(27 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...In an indirect but very important way, recognizing what Judas actually betrayed is central to understanding the life and death of Jesus. It goes to the heart of his messages and explains why he was crucified. Even so, it is a complicated matter and has not been fully thought out even by many New Testament scholars.
It is commonly supposed, of course, among lay-folk and scholars alike, that Judas indicated to the authorities where Jesus could be found apart from the crowds. Maybe that’s right, even though I do have some doubts about it. Even if it is right, there may be more to it than that. I think the following data are worth bearing in mind, leading to the resolution of the question that I prefer. (At first these data may not seem relevant: but hang in there for a minute!)
- Jesus almost certainly did not publicly claim that he was the messiah during his lifetime; more specifically, he never publicly announced that he was the King of the Jews. In our earliest accounts — esp. Mark — he does *accept* the title messiah in a public setting when asked about it, but only at the very END of his life, at his trial (Mark 14:61-62). And never is the King of the Jews a term Jesus uses of himself in the Gospels during his public ministry. That is key.
The rest of this post is for blog members only. Not a member yet? Free two-month memberships are available for just a couple more days. But even better, for you and the world at large: join for a longer period. The membership fee is low — less than fifty cents a week. And every one of those cents goes to charities dealing with those in need in this time of crisis.
One of the most beautiful of all Messianic “story tellers” was Isaiah. – the child as a sign, the innocent man, despised, rejected, healing the sick, recovering the blind, raising the dead, betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, imprisoned, judged, condemned to a tortuous death – but then raised again and satisfied his sacrifice avails much, and his story is preached to generations not yet born. Written 500 or 600 years before Jesus was born.
I am not sure why Jesus “had” to be betrayed – but he had to live and die as he did.
? Isaiah wrote about events in his time. Later Christian apologists forced historically nonsensical interpretations onto that text like they have wherever else it is convenient to their agendas.
I find it especially interesting that in reconstructions of Q (such as IQP here: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm) that the very last saying of Jesus is the “twelve thrones”.
It’s as if the author of Q had assembled the sayings in chronological order and it was this final saying that got Jesus arrested.
Of course since we don’t have the document we don’t know what else was in it or even the arrangement of the sayings….
The natural question then becomes – why don’t the Gospels say that Judas betrayed the messianic secret?
Well for three of them there is no secret. And Mark probably just didn’t know, since the stories about the betrayal were not being told in relation to a messianic secret, since most story tellers were not saying anything about there *being* a secret.
For the Readers Mailbag:
When do historians apply the criteria of multiple attestation, dissimilarity, embarrassment, etc.? Were these developed specifically for biblical textual criticism, or are they applied more generally? When there is a reference in a scholarly paper, usually only one reliable source is cited, not three for the sake of multiple attestation. Is seems that these criteria are used to interrogate unreliable sources. What makes a source unreliable? Isn’t it a certain kind of unreliability? Dissimilarity and embarrassment won’t help you analyze the testimony of a witness whose memory is simply poor or inaccurate due to a lapse of time. If fundamentalists insist that the Gospels are historically reliable, should they not also argue that this form of textual criticism does not apply?
Ah, really important questions. I’ve had a thread dealing with just the issues you’re asking. Just to a word search for “dissimilarity” and “multiple attestation” and you’ll find them.
So Judas told the Jewish high priest who told Pilate about the messianic secret. That’s the What.
Is there any agreement among NT scholars regarding why Judas spilled the beans?
Is the part of the Last Supper narrative about Jesus’ predicting his betrayal and execution considered authentic (Jesus actually said those words) or is it something that’s made up by whoever wrote the Gospels?
See today’s post.
Dr Ehrman, two unrelated questions.
First, I’ve heard you speak about episodes in the gospels that read better if we presume they started as aramaic sources (I recall your example about the sabbath and the son of man). On this matter I’ve read Maurice Casey’s book on Aramaic sources. While interesting, his retrotranslations seem awefully optimistic. Could you recommed a source on this matter to engage with what was probably originally Aramic in the gospels?
