Was Judas Really That Bad?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Was Judas Iscariot really that bad?

I don't hate Judas. Nothing about his (admittedly not fleshed-out) character bothers me. I could have been his friend even after the betrayal. That doesn't mean I agree with anyone betraying anyone, and perhaps this is me being messed-up, but nothing Judas did really bothers me to the point I'd cut ties if I knew him.

First I ask myself why he was stealing from Jesus's group. There are basically two unforgivably horrible things you can do in that time where you'd need large sums of money: Drinking, and gambling. I don't think Judas probably did either. Signs point to him being a bit of a fatty so maybe he overindulged in food, but coming from my perspective (I see welfare recipients whip out an EBT card for grocery carts full of what I consider indulgences like $10 tiny little bottles of pomegranate juice and snobby cheeses) that's not really that bad. Reverse two thousand years and maybe the guy just wanted to have meat every day. Maybe the disciples ate mostly grass or often went hungry. Morally right? No. Understandable? To me, definitely. I can't condemn someone for stealing if it's for food.

And what did he do with the blood money he got? He bought a field. He didn't drink or gamble away that money (those would be dealbreakers for me). He bought something that he could invest in that would be useful later. Add some seeds and a couple servants or slaves to a field and you've got a farm. A farm is not a bad thing to want. That's the kind of greed I don't have a problem with. Yes, it was paid for by a life, but lives were routinely bought and sold in those times to pay for whatever you wanted; there was legalised slavery.

No matter how I look at this, I can't really get my mind round to a perspective that paints Judas as a terrible person. And not that this excuses it, but let's be honest, if Jesus was really a wanted man but went about to populated areas to teach, he was going to be caught eventually anyway. From the perspective of Judas, he's probably thinking, it'll happen sooner or later so I might as well have the silver. He might have even been uncomfortable with being a disciple at that point, and wanting it to be over. Or he might have been legitimately scared to be following around a wanted criminal all day, and acting primarily from that. Perhaps he was unsure. If we're unsure, we do tend to default to the law.

[Miles]

...
Of the 61 bible translations I checked only three (5%), the World English Bible; the Amplified Bible, Classic Edition; and the American Standard Version, use the word "obtained," which is a pretty poor recommendation!...

Usually the best is the most original version. In this case, if we look at the Greek version, there is a difference and World English Bible is more accurate than those that say Judas bought it.

Why? Why is the World English Bible, and the other two Bibles, more accurate than the other 58? Because the World English Bible is the Bible many Catholics use in its Catholic edition, and you happen to be Catholic? And just how did you determine that it's "the most original version"? It wasn't published until 1901. Plus the vast majority of scholars and translators, those who put 95% of the other Bibles together, believe "obtain" is the wrong translation.

AND . . . .

According to Strong's Concordance, the biblical usage of the word ktaomai (κτάομαι), which the three bibles translate as "obtain," is

"1. to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess
A. to marry a wife"

(My emphasis.)


Nope. your strained apologetic and the meager 5% just doesn't sell.

But, I think it should also be clear from the context. Judas can’t buy, when he is dead and had already given back the money.

But, I think it should also be clear from Acts 1:18 that:

"With the money that Judas got for his evil act he bought a field, where he fell to his death; he burst open and all his insides spilled out.

Does your Christianity collapse, if you can’t resolve this huge contradiction? One in which the vast majority of Bibles say you're backing the wrong horse?


.

[Difflugia]

Because the World English Bible is the Bible many Catholics use in its Catholic edition, and you happen to be Catholic?

This is just an aside, but the World English Bible is, with very few exceptions, just the ASV with updated language. The WEB uses obtained because the ASV uses obtained.

As another aside, the ministry that produced the WEB has what they call a Catholic edition, but I'm pretty sure it isn't officially accepted by the Catholic Church. Any officially Catholic Bible will have an imprimatur somewhere, which is a declaration by the Catholic Church that the Bible (or whatever) is free of doctrinal error. My Catholic edition of the NRSV, for example, has this one:

Most Rev. Daniel E. Pilarczyk
President, National Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington DC, September 12, 1991

[Tcg]

Does your atheism collapse, if you can’t find mistake in the Bible?

