Did Judas Iscariot actually betray Jesus?

[Dan Unterbrink]

The Gospels and Acts claim that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus of Nazareth for 30 pieces of silver and then committed suicide. As such, when Jesus rose from the dead, he greeted only 11 apostles (Matt. 28:16). What do other sources say about this betrayal?

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, a primary source, paints a different picture. Paul states that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the 12, not the 11 (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Was Paul unaware of Judas Iscariot or had Judas not yet been invented? (Paul wrote this letter between 40-55 AD while the first Gospel was not penned until after 70 AD.)

The Gospel of Peter (vs. 59), a secondary source, also claims that 12 apostles mourned for Jesus after the crucifixion. How could this second-century document know nothing about Judas Iscariot?

And finally, the Slavonic Josephus, a secondary source, claims that the High Priests bribed Pilate with 30 talents, never mentioning a betrayal by Judas or his 30 pieces of silver (After War 2.174).

So, is it possible that Judas Iscariot was invented in order to shift blame for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews?

Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth

[Divine Insight]

So, is it possible that Judas Iscariot was invented in order to shift blame for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews?

There would be no need to invent Judas Iscariot to shift the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. The gospels make it crystal clear that Pilate exonerated Jesus repeatedly and washed his hand of the whole affair. The gospels make it crystal clear that it was the Jewish Priest who would not accept the exoneration of Jesus can called for his crucifixion.

The gospels demand that the Jewish priests were the ones who crucified Jesus.

However this would not place blame on "The Jews". Jesus himself was a Jew. It would simply place blame on the Jewish Priests. And that's a whole different matter from the Jews in general.

~~~~~

Also realize this:

These Jewish priest were God's priests. They were the ones who were in charge of God's temple. They were the the officially ordained spokespersons for God.

When you stop and think about it the Bible is portraying a God who commanded people though prophets and priests to stone to death heathens and blasphemers who speak out against his word and his authority. Yet Jesus did precisely that.

Jesus spoke out against the authority of God. The Jewish Priests who were in charge of the temple were the authority of God.

There are many problems with this.

1. Why would a God allow his own priests in his own temple to become corrupt?

2. Why would a God command them to kill heathens and blasphemers and then send his son amongst them to do precisely that?

3. Why would an omnipotent God not be able to nip this in the bud and keep his holy temples in order? How did this God's priests become so evil in the first place?

None of this makes any sense at all.

~~~~

Getting back to Judas Iscariot. If that story is true it is also highly problematic.

If the legal authorities and the priests of God's Temple are requesting information leading to the arrest someone for questioning, the only proper thing to do is to step forward and confess what you know. Therefore Judas Iscariot would have done the only righteous thing to do.

Jesus shouldn't have been hiding from the law and God's priests in the first place.

Especially considering that he was only wanted for questioning at the time. He wasn't being arrested to be crucified. In fact, on a legal note he was actually exonerated. According to the Bible it was God's corrupt evil priests who called for his crucifixion after Pilate had exonerated Jesus.

This whole story does not make this God look very good at all. At the very best this God is extremely inept. At worst this God is some kind of sick sadist to have his own corrupt priests crucify his only begotten demigod son.

The story doesn't add up.

As a story of a God it makes absolutely no sense at all.

As a religious/political superstitious scam it makes perfect sense. It wouldn't be surprising at all for men to make up such an absurd and idiotic story. But it makes no sense at all for an all-wise God to have orchestrated this mess. None whatsoever.

Therefore forget about Judas Iscariot, the whole myth is obviously flawed.

[ThatGirlAgain]

[Replying to post 1 by Dan Unterbrink]

I would not attach much importance to Paul referring to Jesus appearing to the Twelve. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:5, refers to Jesus appearing “to Cephas (Peter) and then to the Twelve�. Are we to infer a total of 13? Or that Jesus appeared to all of the Apostles at the same time? By the time Paul or his audience would have received this story there would have been twelve again. According to Acts 1, Matthias was chosen to fill the vacancy. Paul does not seem to be aware of any of the details of the passion narrative other than that Jesus was crucified. Not knowing about the temporary count of 11 does not seem to be a big deal. Paul's audience knows "the Twelve" and so he uses that expression. As will be seen below, there might have been good reason not to emphasize Judas Iscariot.

Since Paul does not bother to explain to his readers who the Twelve are, it is apparent that they are well known. Because Paul refers to them by number and Acts implies that a full dozen was apparently important, we might suspect a significance to that specific number. More on that later…

I find the story of Judas believable not because of what it says but because of what it leaves out.