Second, I recently encountered a Christian who argued against leniency in Mark 7: 18 – 19 on matters of food. He claims that Jesus didn’t claim all animals are food, but rather that all foods are clean. Therefore things that were food according to the law became clean (contrasting with the purification rituals of the Jewish authorities), but pork, shellfish and such animals remained unclean because they were never food in the first place. His argument seems compelling. However, I wonder if the distinction between food as only what was present in the law would have been intuitive for the author of Mark. Can we tell from his context or contemporaneous sources that this was indeed the way that the concepts of food and animals were distinguished?
1. I think in most cases it simply can’t be done. I agree: Casey is overly optomistic. 2. Interesting argument. But ancients understood food like we do: anything that can be ingested for nourishment. The issue was never over what is food, but what is appropriate food.
It’s impossible to know, but I wonder if Judas simply blabbed too much. Perhaps he told people, including the wrong people, what Jesus was saying about the coming kingdom and their (the disciples and Jesus) places in it, especially since he and the others probably believed it was going to happen at that Passover. But over time this was amplified into an intentional traitorous act by Judas. Question: Matthew and Luke have Jesus telling the disciples they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, but that’s not in Mark, is it? Q material?
Could be! One always has to weight the possibilities.
But did Judas betray that information voluntarily? I believe Judas was captured by the Temple police and was forced to betray Jesus. Why pay (30 pieces of silver) when you can get that information for free?
See today’s post!
That is a very attractive argument Bart, and might be right; except that, as stated, it explains only half the data.
You explain how Jesus came to be crucified by the Romans as ‘King of the Jews’; and the role that Judas might have had in that.
But, Josephus narrates the prophetic careers of a whole succession of popular apocalyptic figures in these years – Theudas, ‘the Egyptian’, ‘the imposter’ – and how they were violently dealt with by respective Roman governors. In none of these parallels was the leader killed, but his followers left free.
If Judas betrays Jesus as the one claiming to rule the rulers on the twelve thrones of Israel; then he equally dobs-in those aspiring to be seated on those twelve thrones.
How come Jesus dies, and the Twelve don’t?
Theudas was indeed killed. So was Bar Kochba. Romans didn’t have federal legislature do deal with such things, only local practices. But why not the twelve is an excellent question. It’s almost certainly because they were *not* calling themselves kings. Comparable to John the Baptist. He was killed but his followers were not.
Not really a parallel Bart; John the Baptist was not executed by the Romans; and it is most unlikely that he ever claimed kingly authority of any sort.
In any case, how the Romans dealt with anyone they saw as representing a threat to their control was not at all sensitive to ‘local practices’; a point that you have yourself made frequently on several occasions.
I am inclined to think that Judas did betray Jesus to the authorities; but kept to himself the bit about the twelve apostles sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes. Informers are commonly forgiven some elements of culpability with those they betray;but such indulgence is limited. That logion might have got all the Twelve on crosses – Judas included.
He was executed by a ruling authority authorized by the Romans, which of course, is what Pilate was as well (his authority came from his appointment to be governor, not from being a Roman). And yes, Romans were sensitive to local situatoins — what I mean by that is that htere was no federal law that required rulers to do one thing or another with dangerous individuals or troublemakers. Each one, in his own locality, made a decision.
Was John the Baptist calling himself the future king?
No indeed. I’m explaining why someone who is seen as a trouble maker might be killed without his followers also being killed. The Romans often just killed the offender. Sometimes they went after their followers as well, but that was a local decision based on all sorts of factors (such as the size and violent views of the crowd, etc.)
Since Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and John did not claim to be the future king of the Jews, how did Jesus decide that he was to be the king of the Jews after John’s death and taking over John’s ministry?
We don’t know. But I will say that followers very often move off in directions different from their teachers, mentors, advisors and so on. In fact, all the time. Billy Graham, Sun Yun Moon, Mohammed, Jim Jones, Buddha — all had mentors they followed, but became very different people themselves. I suppose it’s rooted in personality and personal charisma?
