Judas, Sinner or Saint (Not a religious question but a philosophical issue)

Great Debates
1

This is not meant to be a religious debate but rather a philosophical inquiry. I am not a christian nor do I wish to provoke the wrath of those who are.

For the sake of my question I suggest that we accept the biblical account of Judas as true (For this question only, I am not suggesting that anyone should accept the Bible in general nor do I suggest that anyone should reject it. )

That being said, I have often felt that Judas has gotten a bad rap. It seems to me that not only did he not betray Jesus, he was actually the only one faithful to him. While Judas may have told the authorities where Jesus was, could it not be argued that he was simply acting to fulfill the reason Jesus supposedly came to Earth. It seems to be doctrine that Jesus came to atone for the sins of man, and that it was pre-ordained that in order to accomplish this he would die on the cross. In other words Judas was just ensuring that the prophecy would be fulfilled.

Secondly, is it possible that Judas did not hang himself out of shame, but instead was following the ancient custom in which loyal and trusted servants of a king killed themselves upon his death in order to continue serving him in the after life?

2

Mmmmm…on the question of “how bad was he for pointing out Jesus?” I would answer not bad. I base this on the idea that Jesus probably would have supported the idea that “simply ommiting certain details” is not a better thing than lying. So, if someone asked where Jesus was, Judas would be required to answer honestly, and should neither lie not withold information.
I do not believe that Judas should be viewed in either a positive nor negative light for his role in causing Christ to die. The important things about Jesus’ death are the reasons why he died and/or allowed himself to die, not who it was who said, “Jesus? Oh yeah, he’s over there.”

Now, if regardless of this Judas felt that he was personally to blame for this–then he was probably being silly. Similarly, if he felt that it was his place to follow his master, this was an equally misinformed venture. Christianity is quite set against suicide. So no matter what, Judas hanging himself would have been considered a horrendous act–particularly for someone who was supposed to be one of Jesus’ personal students.

While it probably is his part in aiding Jesus’ capture that got Judas blacklisted for Christian history, this was probably based on much the same thinking that caused all Jews to become hated by European Christians. But in technical terms, it was probably Judas’ ending his own life that is the real item which should make him be listed as a bad apple apostle.

3

Did you watch the ABC movie JUDAS that aired Monday night? (It didn’t suck as much as I expected, tho it had the whitest prettiest movie Jesus ever- Jeffrey Hunter was more ethnic- yet conversely a very Jewish Jesus also). It was a sympathetic but critical fictional look at Judas, basically as a Zealot whose patience with JC’s peacemaking stance had run out & wanted to force JC to be the Warrior Messiah they expected.

Here’s the Biblical data on Judas-

He was from Kerioth in Judea (assuming Iscariot is IshKeriot- man of Kerioth;
If Iscariot instead refers to the Sicarii (daggermen), he had some involvement with the Zealots, perhaps even as an assassin, guerilla, “terrorist”.)

Jesus referred to him as a “diabolus” (slanderer) in John 6:70-71. John 12 tells of Judas’ objection to Mary of Bethany’s perfumed anointing of Jesus, noting that he would pilfer from their funds which he oversaw. And all Gospels speak of him being moved by Satan to act in turning Jesus in.

Btw, thirty pieces of silver wasn’t small change. It was used to buy land & was the Torah price for a female slave.

I will give Judas credit for having mixed motives, but I can’t totally see him as a tragic hero- his despair at the end did speak well of him, but his suicide was not a kosher result of it. Nowhere in Judaic tradition is such avoidable self-destruction allowed.

4

“Fulfilling destiny” or not, the sin that damned him wasn’t betraying Christ, but rejecting forgiveness and salvation afterwards. The guy just couldn’t get a break.

5

Errr - Judas wasn’t “asked” where Jesus was - he went to the chief priests and volunteered to betray Jesus for money. It isn’t a question of being forced by your ethics to tell the truth. Judas acted entirely on his own initiative.

Which is why Judas’ action in betraying Jesus was evil, even if it led to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Judas was not motivated by the desire to do good, nor was his intended end in accord with what he felt to be the will of God.

If I rob a liquor store and shoot the owner, and he dies and goes to heaven, that is a good thing. But I didn’t intend it, and I am still to be blamed for my actions. Same with Judas.

Although previous posters are correct that suicide so as to follow your leader is not at all a Jewish tradition, but a serious sin. And that is why Christian thinking is down on Judas. Not just that he betrayed Jesus - Peter did that too. But Judas gave in to despair.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - In case you care, there are two accounts of the fate of Judas. Matthew says that he hung himself after realizing what he had done, and the chief priests used the money to buy a field to bury strangers. Acts 1:15-19 agrees that Judas died shortly after the Passion, and that the thirty pieces of silver were used to buy a field, but it says that Judas bought the field himself, and that he died from “falling headlong” and bursting open in the field.

