Judas DELIVERED Jesus to the Chief Priests and they DELIVERED him to Pilate who DELIVERED him to be crucified.
The verb is always the same: παραδίδωμι .
I don’t think it is a coincidence, it is like after Judas’ betrayal the dominoes began to fall..
So, it is Mark 14:21 addressed only to Judas?
To Judas , the chief priests and Pilate?
On the other hand Jesus says “That man”, so it will be difficult to include the chief priests and Pilate in the warning …
But in any case , in Mark’s gospel , for the one who DELIVERED UP the Son of Man, good was it if had not been born.
Have any scholars ever suggested that Judas might have simply wanted to push the movement forward by forcing it into the forefront? That maybe he felt like Jesus was moving too slowly and that forcing a confrontation would force Jesus to act more like the powerful messiah the Jews were anticipating?
Yup, it’s a common view — and you can find it in a number of Jesus movies.