Thanks, Dr. Ehrman,
I have heard you take this line before and I find it compelling. Judas is one of the most interesting characters in the entire bible, yet shrouded in mystery. I can remember being a child in Catholic grade school and wondering just what the heck Judas did that was so wicked. To me, the story that Judas’s grave sin was to expose Jesus’ location on a public hill on a specific night did not seem like such a big deal. Intuitively I knew there were pieces missing from the story. What *does* make sense is why Church leaders would want to downplay the political/practical aspects of the betrayal and focus on the implied spiritual aspects.
Long story short, I went through 8 years of Catholic grade school, 4 years of Jesuit High School, and four years of Catholic College with no idea what the real “meat” of Judas’ betrayal was.
Next question is *why* Judas undertakes this endeavor.
Yup! Today’s post!
When I first read this in one of your books, it all made sense. It explains Jesus’ evasive answers to Pilate ( if they are historical) as someone not wanting to incriminate themself yet also not tell a lie.
Dr. Ehrman, I wonder if you might extend your posts on Judas to include the Last Supper in general? If Paul received his knowledge in a dream/vision directly from God (1 Cor 11), is it possible that the synoptic gospels built their accounts on what Paul wrote earlier? Or, were there other independent accounts orally floating around? Is it possible that none of them are records of what was said? Since so much of Christian liturgy and theology has been centered around those few words, the historicity or lack of it would seem to be hugely important. PLEASE, your views and studies on this would be very important to me (and a few thousand others, I would guess).
Interesting idea. 1 Cor. 11 does not necessarily mean he received his understanding from a vision, though. He could have received his information “from the Lord” by means of human intermediaries, just as people today say: God says that xxx, and what they mean is that they read that in a book written by others (e.g., the New Testament). The problem is that the Gospels show almost zero evidence that their authors knew the writings of Paul, so they do not appear to have gotten their sotires from him. Plus, famously, Paul tells almost NONE of the stories int he Gospels (just this one, actually!)
I agree. That seems to be the most logical conclusion.
Would Jesus have been killed simply for making this claim, or was is it likely there was more to it? Such as causing a disturbance or having a sizable following? If he was just a small time peasant from Galilee, might he have simply been laughed out of the Temple?
The claim itself would have been enough, but the action inthe temple and the fact people were sometimes listening to him were probably contributing factors.
I’m convinced this is exactly right: Judas betrayed the messianic secret, and that gave them the legal basis for Jesus’ death. Albert Schweitzer, of course, made a similar argument in The Quest of the Historical Jesus. It’s critical for the history of Christianity that Jesus not only died, not only was executed, but that he was executed *as* the Messiah. The key notion of the crucified messiah is grounded in that historical event. That is the key connection between the ministry of Jesus and the preaching of the early church.
Mark Plunkett!!! Ha! Yes he did. I came up with the idea at one point and for years didn’t realize I had gotten it from Schweitzer, implanted in my brain without my remembering it. Luckily I never claimed I came up with the interpolation of the Bloody Sweat myself….
Aha!
Dr. Ehrman,
The conclusion makes perfect logical sense. Do you have a speculation to why Judas would want to betray his teacher? The NT leads me to think it is about greed and the devil, but do you think greed and the devil is the whole story? I know that we can’t KNOW the exact personal reason Judas would betray Jesus, but I enjoy your thoughts.
Thanks, Jay
See today’s post!
Wish there was an Edit function of worth. I can’t remove the comment that Isaiah did not speak of the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver – that was Zechariah. To gain a comprehensive picture of the Messiah as Redeemer would entail going through many, if not all, of the Old Testament books.
The edit function is “proofreading” 🙂
Just a couple of quick questions. Maybe it’s not that hard to explain, but I always wondered if the disciples all fled after Jesus’ arrest, how would they know what was inscribed on the titulus? None of them were presumably anywhere near his place of trial (if there was one) or execution, for good reason. Were some of Jesus’ women followers there, as tradition says, who later told the disciples? Was it just a good assumption based on what he had already told them? Word of mouth?
