Some people might be disturbed at the suggestion that Jesus did not exist, but surely all good people would be happily hopeful were they to hear an argument that very symbol of anti-Semitism has been nothing more substantial than an unhappy fiction. After reading Bishop John Shelby Spong’s Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes some years ago I was naive enough to conclude that most biblical scholars (of the nonfundamentalist variety) were well aware of the evidence that Judas was nothing more than a literary creation. I would still like to think that is the case, and that those scholarly works that speak of Judas as a real person of history who in fact did betray his master really are an aberrant minority in the current field of Gospel scholarship.
Don’t misunderstand, though. By no means does John Shelby Spong deny the historicity of Jesus.
Is there then no literal history that is reflected at the heart of the Christian story? Yes, of course there is; but it is not found in the narrative descriptions of Jesus’ last days. (p. 258)
But who was Judas?
- Was he a person of history who did all of the things attributed to him? . . .
- Or was there but a bare germ of truth in the Judas story, on which was heaped the dramatic portrait that we now find in the Gospels? Can we identify the midrashic tradition at work in the various details that now adorn his life? . . .
- Or was he purely and simply a legendary figure invented by the Christians as a way to place on the backs of the Jewish people the blame for the death of Jesus?
(p. 259, my formatting)
The rest of the post follows Spong’s argument that Judas was created by “Christians [who] made Jews, rather than the Romans, the villains of their story. [Spong] suggest[s] that this was achieved primarily by creating a narrative of a Jewish traitor according to the midrashic tradition out of the bits and pieces of the sacred scriptures and by giving that traitor the name Judas, the very name of the nation of the Jews.” (p. 276)
It may be possible to quibble over Spong’s use of the term “midrash”, which some scholars define as something that is known among the Dead Sea Scrolls but not quite found in the Gospels. But regardless of the term used, the identification of the details of the Judas narrative in the Hebrew Scriptures remains a telling argument that Judas was a literary creation of the Gospel authors.
The post is in two parts. The first part here outlines the main argument for Judas being a late fictional creation and reflecting a mounting anti-semitism within the Church. The second part looks in more detail at the inconsistencies with which the different Gospels present the Judas narrative.
The Meaning of “Iscariot”
It has been suggested that Iscariot refers to Kerioth, a town presumably of Judas’s origin.
But Spong writes that “today [published 1996] the weight of scholarship leans toward the [option that the name derives from sicarious, which means a political assassin].” (p. 259)
The Earliest Christian Reference to Betrayal
This is found in a letter of Paul usually dated to around the mid 50s.
I Corinthians 11:23
I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the same night when he was betrayed took bread.
No name is associated with the betrayal. No hint that one of the twelve might have been responsible.
That is all the (p. 260) had in writing about the betrayal until the seventh decade.
Inconsistencies in the Gospel Portraits of Judas
The first fact that must be registered is that the Gospels do not paint a consistent portrait of the man called Judas. Even if he were a literal figure of history, there is little agreement about the details of his life. (p. 266)
Judas betrayed Jesus
- in Gethsemane (Mark, Matthew)
- at the Mount of Olives (Luke)
- in a garden (John)
Judas came to arrest Jesus with
- a crowd from the chief priests, scribes and elders (Mark)
- a large crowd from the chief priests and elders of the people (Matthew)
- a crowd (Luke)
- a detachment of Roman soldiers accompanied by police from the chief priests and Pharisees (John)
Did the Sanhedrin assemble that night to condemn Jesus?
- Yes (Mark)
- Yes (Matthew)
- Yes (Luke)
- No (John)
Did Judas repent?
- — (Mark)
- Yes (Matthew)
- No (Luke)
- — (John)
How did Judas die?
- — (Mark)
- Hanged himself (Matthew)
- Fell down headlong and his bowels gushed out (Luke)
- — (John)
Judas, Constructed from the Hebrew Scriptures
What’s in a name?
Judas was the Greek spelling of Judah. Judah was the patriarch who founded the tribe of Judah, from which was named the Kingdom of Judah, later Judea. “Jew” originally meant a member of the nation of Judah.
