Was Judas Iscariot a historical figure?

[oldbadger]

I definitely believe that Judas Iscariot was a historical figure. I believe that he was the one that betrayed Christ.

I agree.

May I ask you a question?...........
Did Judas hang himself, or did he fall over in a field and cut his stomach open? Which one?

 

[outhouse]

I definitely believe that Judas Iscariot was a historical figure. I believe that he was the one that betrayed Christ.

Go back and read Johns version. If so, its not the case.

Johns version states Jesus knew what was going on and sent Judas out to do what he had to do.

In the garden, Jesus knew they were coming for him and he was scared to death.


Three interpretations, and all are credible and debated heavily.

1. Literary creation, Judas = Jews and the gospels do have certain amounts of anti Semitism.

2. Jesus stages his own martyrdom, knowing he was going to be killed one way or another with his messages he taught. He might as well do it on his terms to further his message.

3. He was betrayed as written in the other gospels.

 

[fallingblood]

A valued friend turning on the protagonist of the story is exactly the type of thing the sheeple love to eat up. Why do you think it happens so often in Hollywood? Of course you'd want to include a betrayal by a friend in a story you're trying to sell to the ignorant masses. Schadenfreude is the best human emotion to exploit in order to make money.

We aren't talking about Hollywood though are we? We aren't even talking about a story that is in the genre of fiction. You are retrojecting current ideas onto a culture and society that these ideas simply don't apply to.

And what money was to be made in such a story? There is absolutely no evidence that early followers of Jesus, or the authors of these works ever made money from selling this story. In light of that, your argument really doesn't make any sense.

 

[fallingblood]

Hi Bricks.....
I'm not sure whether Judas was in that boat. Cephas, Andrew, James, John, Philip, young Mark, probably, but Judas... don't know. This walking on water......... the Aramaic (or was it Hebrew? for 'walk' can also mean wander, go, amble, swim and more...

Neither Aramaic or Hebrew would be useful here as it was in Greek that the story was written. In addition, the story only makes sense if it is translated as Jesus having walked on water. If Jesus simply swam across to the boat, there would have been nothing exciting about it. Also, the story has Peter also stepping out of the boat, and standing on water. So swimming doesn't make sense.

Galileans were afraid of the deeps and may not have been great swimmers.

Where do you get this? Since many Galileans were fishermen, and lived their lives on water, I doubt that they were afraid of deep water and weren't good swimmers. It would have been necessary in that job field.

 

[fallingblood]

Go back and read Johns version. If so, its not the case.

Johns version states Jesus knew what was going on and sent Judas out to do what he had to do.

In the garden, Jesus knew they were coming for him and he was scared to death.

But didn't John also have the longest amount of time to develop such a story? Surely, we should be looking at the earliest sources, and not the latest. Paul talks about Jesus being betrayed. Even though we are not told who betrayed Jesus, it is good evidence that such an event happened.

Three interpretations, and all are credible and debated heavily.

1. Literary creation, Judas = Jews and the gospels do have certain amounts of anti Semitism.

2. Jesus stages his own martyrdom, knowing he was going to be killed one way or another with his messages he taught. He might as well do it on his terms to further his message.

3. He was betrayed as written in the other gospels.

Can you provide scholars who support either 1 or 2?

I ask as number 1 doesn't make much if we are aware that Paul also makes such a claim; that Jesus was betrayed. Also, Judas does not actually equal Jews. Judas was a common name. More so, while some of the Gospels do contain some anti-semitism, it also has to be realized that they are not condemning all Jews, but certain groups.

As for number two, that makes little sense. If Jesus portrayed himself as the Messiah, to have himself go out and get martyred makes no sense. In addition, if he wanted to be martyred, he wouldn't have needed anyone to show where he was. It wasn't as if he was hiding.

Number 3 really is the only one that makes much sense. Which is why there is little debate on the subject.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The Gospels which associate Judas are mostly confirmed rehashing of myths and Judas's role is no different then a deceiver or Loki type figure.

Considering the very literature he is mentioned in and only mentioned at that, it is very safe to assume he never existed.

This does not make the myth any more inferior though. It is a good lesson on the pitiful treachery of traitors and backstabbers and perfectly conveys humankind's fascination with shiny baubles and our greed and horrid lust for them.

 

[fallingblood]

The Gospels which associate Judas are mostly confirmed rehashing of myths and Judas's role is no different then a deceiver or Loki type figure.

Considering the very literature he is mentioned in and only mentioned at that, it is very safe to assume he never existed.

This does not make the myth any more inferior though. It is a good lesson on the pitiful treachery of traitors and backstabbers and perfectly conveys humankind's fascination with shiny baubles and our greed and horrid lust for them.

Paul mentions a betrayer before the Gospels do. Also, just because the story of Judas may resemble the story of Loki, or fall into the deceiver type figure, that does not mean one can rule it out. There are many stories of actual people being betrayed.