A related point – if, as Dale Martin believes, Peter or another of his disciples really brandished and apparently used a sword at Jesus arrest, why wasn’t he arrested as well? For that matter, why wasn’t the whole group of them arrested or simply killed on the spot? Were they faster runners than the Temple Guard and/or Roman soldiers who took Jesus into custody, or, somehow, didn’t they see his disciples as a threat? I realize this is probably unanswerable – just thinking out loud, so to speak.
Exactly. They wouldn’t. They just knew why he was killed.
And yes, that’s the precisely the problem with thinking that Jesus’ followers put up an armed defense. I talk about the issue in my book Jesus Before the Gospels.
Dr. Ehrman,
I don’t disagree with you when it came to Jesus’s arrest for claiming to be king of the Jews. I believe that’s exactly what they used to charge him with a crime. But with that being said, I feel that there’s more to this story. Two passages in the New Testament stand out that imply that Jesus had enemies and we’re always out to get him way before he entered Jerusalem. Paul indicates that Jesus had enemies in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. In Mark 14:1-2 indicated that a conspiracy was planned ahead to arrest Jesus. So my question in a previous blog I asked, if it was possible that Judas Iscariot was part of a espionage plot to get Jesus? Could it be possible that he was Jesus’s enemy from the beginning?
Yes, it’s certainly possible. But there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it, and Jesus at least considered him a loyal follower. So one would need to think of reasons to think so…
Judas Iscariot as you described, was considered by Jesus to be a loyal follower. With that all being said, all 12 of his disciples fled the scene when Jesus was being brought on charges for claiming to be king of the Jews. What is striking is that none of the disciples were with him while he was being charged and then crucified. It makes one wonder what type of following Jesus had? It’s amazing that none of his closest followers would help defend him and go down with him. So I ask you, did Jesus’s followers actually believe what Jesus said or was his ministry complicated?
It was definitely complicated, but my sense is that hte twelve, except Judas, were fully on board. They fled because they realized that they had been wrong and could pay a very heavy price for supporting a messianic pretender.
Hi, Bart. Have you read Mark Goodacre’s Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics yet?
It is excellent!
If so, have you abandoned your belief in the independence of the Gospel of Thomas from the synoptic gospels?
I haven’t read it yet, but I’ve heard him talk about it. So, no, not yet! (Of course a good bit of Gospel of Thomas *is* independent of the Synoptics even if you think he had access to them)
Bart: “Of course a good bit of Gospel of Thomas *is* independent of the Synoptics even if you think he had access to them.”
Of course. Familiarity with the work of prior authors is already a step toward becoming a good author of one’s own ideas.
Sure is. And so are other sources of information. the striking thing about the non-Synoptic materials in Thomas is precisely now *unlike* the Synoptic materials they are.
Bart: “Sure is. And so are other sources of information. the striking thing about the non-Synoptic materials in Thomas is precisely now *unlike* the Synoptic materials they are.”
Sure. The issue is whether or not ‘Thomas’ or any of his sources are in any way, directly or indirectly, dependent upon the synoptic gospels. If there is even indirect dependence, it cannot support a claim of independent attestation. It is still a fascinating text to study in its own right. Perhaps even more so.
If he used the Synoptics for the synoptic-like material, then the non-synoptic like material would be independent.
Bart: “If he used the Synoptics for the synoptic-like material, then the non-synoptic like material would be independent.”
Unless he or his tradition created the non-synoptic material while nonetheless also being aware of some synoptic material. We should also allow for familiarity and creativity to exist side-by-side. Surely you would not deny that, would you?
