Was Judas Iscariot a historical figure?

[fallingblood]

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.

So? Yes, he knows what Judas is going to do, and from the sound of it, there would be no stopping him short of killing him. Judas made up his mind to do something. What is Jesus to do? It wasn't as if Jesus planned this out with Judas, it was something that was going to happen either way.

 

[Breathe]

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.

I mean from a historical perspective; compared to a king or whatever.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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).

Hey, Blood. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. My best guess is that you are agreeing with me that the gospels read more like 'story' than like 'news'?

 

[outhouse]

So? Yes, he knows what Judas is going to do, and from the sound of it, there would be no stopping him short of killing him. Judas made up his mind to do something. What is Jesus to do? It wasn't as if Jesus planned this out with Judas, it was something that was going to happen either way.

SO?, so Jesus is commiting suicide, and wants to be a martyr, which was typical of Zealots.

He knew what was going on. Which of course is contradictory to other gospels

 

[fantome profane]

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.

But every literary clichè was at one time fresh and original. I have had conversations with people who after having watched a classic movie for the first time thought it was full of cliches, but in fact it was the original and they had seen the thousands of cheap rip offs that came latter.

I am not saying this is the case with the Judas story, but I do wonder. Is it possible that this story is at least in part responsible for creating the story format that we are now so familiar with?

In any case clichès do really happen.

Although I have little doubt that the story as we know it has been beefed up and dramatized, I really don't find this argument a compelling reason to think that the story is false any more than I find the argument that it is embarrassing compelling that it is true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But every literary clichè was at one time fresh and original.

Sure, but the betrayer was surely a cliche long before the gospels were written, in my opinion.

I am not saying this is the case with the Judas story, but I do wonder. Is it possible that this story is at least in part responsible for creating the story format that we are now so familiar with?

Anything is possible.

Although I have little doubt that the story as we know it has been beefed up and dramatized, I really don't find this argument a compelling reason to think that the story is false any more than I find the argument that it is embarrassing compelling that it is true.

We all draw our own conclusions. Me, I think Mark put his gospel together with only the slightest of inspiration. I don't believe that Jesus existed, so the supporting characters surely don't seem real to me.

 

[fallingblood]

Hey, Blood. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. My best guess is that you are agreeing with me that the gospels read more like 'story' than like 'news'?

Yes, the Gospels do read more like a "story" than "news." However, that's because "news" did actually exist until a long time after the ancient period. My point was that you're tying to place modern genres onto ancient texts, which doesn't work.

SO?, so Jesus is commiting suicide, and wants to be a martyr, which was typical of Zealots.

He knew what was going on. Which of course is contradictory to other gospels

Actually, most of the Gospels have a story of Jesus knowing what is going to happen.

Now, how is committing suicide typical of the Zealots? Josephus doesn't say such, neither do the other sources. It wasn't typical of Zealots.

And it doesn't constitute suicide. Unless you want to say that Martin Luther King Jr. committed suicide. He fully knew that continuing his mission, and being in public, could lead to death. He had many death threats, and instead of holing up in a house, continued anyway. That isn't suicide, that is continuing with one's mission.

More so, why do you accept these stories as literally true?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, the Gospels do read more like a "story" than "news." However, that's because "news" did actually exist until a long time after the ancient period. My point was that you're tying to place modern genres onto ancient texts, which doesn't work.

Nah. I care no more for labeling genres than I care for labeling people. To me, that seems like an attempt at distraction.

People can use whatever words they like for labeling ancient texts. It doesn't matter to me. I'm only interested in getting at how 'historical' vs. how 'journalistic' were the gospels.

Anyway, if 'news' didn't exist until whatever-date-you-prefer, then there is no such thing as reconstructing ancient history, much less the history of the Bible.

And so it is useless to think of Judas as 'historical'.

 

[fallingblood]

Nah. I care no more for labeling genres than I care for labeling people. To me, that seems like an attempt at distraction.