In the midrashic tradition, when the traitor was given the name of the nation that, by the time the Gospels were being composed, was perceived to be the enemy of the Christian movement, then our suspicions that something more than history is at work out to be aroused. (p. 267)
From Joseph’s story, the name of Judas for the betrayer, and the ‘handing over’ for money
The Greek word for ‘betrayal’ literally means ‘to hand over’, “especially to hand over to a recognized enemy.”
Genesis 37-50 contains the famous story of Joseph.
- Joseph was “handed over” to an enemy by a group who became the leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel.
- The handing over of Jesus came from out of a group of twelve who became the leaders of the Church that came to call itself the new Israel.
- Joseph was handed over to gentiles, and death the presumed outcome
- Jesus was handed over to gentiles, with death the presumed outcome.
- God intervened to deliver Joseph from the hands of the gentiles
- God intervened to deliver Jesus from the fate administered by the gentiles
- Joseph had been momentarily imprisoned in Pharaoh’s jail
- Jesus had been temporarily buried in Joseph’s tomb
- 20 pieces of silver was the price of Joseph
- 30 pieces of silver the price of Jesus
- One of the twelve who urged that money be sought for Joseph was Judah
- It was Judas who sought money for the act of betraying Jesus
In the light of these similarities, it is hard not to doubt that there was some intermingling of the stories. (p. 267)
From the Book of Zechariah, betrayal of a shepherd king with 30 pieces of silver
And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Here Zechariah speaks of the betrayal of a shepherd king of the Jews for thirty pieces of silver. This silver was later hurled back into the Temple.
Matthew’s Gospel takes from this passage in Zechariah both the details of the amount of silver for which Jesus (a shepherd-king-to-be) and the throwing of it back into the Temple when Judas repented.
From Ahithophel, the story of the betrayer going out and hanging himself
King David was called an anointed one (=”messiah”), and he also was betrayed by a close confidante, Ahithophel. Ahithophel joined with those who had rebelled against David, but when he saw that their cause was lost he went and hanged himself. (2 Samuel 17:23).
“Christ” is the Greek for “messiah” or “anointed one”.
So later Jewish Christians reading this ancient tale would note that when Ahithophel betrayed the Lord’s anointed, he went and hanged himself (2 Samuel 17:1-23). It begins to sound very much like the Judas story. (p. 268)
The Masada suicides still fresh in the mind of Matthew?
The Jewish war did not end with the destruction of Jerusalem but with the reported mass suicide of Jews at Masada a few years later.
By the time Matthew wrote his gospel, the Jewish Christians had already begun to suggest that the destruction of Jerusalem was God’s punishment on the strict Jerusalem Jews for their refusal to accept Jesus as the Christ. Jesus, they argued, had been betrayed by his own people. . . . That betrayal, these Jewish Christians were asserting, had now resulted in the suicide deaths of the last remnants of the Jerusalem Jews in the Roman war. How easy it would be to interpret that Jewish behavior as betrayal, and together with its tragic suicidal results, relate this action directly to the life of Judas. This would be especially so if the traitor could be seen as a personification of the Jerusalem Jews. (pp. 268-9, my emphasis)
From Psalm 41, the story of a friend who become an enemy at a meal table
The Gospel of John identified the Psalm that was the inspiration for the scene of Judas participating in a meal with Jesus at the moment of his betrayal:
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. . . .
He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. (John 13:18, 25, 26)
The scripture that Judas fulfils is Psalm 41:9
Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.
This narrative detail, explicitly associated with the Psalms, is also found in Mark 14:20, Matthew 26:23 and Luke 22:21. All three identify the traitor solely by his sharing a meal with Jesus. His name is not mentioned, but his sharing a meal with the one he betrays is singled out.
Thus even this detail from the Judas story also appears to have been the creation of a midrash tradition. It is of particular note to recognize that this psalm was originally thought of as a psalm of David bemoaning the betrayal of Ahithophel. These themes echo over and over again in the developing Judas tradition. (p. 269)
From Joab, the story of a betrayal with a kiss, and death by disembowelment
This may be traced to another betrayal story in the Old Testament. The same story might also be the source of Luke’s account in Acts of Judas’s death with his bowels gushing out. (See the full quotations in the second half of this post.)