Jesus is well known by sight to the several authorities because they followed him around Galilee (see Mark 7 for an example), because of his dramatic entrance into Jerusalem and because of that scene at the Temple. It is likely that they would have kept track of the whereabouts of this potentially dangerous person. It does not appear that Jesus went to any great lengths to hide out. If Jesus were in fact hiding in the garden, how would Judas know to go there since he left before the end of the supper? So exactly what did Judas do to betray Jesus?

Jesus is first charged by the Jewish authorities with blasphemy, claiming to be the Messiah. Yet when he is tried by the Romans it is for claiming to be the King of the Jews. All of the Gospels make that very explicit. An automatic connection between messiah-hood and kingly aspirations is not something that would be apparent to the Romans. Messiah wannabes were a dime a dozen in that era yet it does not seem they all got crucified as a matter of course. Where did the King of the Jews charge come from?

Consider these verses. Note that Jesus is speaking in private to his disciples.

Mark 10:29-30
“Truly I tell you,� Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

Luke 18:29-30
“Truly I tell you,� Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.�

Matthew 19:28-29
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

Jesus is promising his disciples riches in the present age, which he distinguishes from “the age to come�. Matthew has Jesus promise the twelve disciples the thrones of the twelve tribes of Israel. Where is Jesus when this happens? On his “glorious throne�, presumably ruling over all the tribes. In other words the King of the Jews.

One might impute other meanings to these passages if one is of a mind to do so. But consider how this story would be received by the Roman authorities when recounted by an eyewitness. What eyewitness? Judas Iscariot.

Instead of just telling the authorities where Jesus is and not facing the people he is betraying, he goes there with them. Why? He is identifying Jesus as the one who claimed to be King of the Jews. In effect, he is picking Jesus out of a lineup.

When the Jewish trial does not go so well, unreliable witnesses and so forth, the Jewish authorities do not have a really solid basis to execute this hero of the people. Blasphemy because he claims to be the Messiah? Many of the huge number of Jews presently in Jerusalem for Passover would have no problem with that claim. Better they pull out the ace in the hole and hand Jesus over to the Romans with an eyewitness to Jesus claiming to be the King of the Jews.

If Judas were an invention, I imagine a more consistent story would have been invented. Instead the absence of a reasonable but inconvenient explanation seems to me to support the existence of Judas.

[Dan Unterbrink]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Hello Divine Insight,

Pilate washed his hands in Matthew which came later than Mark. As Mark shifted blame from the Romans to the Jews using Judas Iscariot, Matthew used Judas Iscariot and Pilate to shift blame. (This was a developing story.) Except now, the Pilate hand-washing episode shifted the blame to all Jews.

As for the High Priests, there was nothing holy about them. They were appointed by the Herodians and/or the Romans and did the bidding of the wealthy and powerful. In fact, most of the priests came from just two families from 23 BC to 66 AD, the lines of Boethus and Annas.

Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth

[2ndpillar]

The Gospels and Acts claim that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus of Nazareth for 30 pieces of silver and then committed suicide. As such, when Jesus rose from the dead, he greeted only 11 apostles (Matt. 28:16). What do other sources say about this betrayal?

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, a primary source, paints a different picture. Paul states that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the 12, not the 11 (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Was Paul unaware of Judas Iscariot or had Judas not yet been invented? (Paul wrote this letter between 40-55 AD while the first Gospel was not penned until after 70 AD.)

The Gospel of Peter (vs. 59), a secondary source, also claims that 12 apostles mourned for Jesus after the crucifixion. How could this second-century document know nothing about Judas Iscariot?

And finally, the Slavonic Josephus, a secondary source, claims that the High Priests bribed Pilate with 30 talents, never mentioning a betrayal by Judas or his 30 pieces of silver (After War 2.174).

So, is it possible that Judas Iscariot was invented in order to shift blame for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews?

Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth

Dear Dan,
The betrayal by Judas, shown in Mt 27:9-10, was a full fulfillment of the same verse taken from Ze 11:12-13, and not taken from Jeremiah as noted in the text, for which Jeremiah did not mention any 30 pieces of silver. Judas was one of 3 shepherds "annihilated in one month (Ze 11:8), who "my soul was impatient". The other two shepherds who were "annihilated" or died in the same generation, where Peter (the staff Union), and Paul (the staff Favor). (Ze 11:10 & 14) "The Lord my God (Ze 11:4) said, "pasture my flock doomed to slaughter". Ze 11:7, "So I took two staffs, ; the one I called Favor (Paul), and the other I called Union (Peter), who I pastured the flock".

Yeshua chose all three shepherds at the behest of "the Lord my God", and pastured the flock. Peter was chosen to fulfill the role of the "worthless shepherd" (Ze 11:17), because of his ego, and Judas was chosen to fulfill Ze 11:12, because of his love of money, and Paul was chosen to fulfill the role of "to break my covenant" (Ze 11:10), because of his Napoleon complex.