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]

...But the bible also says Judas, not the priests, bought the field.

Acts 1:18
KJ21
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.
...

More accurate translation says he obtained it, which is different matter and not in contradiction with the other scripture.

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out.
Acts 1:18

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!


.

[Difflugia]

More accurate translation says he obtained it, which is different matter and not in contradiction with the other scripture.

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out.
Acts 1:18

You keep saying this as though it fixes something. It doesn't. It doesn't matter whether Judas obtained, procured, acquired, bought, or did something else entirely to the field. You can leave it untranslated if you want and say that Judas ἐκτήσατο a nice little χωρίον outside of town with the money that the priests gave him. The key is that it was Judas and not the priests that did it. That contradicts Matthew 27:7 where the priests ἠγόρασαν the potter's ἀγρὸν to bury strangers in. Harmonizing the two doesn't even make sense. Judas ran away to commit suicide before the priests even discussed buying a field, so even if Judas took so long to kill himself that the priests managed to complete the purchase first, Judas didn't know that there was a field in the first place. In Acts, before his untimely death, he took a stroll around a little villa that he had already obtained with his money. In the real world, if two people told those stories about what was undeniably the same event, one of them would definitely be lying in all but some weird technical sense, and probably even then.

[JehovahsWitness]

Was Judas Really That Bad?

Bad is a value judgement; if one believes stealing (misuse of donated funds ie corruption), lying and hypocrasy as well as betraying a man one knows to be innocent of any crime to certain death, as being "not that bad" then, no Judas wasn't so bad at all. If one reasons that stealing is bad unless one uses the money to buy land or real estate (a rule straight out of the"Fat Cat Bible" no doubt) then Judas was an good guy trying to catch a break. I'm sure there are many katrillionaire televangelists who see Judas as a hero on that very basis. Or perhaps that "Since a crime will undoubtedly be committed sooner or later, I might as well be the one to commit it" (It would of course be interesting to see if that would be accepted in defence of a rape charge; possibly the rape of a woman of ill repute who dressed provocatively and kept bad company...).

Whether the above seems acceptable says more about one's own moral compass (or lack thereof) than anything else.



JW

[brunumb]

...But the bible also says Judas, not the priests, bought the field.

Acts 1:18
KJ21
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.
...

More accurate translation says he obtained it, which is different matter and not in contradiction with the other scripture.

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out.
Acts 1:18

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

[Purple Knight]

Bad is a value judgement; if one believes stealing (misuse of donated funds ie corruption), lying and hypocrisy as well as betraying a man one knows to be innocent of any crime to certain death, as being "not that bad" then, no Judas wasn't so bad at all.

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. And yes, Judas was embezzling money. I don't see any hypocrisy however, and this may be just me having a brain fart but I don't see any lying either.

Anyway, yes most of this is bad. I just don't think it's terrible by today's standards. In fact I think if we're being honest Judas is better than over 50% of modern people. I don't think he was a good guy.

If one reasons that stealing is bad unless one uses the money to buy land or real estate

I just think it establishes that he wasn't the type to piss money away. That makes him better than most people I know. Yes, I think being frugal or good with money as opposed to spending it all on beer is a virtue. That doesn't mean Judas was, overall, virtuous, but it's still possible he had virtues.

Or perhaps that "Since a crime will undoubtedly be committed sooner or later, I might as well be the one to commit it" (It would of course be interesting to see if that would be accepted in defence of a rape charge; possibly the rape of a woman of ill repute who dressed provocatively and kept bad company...).

I still think there's some difference even if it's not a very meaningful one, since the rapist does commit violence himself, directly, and the informant doesn't. The more analogous situation would be if the fellow told a bunch of people who were probably rapists where the drunk naked girl was. I can agree that it would be wrong to do that, but I don't think he'd go to jail for it, and as you already pointed out, if you asked a libertarian they'd say he was a hero.

Whether the above seems acceptable says more about one's own moral compass (or lack thereof) than anything else.

I admit I don't have a moral compass. That's why I have to think of these things intellectually and try to analyse them rather than go with my gut. The best I can do to simulate that is to think about how the act would seem to most people. I have a decent idea of that but I can also be dead wrong.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

The story of Judas makes no sense at all. We've got tales in the gospels where Jesus had to sneak through crowds to avoid being murdered or whatnot and all of a sudden nobody knows what he looks like? Judas has to point out, yeah that's the guy 5,000 people came to listen to. It'd be like in 1968 looking for someone to point out who Elvis was.


Tcg

[1213]

...
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.

[1213]

...
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.

Obtain = κταομαι = ktaomai = to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess
Acts 1:18

Bought = αγοραζω = buy or sell
Matthew 27:7

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.

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

[1213]

...It doesn't. It doesn't matter whether Judas obtained, procured, acquired, bought, or did something else entirely to the field. You can leave it untranslated if you want and say that Judas ἐκτήσατο a nice little χωρίον outside of town with the money that the priests gave him. The key is that it was Judas and not the priests that did it. That contradicts Matthew 27:7 where the priests ἠγόρασαν the potter's ἀγρὸν ...

My point is actually only to show that they are in contradiction only, if you interpret it so. I don’t see any intelligent reason to interpret it so that it looks contradictory. And, there is great difference in the words obtain and buy. If it would say Judas bought it, would mean Judas made the deal himself. But, when there is the word obtain, it means just that he got it by his money, not necessary that he made the deal.

And this leads to question, why do you need to see contradiction in there?

[Difflugia]

But, when there is the word obtain, it means just that he got it by his money, not necessary that he made the deal.

It exactly means that "he made the deal." I'm pretty sure even this won't convince you and I'm tilting at a windmill here, but just look it up! The word ἐκτήσατο is aorist of κτάομαι, starting about a third of the way down the left column (or here). It's never used in the sense of one having someone else get them something, but can be used in the exact opposite way to mean getting something for someone else. The way you and other apologists want to read Acts 1:18 just isn't how the verb κτάομαι is used in any extant Greek literature.

Note that this is in addition to the other nonsensical aspects of that particular apologetic harmonization that I mentioned and you ignored.

And this leads to question, why do you need to see contradiction in there?

Because if I didn't, then we'd both be wrong.