In 2 Samuel 20:1-10 David had replaced Joab with Amasa as captain of his army. Joab “rectified” this situation by approaching Amasa in friendship, with a kiss, in order to get close enough to stab him. The one strike spilled Amasa’s bowels to the ground, a detail that appears to prefigure Luke’s account of the death of Judas.
And Joab said to Amasa, Art thou in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him.
But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s hand: so he smote him therewith in the fifth rib, and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again; and he died. (2 Samuel 20:9-10)
Spong does not mention the betrayal of David by his son Absalom. It might be worth noting that David himself kissed Absalom on his restoration to his father’s good graces after killing his brother (2 Sam. 14:33). The reader knows, however, that despite the kiss of welcome that Absalom is about to betray his father. Soon afterwards Absalom hatches his treachery by winning for himself the affection of David’s subjects through greeting with a kiss each one who sought his help (2 Sam. 15:5).
The sum of the above
That accounts for almost every detail in the gospel tradition regarding one known as Judas and called Iscariot. This analysis, at the very least, makes the midrashic creation of the Judas story sound more and more probable. At the very least, it suggests that most of the details about the life of Judas may not be literal at all. (p. 270)
The Inappropriate, Confused Context of the Judas Narrative
In John’s Gospel when in front of all the disciples Jesus identifies Judas as the one who is to betray him, the disciples respond bizarrely. Judas left after Jesus gave him the bread and told him to do “the dirty deed” quickly. But the rest of the disciples remain silent and allow all this to happen. There is no attempt to stop Judas.
In Luke , after Jesus announces that the one who is to betray him is at the table with them all, the disciples soon move on to a discussion about which one of them should be the greatest in the kingdom:
But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. (Luke 22:21-24)
Other examples of the ill-fitting nature of the Judas narrative in the Gospels are given below in the comparisons of the different Gospel accounts.
Everywhere one looks, one discovers an inappropriate, confused context for the Judas narrative in the biblical tradition — which is exactly what one might expect to occur if a late-developing tradition ike the story of Judas had been superimposed onto an ancient account where it did not originally exist. From many angles the story of Judas appears to be a late-developing Christian legend. When we confront the results of our study — which reveal that all of the biblical details of Judas’ life appear to have been shaped by the Hebrew scriptures and therefore can hardly be regarded as literal and that the Judas story does not fit into the narrative of Jesus’ passion as an original part of the story might be expected to do — then we ask with renewed urgency whether Judas himself could still be thought of as a literal figure of history. (p. 271, my bold)
Why the Rush to Exonerate the Romans?
The only people who could have been responsible for the death of Jesus by crucifixion were the Romans. If the Jews condemned one to death the penalty would have been carried out by stoning. Yet the Gospels all attempt to shift the blame for the crucifixion on the Jews and portray the Roman governor, Pilate, as an unwilling party who attempted to free Jesus.
Pilate is said to have repeatedly attempted to release a murderous rebel, Barabbas. It is significant that Barabbas means literally “Son of the Father or God” (Bar=Son; Abba=Father or God). Pilate attempts to release one called “the Son of God” but the Jewish mob denies him. Since there was no known custom of Romans releasing a prisoner on a Jewish holy day, there is every reason to think that Barabbas has been invented to paint Pilate whiter still, and to further blacken the Jews.
Matthew’s Gospel says that Pilate washed his hands to declare himself innocent, and had the Jewish crowd cry out, “his blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25).
Pilate is thus exonerated and the Jews have been blamed ever since.
Other improbable details in the narratives further support this anti-semitic agenda of the Gospel authors. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus was tried on the same night he was arrested, which was the holy night of the Passover — a most improbable thing to happen on such a night. The prisoner could certainly have been kept till another time. Besides, the Torah commanded that judgements only be rendered in daylight. The improbabilities multiply.