People can use whatever words they like for labeling ancient texts. It doesn't matter to me. I'm only interested in getting at how 'historical' vs. how 'journalistic' were the gospels.

Anyway, if 'news' didn't exist until whatever-date-you-prefer, then there is no such thing as reconstructing ancient history, much less the history of the Bible.

And so it is useless to think of Judas as 'historical'.

Journalism isn't the only way to reconstruct history.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Journalism isn't the only way to reconstruct history.

That's true. There's also guessing, speculating and theorizing.

 

[oldbadger]

SO?, so Jesus is commiting suicide, and wants to be a martyr, which was typical of Zealots.

He knew what was going on. Which of course is contradictory to other gospels

Hi.......

Amongst many possibilities, I don't think Jesus wanted to commit suicide. I don't think he even knew he would be betrayed.

Maybe evangelists felt that they had to write that Jesus knew all about it, and such a claim would fit reasonably well with their ET.

Maybe Judas betrayed Jesus, maybe not....... but Jesus was arrested, accused, (sort of) tried, and executed. Judas's action can't change the 11.5 months of Jesus's life before that situation.

Therefore, the life of historical Jesus is not much influenced either way. This might matter more to Christians.......

Judas could well be a slandered, libeled scapegoat........ just another embellishment to be stripped away in order to clear a path to the life of historical Jesus?

 

[Nehustan]

I tend to adhere to the Judas hypothesis; that the three Judases in the gospel are one in the same; Jude brother of Jesus; Judas the Sicarii, Judas aka Thomas.

The hypothesis assumes that it was this trinity of Judes who were he who was crucified/hung from a tree.

 

[Father Heathen]

I mean from a historical perspective; compared to a king or whatever.

I was being facetious.

 

[outhouse]

Hi.......

Amongst many possibilities, I don't think Jesus wanted to commit suicide. I don't think he even knew he would be betrayed.

Maybe evangelists felt that they had to write that Jesus knew all about it, and such a claim would fit reasonably well with their ET.

Maybe Judas betrayed Jesus, maybe not....... but Jesus was arrested, accused, (sort of) tried, and executed. Judas's action can't change the 11.5 months of Jesus's life before that situation.

Therefore, the life of historical Jesus is not much influenced either way. This might matter more to Christians.......

Judas could well be a slandered, libeled scapegoat........ just another embellishment to be stripped away in order to clear a path to the life of historical Jesus?

I honestly don't think the gospel authors had a real clue of what happened. So much mythology was taken from the OT to build the theology, we have mythology and legend combined, heavy on the mythology.

According to scholars there are fictional attributes regarding temple events such as Pilate giving the crowd a choice, the whole trial, and even the tipping of tables is found in the OT as well as riding the donkey into the temple. The anti-Jewish writings are far from historical.

I think they knew he went to the temple cause trouble and was placed on a cross by Pilate in which they tried to cover up. The synoptics say he went to the temple once, Gjohn says multiple times. They just didn't know.

Even the 30 pieces of silver paid to Judas, is the same price as a slave in the OT so we know some elements originated from the OT

12 apostles is highly suspicious of being fiction to match the 12 tribes of Israel.

I don't think Judas is historical.

I think Jesus had his inner circle of 3-4 apostles who were fishermen when he went to the temple.

 

[oldbadger]

I honestly don't think the gospel authors had a real clue of what happened. So much mythology was taken from the OT to build the theology, we have mythology and legend combined, heavy on the mythology.

Hi, outhouse! Have a late reply!
Maybe a rule of HJ investigation is to rule out most NT reports that were subsequently 'attached' or referred back to OT prophesies?

According to scholars there are fictional attributes regarding temple events such as Pilate giving the crowd a choice, the whole trial, and even the tipping of tables is found in the OT as well as riding the donkey into the temple. The anti-Jewish writings are far from historical.

I think that Pilate offering the mob a choice (he wasn't massively bothered either way?) could well have been a diplomatic (and quite plausible) move.
I think the donkey story is drivvle, simply because it reads as unrealistic and unnecessary..... Jesus walked just fine!
Any anti-Jewish writings must be highly suspect.

