Was Judas Iscariot a historical figure?

[fantome profane]

There have been so many threads on this board about the historical status of Jesus. So I thought it might be interesting to see how people stand on the historical status of another significant figure in the gospel narrative.

So is there any good evidence for the existence for the historical figure of Judas?

Or is there any good reason for thinking he is fictional?

 

[fallingblood]

There have been so many threads on this board about the historical status of Jesus. So I thought it might be interesting to see how people stand on the historical status of another significant figure in the gospel narrative.

So is there any good evidence for the existence for the historical figure of Judas?

Or is there any good reason for thinking he is fictional?

Bart Erhman, in his blog, just recently talked about Judas. He believes that Judas, or a Judas like figure in fact did exist.

One of the main reasons that it is quite sure that Judas existed as it is an embarrassing story. One of Jesus's inner circle turns on him, and basically leads him to the slaughter. It shows that Jesus made a grave mistaken while judging Judas's character.

The story is also multiply attested. The synoptics, as well as John, agree that Judas was a disciple, and betrayed Jesus. Paul also makes a brief mention of Jesus being betrayed by one of his own.

 

[Breathe]

I'd like to tick both:

There was probably a Judas, but we cannot be certain.
There is no way to know about a minor character so long ago.

I think a Judas-like character would have exited for the reasons fallingblood above me mentioned. I do think there is a high possibility some of his story may have been altered though.

 

[fantome profane]

Bart Erhman, in his blog, just recently talked about Judas. He believes that Judas, or a Judas like figure in fact did exist.

One of the main reasons that it is quite sure that Judas existed as it is an embarrassing story. One of Jesus's inner circle turns on him, and basically leads him to the slaughter. It shows that Jesus made a grave mistaken while judging Judas's character.

The story is also multiply attested. The synoptics, as well as John, agree that Judas was a disciple, and betrayed Jesus. Paul also makes a brief mention of Jesus being betrayed by one of his own.

Interesting. It seems you have to pay for Bart's blog, but the money goes to not to Bart but to charity. That is an interesting idea, I probably will sign up.

So I haven"t read his blog yet. But I have heard the argument about something being true be cause it is "embarrassing" used in various apologetics for various subjects and i have never found that argument compelling. People do add just such elements to fictional stories specifically for the reason that it makes them sound more realistic. I think Bart himself makes a similar point in his book "Forged".

But the point that this element of the story is present in all four gospels and that Paul mentions the betrayal is a good point in favour of his existence. I'm still a bit on the fence however.

 

[outhouse]

I went with there is no way to know.


Judas stories in gospel contradict each other, not only that certain passages make it sound like Jesus told Judas what to do, as Jesus may have wanted to become a martyr.

WE also have Jewish Proselytes/Gentles writing negatively about Judaism, making the name Judas to stand for Judea, it could be fiction.

You also have Zealots or Galileans that had a history of being so passionate about the traditional Jewish laws that they were willing to die for them.


Jews took a bad rap, there was a rift in Judaism between Hellenistic Judaism like the Saducees who were corrupt and worked hand in hand with Romans, The Pharisees were divided along Hellenistic lines as well. Jesus cleansing of the temple was over the Roman infection in the temple which was a Hellenistic infection. IN Galilee there was also a SEVERE socioeconomic divide between Hellenistic Judaism in Sephoris where Hellenistic Jews lived in oppulance and were Herods hand appointed croney's, while a short 4 miles away was Nazareth a poor oppressed village, as well as Capernaum that was poor. WE have Jesus teaching in these poor oppressed villages avoiding these rich Hellenistic centers. We also have hi sparables where jesus is fighting for the very poor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

Another conflict was cultural, between those who favored Hellenization and those who resisted it

 

[outhouse]

There have been so many threads on this board about the historical status of Jesus. So I thought it might be interesting to see how people stand on the historical status of another significant figure in the gospel narrative.

So is there any good evidence for the existence for the historical figure of Judas?

Or is there any good reason for thinking he is fictional?

Reading this will help solve a complicated issue.

Judas Iscariot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spong's conclusion is that early Bible authors, after the First Jewish-Roman War, sought to distance themselves from Rome's enemies. They augmented the Gospels with a story of a disciple, personified in Judas as the Jewish state, who either betrayed or handed over Jesus to his Roman crucifiers. Spong identifies this augmentation with the origin of modern Anti-Semitism.