6

I have to disagree. If that were accurate, the name “Judas” wouldn’t be synonomous down through the ages with “traitor.”

I’m in the same camp with you, askeptic. There’s a great, kind of fictional speculation on the true nature of Judas written by Jorge Luis Borges called “Three Versions of Judas.” Real mind-bender. You can find it in Borges’ book Labyrinths or his Collected Fictions.

7

I’m surprised all of you missed the part in the Gospel of John in which Peter gestures to John to find out who Jesus was referring to when He announced that one of them was to betray Him. If you look at this scene in Da Vinci’s “Last Supper”, you can see Peter, knife in hand, ready to cut down the scoundrel–and there is Judas across the table from him looking quite startled. I have little doubt that Peter would have done just that. Consider how he later drew a sword and struck the high priest’s servant.
But then what does Jesus do after having exposed the traitor? He orders Judas to leave quickly and do what he had to do (i.e. betray Him). Strangely, Peter and everybody else was distracted by this sudden turn of events, and everything returns to normal. Therefore, Jesus actually prevented His own rescue from the betrayal. I take this to mean that, if Judas hadn’t betrayed Him, someone else would have had to. And who that other person would have been is a moot question since the betrayal was carried out as scheduled by the designated traitor.
However, I can’t help but wonder whether at this stage of the Passion a betrayal was really necessary. The chief priests saw a need for somebody to make a positive identification because Jesus had become well known for His ability to alter His appearance and walk away unrecognized from dangerous situations (see Luke 4:16-30 for one such occurance). Thus the Synoptics portray the “Judas kiss”, but John portrays Jesus surrendering to the chief priests, something they hardly expected. In fact, Jesus had to identify Himself three times before they finally believed it really was Him.
And so, I would conclude that, though the betrayal was part of the overall game plan, it was not really all that necessary. And so Judas comes across more as money-grubbing stooge than a serious actor in bringing about Salvation.

8

Throughout most of the gospels, the disciples aren’t clear on what Jesus’ mission will be. They believe He is the Messiah, and that He is coming to establish a kingdom, that He will take over the earth. It’s clear they don’t know that they salvation will come through His being killed and rising again. Jesus mentions the temple being destroyed and rebuilt and they are basically clueless as to what this means.

So given that, Judas would have been acting out of greed and with limited/no knowledge of the grand scheme of things. He betrays an innocent man for money. In retrospect it is part of the salvation plan, but given what he saw and his motivations, it was an evil act perpetrated out of base motives.

9

When Judah (Gk. Judas: Coincidence that both were one of twelve, and betrayed another for silver? I doubt it.) betrayed Joseph of Technicolor Dreamcoat fame, he led Joseph to greater things. Judah was still the bad guy. That’s the biblical precedent the story is drawn from–be it through good editting or divine intervention–so it’s the light the story needs to be viewed in.

Same problem. The Biblical precedent here is Absalom, David’s betrayer. Absalom is the only other man in the entirety of Jewish literature who was hanged by his neck. You’d have a hard time convincing me that I should read Judas’ betrayal outside of that context–it would be quite the coincidence.

Regards.

10

It’s running a little early for Sicarii, however. I’m not aware of any, other than Eisenman (who I think should be dismissed with a laugh and a wave), who would endorse it. There could be more though–Robert Miller springs to mind as a possibility; it’s certainly reminiscient of his model at large.

Regards.

11

You’ll forgive me if I thnk Biblical exegesis that begins with DaVinci’s Last Supper is inherently questionable.

Regards.

12

then you said:

While I had the same problem with the reference to DaVinci, I am a bit confused as to how you can offer a bad play as support of your statements, while dissmissing someone who offers a painting.

My question remains unanswered. Jesus had to die on the cross. Judas insured it would happen. He threw away the “30 pieces of silver”. He hung himself. Where is the great betrayal?

Peter’s betrayal seems much worse, and he did it three times! I do not even want to start talking about that hypocrit Paul who was Saul.

13

I have two ruminations on the subject:

If Judas was indeed from Kerioth in Judah, or possibly from the tribe of Issachar in the south, it is very significant for one reason: alone among JC & the Apostles he would be the only on definitley identified non-Galilean. I wonder what effect that might have had on the dynamic & the way the group related to him? Truly the only discord I recall is Mathew as Tax collector, joining up. Still, Judas’ origins may have been significant to this story - and overlooked.

I can slightly read into the story wildly 1/2 ass speculating that Judas was covering up a crime. +2 of the gospels say he is thieving from the group and that he gets pissy when money is spent to anoint Jesus. Immediately the end game in Jerusalem starts. I wonder if this isn’t to be read Judas was so evil that he was stealing from us – but Judas knows he’s going to get busted for pinching dough, so he blows the whistle on JC. Just one possible motivation, I doubt it seriously, but “Judas was theiving” is followed very closely by “Judas betrayed”.