I would agree, yes; he may have made a lot of things up. But I think it’s a mistake to imagine early Christianity as having three sources for the life of Jesus and be focused on how all other sources relate to those three in particular. It was much bigger and messier than all that, and just doesn’t seem that way because we have the Synoptics and not hte other hundreds (literally hundreds) or oral and written sources available at the time. For me it’s kinda like having only three writings from Colonial America and then finding another and asking how it used one of the three in virtually everything it says….. (Not a precise analogy, but just to make a point)
Bart: “… I think it’s a mistake to imagine early Christianity as having three sources for the life of Jesus and be focused on how all other sources relate to those three in particular. It was much bigger and messier than all that, and just doesn’t seem that way because we have the Synoptics and not hte other hundreds (literally hundreds) or oral and written sources available at the time. For me it’s kinda like having only three writings from Colonial America and then finding another and asking how it used one of the three in virtually everything it says….. (Not a precise analogy, but just to make a point)”
I absolutely agree about the unknown chaotic messiness beyond our ability to reconstruct at this point. I would never say that the synoptic gospels were the only sources available to other Christian writers. But to claim that Thomas was not aware or familiar with any of the synoptic gospels or the oral tradition influenced by the synoptic gospels is an unjustified bias. Occam’s razor is epistemological, not ontological. We do not know that Thomas was unfamiliar with the synoptics and there are indeed indications that he might have been.
I wouldn’t say it is a bias. I started out thinking otherwise and then after looking at the matter closely for years came to that conclusion.
Bart: “I wouldn’t say it is a bias. I started out thinking otherwise and then after looking at the matter closely for years came to that conclusion.”
Would love to hear you and Mark Goodacre discuss this here. Even moreso his book on John and the synoptics when it comes out. When you started out thinking otherwise, was that when you were still a fundamentalist? What was the last point before you went over to the dark side?
I doubt if I had *heard* of the Gospel of Thomas as a fundamentalist! I think all through grad school I assumed it was dependent, up till my first years of teaching.
Bart: “I doubt if I had *heard* of the Gospel of Thomas as a fundamentalist! I think all through grad school I assumed it was dependent, up till my first years of teaching.”
So when did you become convinced that the gospel of John was not even indirectly dependent (eg, secondary aurality) on any of the synoptic gospels, thus allowing you to make significant claims of independent attestation?
Grad school.
Really, I think the entire problem (I didn’t htink this yet in grad school) is that since we have four Gospels, all we’re intereseted in is those four Gospels, and assume that everything is related to those. If we knew of 100 Gospels from the first century, we would never say, when we found the 101st, “now, how does it related to these particular three?” We’d say, “how does it relate to any or all the others?”
Bart: “Really, I think the entire problem (I didn’t htink this yet in grad school) is that since we have four Gospels, all we’re intereseted in is those four Gospels, and assume that everything is related to those. If we knew of 100 Gospels from the first century, we would never say, when we found the 101st, “now, how does it related to these particular three?” We’d say, “how does it relate to any or all the others?”
Again, I completely agree! It’s always easy to support one’s view if we can assume 100 hypothetical entities. But, on the other hand, in this hypothetical situation, we would certainly not argue that none of these gospels were completely independent of all of the others to make a facile claim of multiple independent attestation. Do you not see the problem with your view?
I don’t think it’s a facile claim, no. I think that the default position for any two pieces of writing is independence, especially in the ancient world, where writings as a rule were not in wide circulation, and that the burden of proof is on someone who wants to argue dependence. With, say, Matthew and Mark, the proof is abundant. With, say, John and Mark? I’d say not.
Bart: “I don’t think it’s a facile claim, no. I think that the default position for any two pieces of writing is independence, especially in the ancient world, where writings as a rule were not in wide circulation, and that the burden of proof is on someone who wants to argue dependence. With, say, Matthew and Mark, the proof is abundant. With, say, John and Mark? I’d say not.”
Sorry, but you’ve understandably lost the line of thought being pursued here and completely missed the point. In your hypothetical scenario of “100 Gospels from the first century,” there is much less chance that any and all of these gospels would be completely independent of each other. In that hypothetical context of yours, a claim of independent attestation would be facile.