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, suggests that in the New Testament, the name "Judas" was constructed as an attack on the Judaeans or on the Judaean religious establishment held responsible for executing Christ.[53] The English word "Jew" is derived from the Latin Iudaeus, which, like the Greek Ιουδαίος (Ioudaios), could also mean "Judaean".

The Sins of the Scripture, by John Shelby Spong, investigates the possibility that early Christians compiled the Judas story from three Old Testament Jewish betrayal stories. He writes, "...the act of betrayal by a member of the twelve disciples is not found in the earliest Christian writings. Judas is first placed into the Christian story by the Gospel of Mark (3:19), who wrote in the early years of the eighth decade of the Common Era." He points out that some of the Gospels, after the Crucifixion, refer to the number of Disciples as "Twelve", as if Judas were still among them. He compares the three conflicting descriptions of Judas's death — hanging, leaping into a pit, and disemboweling — with three Old Testament betrayals followed by similar suicides.

 

[fantome profane]

Reading this will help solve a complicated issue.

Judas Iscariot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spong's conclusion is that early Bible authors, after the First Jewish-Roman War, sought to distance themselves from Rome's enemies. They augmented the Gospels with a story of a disciple, personified in Judas as the Jewish state, who either betrayed or handed over Jesus to his Roman crucifiers. Spong identifies this augmentation with the origin of modern Anti-Semitism.

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, suggests that in the New Testament, the name "Judas" was constructed as an attack on the Judaeans or on the Judaean religious establishment held responsible for executing Christ.[53] The English word "Jew" is derived from the Latin Iudaeus, which, like the Greek Ιουδαίος (Ioudaios), could also mean "Judaean".

The Sins of the Scripture, by John Shelby Spong, investigates the possibility that early Christians compiled the Judas story from three Old Testament Jewish betrayal stories. He writes, "...the act of betrayal by a member of the twelve disciples is not found in the earliest Christian writings. Judas is first placed into the Christian story by the Gospel of Mark (3:19), who wrote in the early years of the eighth decade of the Common Era." He points out that some of the Gospels, after the Crucifixion, refer to the number of Disciples as "Twelve", as if Judas were still among them. He compares the three conflicting descriptions of Judas's death — hanging, leaping into a pit, and disemboweling — with three Old Testament betrayals followed by similar suicides.

Thank you. While I think this is a valid argument I don't find it sufficient to "solve the issue".

 

[outhouse]

Thank you. While I think this is a valid argument I don't find it sufficient to "solve the issue".

My mistake. It cannot really be solved.

Read the whole link and understanding both sides, is as good as it will ever get.

 

[steeltoes]

Interesting. It seems you have to pay for Bart's blog, but the money goes to not to Bart but to charity. That is an interesting idea, I probably will sign up.

So I haven"t read his blog yet. But I have heard the argument about something being true be cause it is "embarrassing" used in various apologetics for various subjects and i have never found that argument compelling. People do add just such elements to fictional stories specifically for the reason that it makes them sound more realistic. I think Bart himself makes a similar point in his book "Forged".

But the point that this element of the story is present in all four gospels and that Paul mentions the betrayal is a good point in favour of his existence. I'm still a bit on the fence however.

Paul does not mention his betrayal per ce. The word used can also mean delivered up and is used that way in another epistle, Hebrews, if I remember correctly. The translation that suggests a Judas type betrayal is jumping the gun since there is no mention of Judas in any epistle.

 

[steeltoes]

Bart Erhman, in his blog, just recently talked about Judas. He believes that Judas, or a Judas like figure in fact did exist.

One of the main reasons that it is quite sure that Judas existed as it is an embarrassing story. One of Jesus's inner circle turns on him, and basically leads him to the slaughter. It shows that Jesus made a grave mistaken while judging Judas's character.

The story is also multiply attested. The synoptics, as well as John, agree that Judas was a disciple, and betrayed Jesus. Paul also makes a brief mention of Jesus being betrayed by one of his own.

Surely you must know by now that the gospels are not independent sources.

Being quite sure due to embarrassment is embarrassing in itself.

 

[fallingblood]

Interesting. It seems you have to pay for Bart's blog, but the money goes to not to Bart but to charity. That is an interesting idea, I probably will sign up.

So I haven"t read his blog yet. But I have heard the argument about something being true be cause it is "embarrassing" used in various apologetics for various subjects and i have never found that argument compelling. People do add just such elements to fictional stories specifically for the reason that it makes them sound more realistic. I think Bart himself makes a similar point in his book "Forged".