As has been pointed out before, atheists are not the only ones who recognize errors in the Bible. Some theists do as well. People recognize these errors not because they are theists or atheists, but because there are errors in the Bible.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't think Judas thought Jesus was going to be put to death. In fact, in one of the accounts someone just posted, it pretty much says he didn't think that would happen.

If he didnt he was delusional as well as corrupt.

I dont pretend to know what Judas believed or what motivated him to do as he did, but the bible narrative is clear : Judas had every reason to believed his betrayal would lead to Jesus death.

There had been at least 4 reported death plots in Jesus regard. There had been a warrant for Jesus' arrest since the Festival of light (sept/Oct 32). The rumours that the religious leaders wanted him dead were common knowledge (see John 7:25) . There had been at least one murder attempt (Hanouka- December 32 CE) . And when venturing back into the region the following February the Apostles voiced their concerns, well aware that their own lives were in danger by association. Add to that Jesus explicity told his Apostles (of which Judas was a member) he would be arrested, tried and executed and we have ample evidence that Judas should have been aware the Senhedren was not seeking Jesus to have a friendly chat.

Its true, Jesus had committed no crime (much less a crime warranting the death penalty) but the corruption of the court was thus thrown into sharp relief since one cannot lawfully issue a warrant to arrest someone without charges and that is exactly what Judas offered to help them do. That JUDAS and his fellow Apostles knew Jesus was in danger is clear from the secrecy of Jesus final movements. In view of this if Judas seriously expected the religious leaders unlawful arrest to lead to a lawful trial and equittal he was stupid as well as disloyal.

Two of Satan's favourite traits for the useful idiots he uses as his puppets.

JW

Was Judas bad ?
viewtopic.php?p=1033122#p1033122

Did Judas have reason to believe his betrayal would lead to Jesus' death?
viewtopic.php?p=1033212#p1033212

[brunumb]

...
So how do you understand obtained a field with the reward?

It means he got it by the reward he got from betrayal. As the scriptures say, the priests brought it for him, by the money that was his.

Nah. He simply bought the field. One should just read what is there. Once you start trying to play interpretation games it's obvious that there are problems with what was simply written. That's the Bible all over.

[Difflugia]

Its true, Jesus had committed no crime ...

I'm no Roman legal scholar, but I suspect that chasing everyone out of the Temple square with a whip broke some sort of law. I'm pretty sure that harrassing old, rich, politically connected men is illegal pretty much everywhere.

Or maybe he got drunk and started singing loud songs about how much Caesar enjoys the company of goats. I mean, the Bible doesn't say he didn't.


♬♫ "Yea, he smoocheth the hairy ones..."

[JehovahsWitness]

Its true, Jesus had committed no crime ...

I'm no Roman legal scholar, but I suspect that chasing everyone out of the Temple square with a whip broke some sort of law.

No it did not.

I'm pretty sure that harrassing old, rich, politically connected men is illegal pretty much everywhere.

To what are you referring?





JW

[Difflugia]

I'm no Roman legal scholar, but I suspect that chasing everyone out of the Temple square with a whip broke some sort of law.

No it did not.

So, you are a Roman legal scholar? You sound pretty sure of yourself.

I'm pretty sure that harrassing old, rich, politically connected men is illegal pretty much everywhere.

To what are you referring?

"And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves."

[brunumb]

Two of Satan's favourite traits for the useful idiots he uses as his puppets.

I see the same traits in the leaders of extremist religious sects today. Could there be a connection?

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm no Roman legal scholar, but I suspect that chasing everyone out of the Temple square with a whip broke some sort of law.

No it did not.

So, you are a Roman legal scholar? You sound pretty sure of yourself.

No I am not. But I know that the temple of Jesus day was under Jewish jurisdiction* and he broke no Jewish law by evicting the traders. There was no law against turning over tables or scattering animals.



JW


* short of inciting a riot the Romans would have left temple oversite to the Jewish authorities