 

[steeltoes]

Paul mentions a betrayer before the Gospels do. Also, just because the story of Judas may resemble the story of Loki, or fall into the deceiver type figure, that does not mean one can rule it out. There are many stories of actual people being betrayed.

Paul mentions a "betrayer" only if one has an overly eager agenda to accept that translation. “Paradidomi” can mean to “hand over” or “deliver up” In Romans8:32: “He (God) did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” and there is no reason to believe that Paul did not have this same meaning in mind for the Corinthian super.

 

[fallingblood]

Paul mentions a "betrayer" only if one has an overly eager agenda to accept that translation. “Paradidomi” can mean to “hand over” or “deliver up” In Romans8:32: “He (God) did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” and there is no reason to believe that Paul did not have this same meaning in mind for the Corinthian super.

There is reason to think that Paul was talking about something else in Corinthians. The reason for this is the context. By the context, and the manner in which the phrase is set up in Greek, it is clear that what is being talked about is someone who betrayed Jesus. While Paul does not say this was Judas or not, it doesn't really matter. What it does tell us is that from a very early time (this most likely predates Paul as it appears to be something that has been passed down to him) it was recognized that Jesus was betrayed. The Gospels put a name to this betrayer.

 

[nazz]

I would say the only good evidence, if you consider it that, is that he is mentioned in all four gospels. Plus the story that he betrayed Jesus is not at all implausible.

 

[oldbadger]

Neither Aramaic or Hebrew would be useful here as it was in Greek that the story was written.

Nah. The oral tradition was carried forward in Aramaic and Hebrew. Then the evangelists got hold of it, chose their meanings, and wrote in Hebrew.

In addition, the story only makes sense if it is translated as Jesus having walked on water. If Jesus simply swam across to the boat, there would have been nothing exciting about it.

Wrong. It would have been amazing to his disciples, utterly amazing. If he learned to swim in Egypt, where every kid could swim, using the crawl overhand stroke, they would have been stunned.

Also, the story has Peter also stepping out of the boat, and standing on water. So swimming doesn't make sense.

Wrong. Peter saw Yeshu racing thru the water, and thought, 'I must try that,' so he tried, and he failed, and started to drown, so Yeshu raced in, held him up, berated him, tugged him to the boat.

Where do you get this? Since many Galileans were fishermen, and lived their lives on water, I doubt that they were afraid of deep water and weren't good swimmers. It would have been necessary in that job field.

When you get it wrong, you really do 'get it wrong'!
1. The massively superstitious Galilean fishermen were frightened of the deeps, because of the demons there.
2. Fishermen being unable to swim is a classic fact in many seas and along many coasts. One example of many:- the smacksmen, longshoremen and lugger crews of the English East coast. Brightlingsea Church in Essex has small square plaques running right around it's large walls, in memory of the smack crews lost from foundering oyster and trawler cutters.

They'd never seen anything like it in their lives. And the oral tradition 'yet again' was manipulated by the evangelists, who wrote in Greek.

:yes:

 

[steeltoes]

There is reason to think that Paul was talking about something else in Corinthians. The reason for this is the context. By the context, and the manner in which the phrase is set up in Greek, it is clear that what is being talked about is someone who betrayed Jesus. While Paul does not say this was Judas or not, it doesn't really matter. What it does tell us is that from a very early time (this most likely predates Paul as it appears to be something that has been passed down to him) it was recognized that Jesus was betrayed. The Gospels put a name to this betrayer.

It's only clear if one such as yourself has an agenda to read the gospel interpretation into Paul.

 

[fallingblood]

It's only clear if one such as yourself has an agenda to read the gospel interpretation into Paul.

Not at all. It is clear if you read Paul. Paul clearly states that someone betrayed Jesus. Based on Paul, one can't say this is Judas, but one can say that there is an early tradition regarding Jesus being betrayed. That is what Paul tells us.

 

[fallingblood]

Nah. The oral tradition was carried forward in Aramaic and Hebrew. Then the evangelists got hold of it, chose their meanings, and wrote in Hebrew.

Probably not Hebrew at all. Hebrew was reserved more for scholarly work. Aramaic was the language that would have generally been spoken. However, Greek also would have been spoken. In fact, Greek was used throughout the kingdom, and was important for many Jews.

Paul, being one of the earliest missionaries, spread the tradition in Greek. He also received earlier tradition which appears to have been in Greek as well. The oral tradition then also would have been carried in Greek.

However, none of that really matters as the story itself was written in Greek. The authors were writing in Greek, and thinking in Greek. The possible Aramaic that laid behind the tradition doesn't really matter as the author wasn't using Aramaic. He also was not translating some other story into Greek, but instead was creating these records in Greek for his work. The Greek then is what matters here, as the story itself is in Greek and was intended to be understood in Greek.