The Gospel of John is the only Gospel to claim to have been written by an eyewitness. It may be significant in this context, therefore, that this Gospel says that it was Roman soldiers who arrested Jesus, assisted by Temple guards. There was no priestly trial by night, but only a private hearing before the high priest. Nonetheless, John still shows that it was the Jews who were stage-managing the proceedings from behind the scenes the whole time.
So why the need to vilify the Jews and exonerate the Romans?
Spong’s explanation is that the Gospels were written either during or in the wake of the Roman war against the Jews in which the city of Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed.
This means that each gospel inevitably reflected either that war of the tensions of the anti-Jewish sentiment that followed that war’s conclusion.
So bitter was this war that the Jews, especially the Galilean Jews and the orthodox Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, became anathema to the Romans for the next few generations. The Christian Church, already alienated from the rigid orthodoxy of Judaism and becoming les Jewish and more gentile during these years, thus attempted to gain for its members the favor of the ruling Roman authorities. (p. 274)
Again to depart from Spong for a moment, for those who prefer to date the gospels even later, as late as the early to mid second century, the Roman world was wracked by ongoing Jewish rebellions including throughout Cyrene, Egypt and Syria. These culminated in the second Jewish revolt against Rome under Bar Kochba in the early 130’s.
Paul’s evidence concerning Judas
Though Paul does not mention the name of Judas, he does in his writings reflect an understanding that there were no defectors among the twelve.
The earliest expression of the death of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection is in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Note 1 Corinthians 15:3-5
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Spong emphasizes this:
Please note that this Pauline text said that the risen Jesus appeared “to the twelve”! The traitor had neither been identified nor removed in these early years in the writings of Paul. The betrayal by Judas was clearly a late-developing tradition with which Paul was not familiar. By the time the gospels of Matthew and Luke had been composed and the Judas story had entered the tradition, this anomaly had been noticed and rectified so the appearance of the risen Christ was, in those narratives, said to have occurred only “to the eleven.” (p. 275, my emphasis)
Another departure from Spong: 1) That reference to “the twelve” is of questionable authenticity. It may well even have been added after Paul’s lifetime. See Apocryphal Apparitions by Robert M. Price for this case.
2) The early Church Father Justin Martyr, writing around 140 c.e., also only knew of “the twelve”. See chapter 39 in The First Apology, In chapter 50 of the same document Justin says the twelve fled after Jesus was crucified (not before) and that Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection to ordain them as apostles. There is no suggestion of anyone lost. Chapter 106 of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho confirms this belief of Justin’s, and adds that the disciples repented after they had fled at his crucifixion.
If this reference to the twelve is post-Pauline, and if Justin Martyr was not familiar with a Judas story as late as around 140 c.e., we may have further indications that the Gospels as we know them in their canonical form are indeed products of the second century.
Paul’s evidence confirmed by the Gospels
That Paul assumed a “complete twelve” in existence at the time of the resurrection appearances of Jesus — that is, no Judas betrayer who had left the group — is confirmed by places in the Gospels that also assume that none of the disciples would defect. Once again, we see evidence in the Gospels that the Judas narrative was a later addition superimposed on an earlier tale that knew nothing of his betrayal.
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.
Jesus is assuming here that Judas will be among the twelve at his return.
You may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
This passage in Luke is from the scene of the Last Supper. It appears an earlier version of Luke knew of no Judas betrayal, but that Jesus could declare at this moment on the eve of his death that all twelve disciples would be with him in the kingdom.
Everything about the Judas narrative screams that this was a late-developing legend created out of the midrashic method to serve the apologetic needs of the Christians in the last half of the first century [I would keep in mind the possibility of the early to mid second century] in order to transfer the guilt and blame for Jesus’ death from the Romans to the Jews. (pp. 275-6, my emphasis)
The following portion of this post details the variations in the narratives of the different Gospels about Judas. Inconsistencies are noted in more detail than the preceding part of this post.
The Earliest Appearance of Judas as Traitor
The Gospel of Mark is generally accepted as the earliest of the Gospels, often said to have been composed around 65 to 70 c.e.