14

I’d be interested in knowing where the bad play is. Jewish stories must be viewed in the context of Jewish literature, and what we know about Judaism. I explained the source of the story of Jesus’ betrayal.

Joseph came to bring Israel to Egypt, Judah was still the bad guy for selling him for silver. The point is that, regardless of what good comes of an evil act, the act is still evil, in the context that the story is being told. I provided the most pertinent biblical parallel to that effect.

Accepting the story as wholly true, as you opted to do at the outset, leaves you with even greater problems. Jesus condemned Judas’ act as evil. The parallels drawn by Jesus between Judas and the betrayer in the Psalms compounds it still further.

“The Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born.’”-Matt.26.24, Young’s Literal Translation.

It’s curious that, in all of Paul’s heated disputes with Peter, he’s never heard of a denial. You’d think he’d have brought it up to detract from Peter’s authority. The story of Peter’s denial serves a symbolic, not an historical, purpose.

However, since you’re allowing full historicity to Judas, I suppose we can do the same for Peter. If Peter’s betrayal is worse, what exactly does that mean for your case? You didn’t ask if Peter was worse than Judas, you asked if Judas was wrong at all. I’ve suggested reasons he should be viewed as such. We can let Peter be even worse than Judas, if you’d like. I’m no apologist, the morality of any of them is irrelevant to me.

BTW: Paul and Saul are the same name in different languages. Paul is the Greek equivalent. Most Jews likely went by “two names” as such.

Regards.

15

Joseph and the Amazing Technocolor Dream Coat.

Jesus also said “MY GOD MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORESAKEN ME?”

Guess he did not read the Gospels, you know that part where Jesus says you will deny me thrice before the cock crows…

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Just how the hell am I supposed to know this? You say it’s symbolic, somebody says historic…
jimmmy: I seriously doubt you have any “ruminations” on this matter. That is unless you are a typeing cow… :smiley:

16

You’ve missed the point. The story of the betrayal of Jesus is based on the story of the betrayal of Joseph. Right down to the name of the betrayer, the betrayal for silver, and betrayal by one of the twelve. That’s biblical exegesis from biblical texts–hardly analogous to exegesis from DaVinci.

So what? You allowed, in the OP, that the entirety of the betrayal narrative was historical. Whether or not Jesus believed God had forsaken him is irrelevant to that.

Of course he didn’t. They weren’t written for another thirty years. Paul wrote his first letter, 1Thess, c. 45-50 CE. The first gospel, Mark, was written c. 70 CE. Most scholars range the latter from 67-75 ish.

In this particular case? The symbolism is obvious–Peter represents the believer who falters in his faith–the message is that even those closest to Jesus faltered, so it’s forgivable if you do. The silence of Paul on the matter is the nail in the coffin–Paul’s never heard of it, and I can explain why someone would make it up.

The parts that are generally considered historical are parts that either no one would make up, or that were multiply attested. For a couple examples of the latter, it is multiply attested–incredibly well attested, by ancient standards–that Jesus died on a cross, or that he had teachings against divorce, so we would consider those probably historical. For an example of the former, the gospellers and Paul are all desparate to put the blame for the cross squarely on the Jews’ shoulders, but they cannot fully exonerate Pilate, so Pilate was almost certainly involved in the execution. The premise is simple: If no one would make it up, that’s because it’s true. For a good discussion on criteria of historicity, I’d suggest the introduction to Funk et al. The Five Gospels. Excellent coverage of the issues, though I disagree with most of their conclusions.

In the case of Peter’s denial, we lack the attestation of the source we should most expect to hear it from–Paul–and we can explain why someone would make it up. Thus it’s not likely an historical event. See Brown, Death of the Messiah. I hesitate to give a page number, because he discusses the denial at length several times.

Regards.

17

Actually, there’s three. Clement I believe (though I could be mixing him up, it’s been awhile), provides an account in which Judas’ head swells, and subsequently gets lodged between a cart and the city gates.

Regards.

18

Not to be rude, but I recall the Gospels asbeing written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I never heard of the Clement guy you mentioned. Did he write something in the Bible that I missed?

19

The comment I was responding to didn’t say anything about the Bible, it said that there were two accounts of the death of Judas. There aren’t, there are three. There’s probably more than that, though I can’t think of any offhand, but we should probably relegate such things to writings of the first century or so.

At any rate, Clement was a first century “pope” for wont of a better term.

Regards.

20

I disagree with your reasoning and your argument. But I respect you as a person willing to discuss things whithout slinging insults.