But the point that this element of the story is present in all four gospels and that Paul mentions the betrayal is a good point in favour of his existence. I'm still a bit on the fence however.

Bart's blog is definitely worth the money if for no other reason than to support the charities he is working with.

The criterion of embarrassment (actually, I believe it is called the criterion of dissimilarity, but since I already started with the term embarrassment, I will continue with that) on it's own is not compelling. I agree with you there. As you pointed out, people can add such fictional elements to stories. With this particular case though, it is doubtful that a disciple being a betrayer would be created. It shows that Jesus was not very powerful, if he couldn't even keep his inner circle in line. It casts Jesus in a bad light, as he clearly wasn't very good at judging people. But mostly, it shows that Jesus was wrong. He claimed that his disciples would rule with him (sit at his right hand). All throughout the Gospels, he talks about the continuance of the 12 as well, and there importance. Yet, he was wrong, as the 12 was broken up.

 

[fallingblood]

Surely you must know by now that the gospels are not independent sources.

Being quite sure due to embarrassment is embarrassing in itself.

Actually they can be. Sure, the Gospels share some sources, but not all. Scholars agree that the synoptics and John are independent. They also agree that there is material in Matthew and Luke that is independent or special.

For this case, Paul independently attests to a betrayer. Mark and John independently attest that Judas was a betrayer. Matthew and Acts have independent attestations that Judas was a betrayer, and killed himself. There is quite a bit of independent attestations to Judas.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually they can be. Sure, the Gospels share some sources, but not all. Scholars agree that the synoptics and John are independent. They also agree that there is material in Matthew and Luke that is independent or special.

But do you believe that the references to Judas in the synoptic gospels are independent of each other? Or are those references the parts that come from a common source?

 

[Father Heathen]

There was probably a Judas, but we cannot be certain.
There is no way to know about a minor character so long ago.

Minor? He was integral to Jesus being crucified, and thus integral to our salvation. On top of that, whereas Jesus was dead for 3 days and then ascended to heaven, Judas was condemned to eternal damnation, so his sacrifice was the greatest in ensuring our salvation.

 

[outhouse]

The criterion of embarrassment (actually, I believe it is called the criterion of dissimilarity,.

Nope

There is double dissimilarity though.

Much different then criterion of embarrassment

 

[fallingblood]

But do you believe that the references to Judas in the synoptic gospels are independent of each other? Or are those references the parts that come from a common source?

I would say that in Matthew and Luke, the large portion of the story of Judas is dependent on Mark. However, Matthew adds a tradition about Judas killing himself which would be independent.

Mark and John also would be independent sources. As would the account in Acts in which Judas is said to kill himself, as it is significantly different from the Matthew account.

 

[fallingblood]

Nope

There is double dissimilarity though.

Much different then criterion of embarrassment

Criterion of dissimilarity is short for criterion of double dissimilarity.

And I did correct myself, in saying that what I was talking about what the criterion of dissimilarity.

Neither of which were important in the actual details.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Or is there any good reason for thinking he is fictional?

There is good reason to think that Judas is fictional. The betrayer is a stock character in fiction. How much more drab the story would be without a betrayer.

Life rarely gives us memorable stories all on its own. We have to take elements from life, exaggerate them, arrange them, and make powerful stories. The more powerful a story, the more likely it was concocted in the imagination of a writer rather than simply reported by a journalist.

The story of Jesus seems to me to have been created by a story-teller, not a journalist. So I see Judas as a necessary plot element, not as an actual historical person.

 

[fallingblood]

There is good reason to think that Judas is fictional. The betrayer is a stock character in fiction. How much more drab the story would be without a betrayer.

Life rarely gives us memorable stories all on its own. We have to take elements from life, exaggerate them, arrange them, and make powerful stories. The more powerful a story, the more likely it was concocted in the imagination of a writer rather than simply reported by a journalist.

The story of Jesus seems to me to have been created by a story-teller, not a journalist. So I see Judas as a necessary plot element, not as an actual historical person.

There is a key problem here. No one argues that the story of Jesus was written by journalists. In fact, scholars consistently point out that we are not talking about modern history, or modern news in which we have people writing about the events as they happened. That simply did not occur in the ancient world (unless during very rare circumstances).

 

[outhouse]

What about the passage in John

13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.


Here Jesus is fully aware that Judas will betray him, and knows and tells him to do it quickly.