Mark 3:14-19: First Judas is simply listed here among the twelve. He is the last listed and said to be the one “who betrayed him/Jesus”.
And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.
This is the second appearance of Judas in Mark. Mark gives us no motive for his action. The offer of money came only after his determination to betray Jesus. Readers are not informed what the betrayal hoped to accomplish. Nor is it explained why a betrayal was necessary to arrest Jesus. True, Mark had earlier said the chief priests were fearful of arresting Jesus lest a riot among the people result (Mark 14:2). “Judas, however, was not a party to that conversation.“
Then came the Last Supper. Here the betrayal was discussed but Judas was not mentioned.* Jesus is quoted as saying the betrayer would be one of the twelve, and that this was destined as a fulfilment of prophecy. None would escape his fate.
And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
Following the Supper Jesus is said to lead his disciples out to the Mount of Olives, but there is no indication that Judas was not with them.*
Jesus returns from praying, tells his disciples that his hour had come, and that his betrayer was at hand.
Spong’s interpretation of the text is that “Judas appeared with the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders”, indicating that Mark wanted readers to understand that “the whole Jewish establishment was to participate in the betrayal.” I cannot comment on the validity of this reading, but can link here to the word generally translated “from” but that Spong apparently understands as “with”. (The word is “para” and others uses of it in Mark can be seen via the link.) Or maybe Spong simply misremembered the biblical text. But since the mob are said in most translations to have been sent by the chief priests, etc., it hardly males any difference regarding Mark’s portrayal of the culpability of all Jews in the betrayal.
But apart from the anti-semitic purpose of this image, Spong remarks on the way the whole scene leaves hanging in the mind of the reader how Judas arranged to gather such a delegation if he had never left the disciples at the Supper.*
The text identified Judas strangely as “one of the twelve,” as if he had never been introduced before*. . . . The Judas story sits on the text uncomfortably [see the eight notes marked * above], as if it has been imposed on a text in which it was not original. (p. 261)
. . . . the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
Departing from Spong for a moment here – – –
For those who see Mark as the work of a literary master rather than an awkward patchwork assemblage of traditions and redactions, or for Augustinians and atheists toying with the possibility that the Gospel of Mark was the last, not the first, of the Gospels to be written, it is possible to explain the absence of explicit motive for Judas in terms of Mark’s larger theme and portrayal of the twelve.
Mark may have created the twelve disciples as epitomes of the rocky soil of the parable of the sower. Led by Peter, a name meaning “rock”, and true to the form of the seed sown in rocky soil, the twelve begin their careers with Jesus famously, only to falter and fail under the pressure of persecution. Finally Peter, the first disciple of the twelve, denies Jesus (recall Jesus said that he would be ashamed of those who deny him at his coming) and Judas, the last named of the twelve, betrays Jesus. Judas’ action, like Peter’s, represents rocky soil, the type of person who lacks the depth to endure and survive under trials and tribulations.
From this perspective, Mark’s disciples are seen as character types, and their actions are to be interpreted accordingly. Introducing any other motive would spoil this theme. Greed for money, for example, was one of the sins represented by the seed that fell among thorns, and is illustrated in the Gospel by the likes of the young rich man who asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life.
If this interpretation is correct, then Mark deliberately avoided suggesting Judas was motivated by greed for money.
Spong has mentioned the common understanding that the description of Judas at the moment of betrayal as “one of the twelve” sounds as if the name is being introduced for the first time into the Gospel. An alternative view of this description is that Mark is stressing that Judas’s action is representative of the twelve. All twelve are stained by the representative acts of both Peter and Judas.
Mark’s Gospel has also been interpreted as a polemic against the twelve. If this is indeed the case, it would, I think, strengthen the case for seeing Mark’s reference to “the twelve” at the moment of the betrayal by Judas as a deliberate twisting of the knife into them.
The Gospel of Matthew’s Version of the Judas Story
The Gospel of Matthew (Spong uses the conventional dating of ten to twenty years after Mark’s Gospel) has many more details than are to be found in Mark’s Gospel.