Wrong. It would have been amazing to his disciples, utterly amazing. If he learned to swim in Egypt, where every kid could swim, using the crawl overhand stroke, they would have been stunned.

Yet there is no evidence that such a thing happened. There is no suggestion that Jesus was swimming in a lake. More so, you haven't shown that it would be amazing to see someone swim. Nor have you shown how it could make anyone believe that he was special. Swimming would not have been something special.

More so, the statement that the disciples make, that they were fearful that Jesus was a ghost, does not make sense if he was just swimming.

Wrong. Peter saw Yeshu racing thru the water, and thought, 'I must try that,' so he tried, and he failed, and started to drown, so Yeshu raced in, held him up, berated him, tugged him to the boat.

That is not what the story relates. What you are doing right now is making things up to fit your view point. The story states clearly that Peter stood on the water, and walked out to meet Jesus. He did not say " I must try that," but instead, "if it is you Lord, command me to come out."

Peter wasn't trying to try anything.

When you get it wrong, you really do 'get it wrong'!
1. The massively superstitious Galilean fishermen were frightened of the deeps, because of the demons there.

There is absolutely no ancient records that state this. You can't just make up things and state that they are facts.

2. Fishermen being unable to swim is a classic fact in many seas and along many coasts. One example of many:- the smacksmen, longshoremen and lugger crews of the English East coast. Brightlingsea Church in Essex has small square plaques running right around it's large walls, in memory of the smack crews lost from foundering oyster and trawler cutters.

So basically, because some people drowned while being in the water, they were afraid or unable to swim? That doesn't make sense. Do you have any historical support for this?

They'd never seen anything like it in their lives. And the oral tradition 'yet again' was manipulated by the evangelists, who wrote in Greek.

:yes:

How can you say that the oral tradition was manipulated if you can't point to the oral tradition? Making things up is not historical research.

 

[steeltoes]

Not at all. It is clear if you read Paul. Paul clearly states that someone betrayed Jesus. Based on Paul, one can't say this is Judas, but one can say that there is an early tradition regarding Jesus being betrayed. That is what Paul tells us.

If you prefer that translation by all means, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I agree.

May I ask you a question?...........
Did Judas hang himself, or did he fall over in a field and cut his stomach open? Which one?

• Matthew 27:3-7
  3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
  “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
  5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
  6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.
• Acts 1:18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

It may be possible to harmonize Acts 1 with Matthew 27, depending. I'm not sure what the significance is of the statement "His body burst open and all his intestines spilled out," but to be hanged or to hang oneself was highly significant. It would be like making a huge announcement that you were in the wrong, and people should take warning not to do the same. By hanging himself he was protesting his own act against Jesus in effect saying "I lied, and he's not guilty" or "I did something wrong" or "I'm a murderer." Something like that. Perhaps the reference to bursting open was really another way to describe a hanging? (Deuteronomy 21:23)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you prefer that translation by all means, whatever floats your boat.

Maybe the Holy Spirit moves biblical scholars to discern the true meaning in ancient strings of text. You never know.

 

[steeltoes]

Maybe the Holy Spirit moves biblical scholars to discern the true meaning in ancient strings of text. You never know.

Yes, it appears that way. Scholars for Christ.

 

[fallingblood]

If you prefer that translation by all means, whatever floats your boat.

Yes, it appears that way. Scholars for Christ.

I prefer that translation as that is what the Greek states. I do find it interesting that both you and Ambiguous have implied that such a translation is motivated by the "holy spirit" or beliefs; however, it is quite clear that your translation is motivated by your own personal beliefs, and not actual knowledge of the Greek.

 

[oldbadger]

• Matthew 27:3-7
  3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
  “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
  5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
  6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.
• Acts 1:18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

It may be possible to harmonize Acts 1 with Matthew 27, depending. I'm not sure what the significance is of the statement "His body burst open and all his intestines spilled out," but to be hanged or to hang oneself was highly significant. It would be like making a huge announcement that you were in the wrong, and people should take warning not to do the same. By hanging himself he was protesting his own act against Jesus in effect saying "I lied, and he's not guilty" or "I did something wrong" or "I'm a murderer." Something like that. Perhaps the reference to bursting open was really another way to describe a hanging? (Deuteronomy 21:23)

Hi Bricks.....thanks for that proposal. Tell me...... on a scale of 1-10, how happy are you with that proposal that you have put forward?

No matter how I try, I find it very difficult to unite or merge those two reports. One tells us that Judas threw the money down, another that he spent it. One tells us of his hanging, another of his accident. etc etc A detached jury would reject the possibility, I reckon. But then, I think I trust Matthew's more than Luke's accounts..... there you go, I'm cherry picking accounts. Difficult, isn't it?