Trying to shift the burden of proof onto a claim of direct literary dependence is also a no doubt unintentional misrepresention of the counter position to independent attestation, which only requires the possibility or probability of indirect famililiarity, eg, secondary aurality. When Mark, Matthew, and Luke all promulgate a story of the cleansing of the temple, the claim that John provides completely independent attestation to a pre-Markan tradition becomes less likely.
My view is that of the 100 Gospels of the first century, many of them *would* be dependent on others. But there’s no reason to think that each of the 96 others of them should be thought to be directly related to just four of them in particular. I disagree about John and the temple. By the time of John, this was a story well known to many hundreds of Christians. not because they had all read three Gospels in particular, but because it was a popular story that had been told by three people out of the hundreds of hundreds. There’s no reason to think that John must have gotten it from one of those three in particular. he could have gotten it from any one of hundreds and hundreds of others. If we choose to think that he based it on something that he heard from one of these three in particular, we need very good evidence of it.
Bart: “My view is that of the 100 Gospels of the first century, many of them *would* be dependent on others. But there’s no reason to think that each of the 96 others of them should be thought to be directly related to just four of them in particular. …”
I’m afraid you’re still missing the point so I won’t try to pursue the matter further, other than to clarify:
I am NOT insisting or implying or inferring that each of the 96 others were literarily dependent upon just four of them in particular. I am saying that there is no reason to believe that any of them were completely independent of any of the others, even going so far as to deny the possibility of indirect dependence.
It seems like you’re stuck in a anti–direct-literary dependence discussion and not really looking at the question of secondary aurality and how it creates a problem for the claim of independent attestation, especially when you hypothesize ‘100 gospels in the 1st century’.
I officially give up (1 Cor 5,5).
OK, I’ll give up after this. But my view is indeed the opposite, in general: in the ancient world, given what we know about book production and distribution, there is in general no reason to assume one author was known to another who lived later. As an example, I think there is not a shred of evidence that the authors of the Gospel and letters of John knew anything at all about Paul’s letters, even though Paul wrote them thirty years or more earlier.
If we assume Jesus was a very prescient, compassionate but completely human individual, this proclamation of being a future ruler of the 12 tribes strikes me as quite delusional for an itinerant, peasant preacher. Is it possible that one of the greatest influencers in western civilization had such an impact because his delusions of grandeur were paired with wonderful insights about the human condition?
I’d say that given our very limited sources, it’s impossible to do a psychological evaluation.
Great reading.
To talk about the 12 disciples and 12 tribes of Israel, with Jesus leading them in a new Kingdom,this reminds me a bit about Gnostic cosmology. For me, (without) taking a Gnostic stand at all, I wounder if the Gnostic 12 Aeons created as the desired expansion / eminence of the “Son” / “Son of God” / Christ, often described as 12 angles or described as quality of mind / heart. In their system, our soul is desitny to reunite with the 12 minds / Aeons / extension of Christ, and for them, there is where the future kingdom is.
Well, who knows, but at least many Christians believed this at least in the first centuries after Jesus.
I even read somewhere, once that the Essene teacher was organized around 12 disciples.
Concerning Judas. From an ecclesiastical perspective, I really can’t see that it was a betrayal at all. It was a fulfillment of a destiny. It must be one of the most important destinies in the Christian faith. If Judas did not “betray” Jesus and broke this deed, then who would he betray according to this view? ,,,,, all of humanity?
What I keep wondering: how did Jesus ever get the idea that he was so very, very, special? It probably was not a common or usual thing for a young man in those days to imagine that he would someday be made “King of the Jews” in a kind of divine promotion deal as the kingdom of God arrived– and soon at that! Delusional is all I can imagine. Maybe a temporal lobe epileptic, as Paul might well have been. And then, even granting Jesus was charismatic, to convince people you are about to be made King of the Jews is quite amazing. It does not really seem plausible. Some important part of the picture must still be missing.
I wish we knew. Of course we could ask that of lots of people, some of them famous….
If “you twelve will be seated on twelve thrones ruling the (twelve) tribes of Israel” is problematic for early christians shouldn’t we expect it to be removed from later gospels?