- Judas went to the chief priests to ask for money for the betrayal — thus supplying a motive for Judas, ie greed.
- The amount of money involved is only found in Matthew. It was a trivial amount — the average price of a slave.
- Matthew had Judas speak at the Last Supper: When Jesus said, “One of you will betray me”, Judas asked, “Is it I, Master?”. “You have said so,” replied Jesus. Matthew 26:20-25
- At the moment of betrayal Matthew presents a second dialogue between Judas and Jesus: “Hail, Master”, said Judas; “Friend, why are you here?” asked Jesus.
- Only in Matthew does Judas reappear the following day to declare to the chief priests his repentance over betraying Jesus (Matthew 27:3-4)
- The chief priests rebuff Judas; Judas threw the money in the Temple and went out and hanged himself; the chief priests declare the money unfit for Temple service and use it to buy a field for burying strangers — thus supposedly fulfilling another prophecy. Matthew 27:3-10.
Spong remarks on the last point, Matthew’s attempt to tie the story of the purchase of the field to Old Testament prophecy:
This was a very strained effort on the part of Matthew to ground this developing Judas story in the texts of the Jewish Bible. The quotation from Jeremiah was neither accurate nor appropriate (see Jer. 32:6-15), but it does provide us with insight into how the mind of the gospel writer worked as he sought to develop his narrative in the midrashic tradition of the Jewish people. (p. 262)
Judas according to the Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles
Spong follows the conventional gospel trajectory of placing Luke as the third to be composed (5 to 10 years after Matthew and 15 to 25 years after Mark), and remarks on yet more details being added to the Judas tradition by this time. (Yes and no. My reading of Luke is that there is a different narrative about Judas being written by Luke with few, if any, of Matthew’s distinctive details.)
- Satan was now responsible for the act of betrayal. Satan possessed Judas to make him deliver Jesus into the power of the priests.
- Money was (as it was also in Mark’s Gospel) a subsequent reward offered, not a prior inducement.
- The reason for Judas’ role now became clear: Judas understood the need, and planned to arrange to have Judas arrested away from the crowds to avoid a riot.
- Even this explanation was strained for it would have been no trouble to follow Jesus and to stake out a watch where he could have been arrested quietly. But the betrayal story needed content and this was the best that Luke could do. (p. 264)
And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
And when Judas does betray Jesus it is not in Gethsemane (as it was in Mark and Matthew) but at the Mount of Olives:
And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. (Luke 22:39)
In the “second volume” of Luke-Acts, we read an account of Judas’s demise that is incompatible with Matthew’s details:
 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
The Gospel of John’s Variations on Judas
New details in the Gospel of John
- The betrayal was the work of the devil: “The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him” (John 13:2)
- Judas was the son of Simon, with the above verse sometimes translated as “Judas, son of Simon Iscariot”.(cf at John 13:2)
- At the Last Supper Jesus told the disciples, “One of you will betray me”; the disciples asked which of them would do this; Jesus said “It is he to whom I shall give the morsel when I have dipped it”; Jesus then gave the morsel to Judas; Satan then entered Judas; and Jesus said, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”
- Judas is thus said to have left during the Last Supper, giving him time to organize those needed to arrest Jesus, thus removing an inconsistency in the earlier Gospels.
- John concludes this departure of Judas with the dramatic symbolism of “And it was night”.
When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
When Judas reappears in John, it is in “the garden”, and it is with Roman soldiers assisted by some Temple police.
When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.
Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment [the original word means a cohort of 600 soldiers] of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees.
There is no trial that evening before the Sanhedrin in John’s Gospel. Jesus was only taken to Annas, then to Caiaphas, then to Pilate’s headquarters.
This is the entirety of the biblical data about Judas called Iscariot. It is not a consistent picture. (p. 266)
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Restoring Trust in Science as a Source of Reliable Knowledge - 2021-02-27 22:22:25 GMT+0000
- Raised in a Cult - 2021-02-26 21:21:33 GMT+0000
- Silicon Valley’s Brave New World — and Chinese Communism may be its Beacon - 2021-02-25 13:01:19 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!