I think they knew he went to the temple cause trouble and was placed on a cross by Pilate in which they tried to cover up. The synoptics say he went to the temple once, Gjohn says multiple times. They just didn't know.

I think Oral tradition knew alright...... and was accurate. He went once (after he took up the gauntlet after JtB was arrested).

Even the 30 pieces of silver paid to Judas, is the same price as a slave in the OT so we know some elements originated from the OT

So that fits nicely into the drivvle box..... Yeah

12 apostles is highly suspicious of being fiction to match the 12 tribes of Israel.

I like Simon, Andrew, James, John and Philip.....plus Levi. And S the Zealot looks good. And young Mark, kicking around through all of this. I reckon that Andrew and Philip could have been J's intro to JtB.

I don't think Judas is historical.

OK........ I duuno, just dunno.

I think Jesus had his inner circle of 3-4 apostles who were fishermen when he went to the temple.

I make it about 8 with young Mark.


How far have you got with your book?

 

[F0uad]

We can never know because there is no early document..

 

[outhouse]

How far have you got with your book?

Stalled out now for a long time.

Been pulled back into court again, almost 2 years straight, trying to keep my daughter in the good school she is in now. Mother keeps fighting and they keep awarding me more time, so mother keeps fighting more. Stressful.

Rene Salm has come out with a book where his Jesus is a Zealot, it follows some of my view but not all thankfully.

 

[oldbadger]

Stalled out now for a long time.

Been pulled back into court again, almost 2 years straight, trying to keep my daughter in the good school she is in now. Mother keeps fighting and they keep awarding me more time, so mother keeps fighting more. Stressful.

Rene Salm has come out with a book where his Jesus is a Zealot, it follows some of my view but not all thankfully.

Hi again.....

I'm sorry to read about your personal difficulties. Life can be a sod.........
I've got a trapped sciatic nerve....... takes me an hour to walk each morning just now. A real b-stard.

Here's one for you........ just mucking about. Ready?

1. Eating Shellfish was forbidden. Do you guess why?
2. Go onto Google and type in : Shellfish Poison Paralysis. ............... Booooommmmm! Freshwater and saltwater....
Ahhhh.....hang on..... you're a marine biologist, so I'm teaching you to suck eggs!
3. Continue anyway..... Mark 2;3 ....some men bring Yeshu a paralytic.... now there is a perfect example of a lad being ill because he was a sinner..... probably ate freshwater Galilean mussels. If Yeshu could make him sick fast enough, and empty his bowels quick enough, he might just (only just) keep him alive. If he did he could say, 'Off you go..... and sin no more'.

I've started to write my perception of Mark's story. It's taken me 16000 words to reach Yeshu's baptism, so that's going to need some serious precis.

As for Judas............. I don't know. If the drivvle could be extracted, what might be left of Judas? Why shouldn't some part of the Judas story be real? A follower who lost heart and faith, who thought that Yeshu was a winner and then.....

I'm calling him Yeshu because the Jesus name just could not have been his name. Never was...... any more than he called himself Christ. Yeshu and Meshiah read better.

 

[oldbadger]

Rene Salm has come out with a book where his Jesus is a Zealot, it follows some of my view but not all thankfully.

I'll look it up. I am warming for Jesus as a zealot whose temptation was 'not to take up the struggle' after John's arrest, but who did take it up, but in his own way.

I reckon he knew Zebedee's crews long before his baptism, hence why some of them just 'upped and went' after his return from the deserts, and after his brief visit to Nazareth. And I reckon that he supped and wined with the fisheries inspectors long before his baptism, as well.

 

[gnostic]

It is hard to say. Other than some writings from the NT gospels, apocryphal and gnostic literature, we can't really be sure if Judas was real historical figure, since there are no collaborating physical evidences to support those writings.

I don't think we'll ever know.