A major point of critical scholarship is that there was not a consistent editorial removal of everything that was problematic. If there were the traditions would be completely uniform and there would be no problem texts. But there are. So clearly this was not an organized top-down effort but rather random and occasional. Which makes sense, if we understand how storytelling and writing worked in the ancient world. There was no bureaucracy running the show, issuing demands, and making sure it’s editorial policies were consistently implementented.
Regarding the 12 future rulers statement, you say “passes the criterion of dissimilarity with flying colors.” Would they dare say 11 even if this supposed statement from Jesus was made up? Keeping the consistency of numeric superstitions seemed important in ancient writings, particularly the number 12.
Oh, yes, they would have no qualms in phrasing it like this “Eleven of you will be seated on thrones…. For he knew that one of them was a devil” (e.g., something like that is in John 6:70)
Yes a later editor might on occassion write something that seems earlier than the original author.
But if there’s many examples of Matthew and Luke both having a version that looks earlier that Mark’s it looks bad for Markan priority.
The problem is that neither historical nor literary analysis bases itself on “looks like.” Analysis requires considering all the evidence and in each and every case waying all sides, not picking a datum here or there without firm criteria. Have you read a full account of the evidence? You’re really interested in these things, so you might enjoy it!
Not sure there is a full account of the evidence anywhere though? Don’t think anyone does justice to evidence for matthean priority.
There are massive studies devoted to the issue. I would suggest, yet again, that you read the literature about it. Scholars used to hold to Matthean priority with regularity, going back to ancient Christianity.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
Why was crucifixion the method of execution for Jesus?
Was it the most common method used by the Romans at that time?
Or did it have to do with the charge brought against Jesus?
Thanks and Best Regards
Moosa
That’s the common method Romans used for lowlifes, slaves, and insurrectionists.
Good day, Dr. Ehrman, my name is Edward Murphy.
I was wondering whether it might seem to you as though Jesus had been planning to storm the Temple and take it by force. I keep trying to go over in my mind why Jesus would’ve had those swords with him in the garden and it would also explain his threats to destroy the temple and raise it up again in three days. The Gospel writers add the interpretation to that saying, explicating that what Jesus meant by the threat was that the Tempe referred to was the temple of his body.
I think that Jesus’ threat to destroy the Temple was meant literally, and I think this because the Gospel has to offer an explanation as to why the Temple was NOT destroyed by suggesting that Jesus was making a metaphor. If this threat had been included int he Gospels before the destruction of the Temple, there would’ve been no need for the author to have included an interpretive gloss.
I doubt it. It’s kind of like my thinking I can walk onto a high school football field on a Friday night and start yelling and turning over some concession stands, with security guards around, seriously thinking that I would be able to make them stop playing the game.
Thank you for your consideration, Professor. I just read your recent blog post regarding the reason why he and his disciples brought swords into the garden of Gethsemane. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Not that you need any validation from me, I just wanted to acknowledge that you’ve won me over. Hahah!
What do you make of the name “Iscariot”? If it means Kerioth would that make him the only one of the 12 not from Galilee?
In your view why would they put him in charge of the group’s funds and not, say Matthew, who (presumably) actually understood money? Do you think it implies some sort of education or relative sophistication of Judas vis a vis the other 11? If so, it helps make your point he was along to be a “ruler” and looked to escape when it became clear that wasn’t going to happen (and if Acts is to be believed he sort of did).
I posted on that in the recent thread. Search for “Iscariot” on teh blog and you’ll see.
Dr. Ehrman, I have long wondered why Judas was ever named as a betrayer of Jesus for money.
He was, after all, the finance guy for Jesus’ ministry (“had the bag”) and could have embezzled all he wanted well before the Last Supper.
Then, with absolutely no evidence offered, John’s gospel has Judas gratuitously accused of actual embezzling.
Finally, Judas is the one who says – justifiably – that the cost of ointments could be better used for the poor.
Do you think Judas was railroaded?
Possibly. But I would say that the idea he was the finance guy may have been part of the “invented story” to explain his attachment to money.