Judas Iscariot

Judas Iscariot (between 1886 and 1894) by James Tissot

The name "Judas" (Ὶούδας) is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Judah (יהודה, Y^ehûdâh, Hebrew for "God is thanked"), which was an extremely common name for Jewish men during the first century AD, due to the renowned hero Judas Maccabeus.[16][8] Consequently, numerous other figures with this name are mentioned throughout the New Testament.[13][16][8] In the Gospel of Mark 3:13–19, the earliest of all the gospels, which was written in the mid-60s or early 70s AD, Judas Iscariot is the only apostle named "Judas".[8] Matthew 10:2–4 follows this portrayal.[8] The Gospel of Luke 6:12–19, however, replaces the apostle whom Mark and Matthew call "Thaddeus" with "Judas son of James".[8] Peter Stanford suggests that this renaming may represent an effort by the author of the Gospel of Luke to create a "good Judas" in contrast to the betrayer Judas Iscariot.[8]

Judas's epithet "Iscariot" (Ὶσκάριωθ or Ὶσκαριώτης), which distinguishes him from the other people named 'Judas' in the gospels, is usually thought to be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase איש־קריות, (Κ-Qrîyôt), meaning "the man from Kerioth".[16][8][17] This interpretation is supported by the statement in the Gospel of John 6:71 that Judas was "the son of Simon Iscariot".[8] Nonetheless, this interpretation of the name is not fully accepted by all scholars.[16][8] One of the most popular alternative explanations holds that "Iscariot" (ܣܟܪܝܘܛܐ, 'Skaryota' in Syriac Aramaic, per the Peshitta text) may be a corruption of the Latin word sicarius, meaning "dagger man",[16][8][18][19] which referred to a member of the Sicarii (סיקריים in Aramaic), a group of Jewish rebels who were known for committing acts of terrorism in the 40s and 50s AD by assassinating people in crowds using long knives hidden under their cloaks.[16][8] This interpretation is problematic, however, because there is nothing in the gospels to associate Judas with the Sicarii,[8] and there is no evidence that the cadre existed during the 30s AD when Judas was alive.[20][8]

A possibility advanced by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg is that "Iscariot" means "the liar" or "the false one", from the Hebrew איש-שקרים. C. C. Torrey suggested instead the Aramaic form שְׁקַרְיָא or אִשְׁקַרְיָא, with the same meaning.[21][22] Stanford rejects this, arguing that the gospel-writers follow Judas's name with the statement that he betrayed Jesus, so it would be redundant for them to call him "the false one" before immediately stating that he was a traitor.[8] Some have proposed that the word derives from an Aramaic word meaning "red color", from the root סקר.[23] Another hypothesis holds that the word derives from one of the Aramaic roots סכר or סגר. This would mean "to deliver", based on the LXX rendering of Isaiah 19:4—a theory advanced by J. Alfred Morin.[22] The epithet could also be associated with the manner of Judas's death, hanging. This would mean Iscariot derives from a kind of Greek-Aramaic hybrid: אִסְכַּרְיוּתָא, Iskarioutha, meaning "chokiness" or "constriction". This might indicate that the epithet was applied posthumously by the remaining disciples, but Joan E. Taylor has argued that it was a descriptive name given to Judas by Jesus, since other disciples such as Simon Peter/Cephas (Kephas "rock") were also given such names.[22]

Calling of the Apostles (1481) by Domenico Ghirlandaio

Although the canonical gospels frequently disagree on the names of some of the minor apostles,[24] all four of them list Judas Iscariot as one of them.[24][8] The Synoptic Gospels state that Jesus sent out "the twelve" (including Judas) with power over unclean spirits and with a ministry of preaching and healing: Judas clearly played an active part in this apostolic ministry alongside the other eleven.[25] However, in the Gospel of John, Judas's outlook was differentiated—many of Jesus' disciples abandoned him because of the difficulty of accepting his teachings, and Jesus asked the twelve if they would also leave him. Simon Peter spoke for the twelve: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life," but Jesus observed then that despite the fact that he himself had chosen the twelve, one of them (unnamed by Jesus, but identified by the narrator) was "a devil" who would betray him.[26]

One of the best-attested and most reliable statements made by Jesus in the gospels comes from the Gospel of Matthew 19:28, in which Jesus tells his apostles: "in the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne, you will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."[24] New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman concludes, "This is not a tradition that was likely to have been made up by a Christian later, after Jesus's death—since one of these twelve had abandoned his cause and betrayed him. No one thought that Judas Iscariot would be seated on a glorious throne in the Kingdom of God. That saying, therefore appears to go back to Jesus, and indicates, then, that he had twelve close disciples, whom he predicted would reign in the coming Kingdom."[24]

A 16th century fresco depicting Judas being paid the 30 pieces of silver

Matthew directly states that Judas betrayed Jesus for a bribe of "thirty pieces of silver"[27][28] by identifying him with a kiss—"the kiss of Judas"—to arresting soldiers of the High Priest Caiaphas, who then turned Jesus over to Pontius Pilate's soldiers.

Mark's Gospel states that the chief priests were looking for a way to arrest Jesus. They decided not to do so during the feast [of the Passover], since they were afraid that people would riot;[29] instead, they chose the night before the feast to arrest him. According to Luke's account, Satan entered Judas at this time.[30]

According to the account in the Gospel of John, Judas carried the disciples' money bag or box (γλωσσόκομον, glōssokomon),[31] but the Gospel of John makes no mention of the thirty pieces of silver as a fee for betrayal. The evangelist comments in John 12:5–6 that Judas spoke fine words about giving money to the poor, but the reality was "not that he cared for the poor, but [that] he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it." However, in John 13:27–30, when Judas left the gathering of Jesus and his disciples with betrayal in mind,[32] some [of the disciples] thought that Judas might have been leaving to buy supplies or on a charitable errand.

Ehrman argues that Judas's betrayal "is about as historically certain as anything else in the tradition",[3][16] pointing out that the betrayal is independently attested in the Gospel of Mark, in the Gospel of John, and in the Book of Acts.[3][16] Ehrman also contends that it is highly unlikely that early Christians would have made up the story of Judas's betrayal, since it reflects poorly on Jesus's judgement in choosing him as an apostle.[3][33] Nonetheless, Ehrman argues that what Judas actually told the authorities was not Jesus's location, but rather Jesus's secret teaching that he was the Messiah.[3] This, he holds, explains why the authorities did not try to arrest Jesus prior to Judas's betrayal.[3] John P. Meier sums up the historical consensus, stating, "We only know two basic facts about [Judas]: (1) Jesus chose him as one of the Twelve, and (2) he handed over Jesus to the Jerusalem authorities, thus precipitating Jesus' execution."[34]

16th-century fresco from Tarzhishte Monastery, Strupets, Bulgaria, showing Judas hanging himself as described in Matthew 27:1–10

Many different accounts of Judas' death have survived from antiquity, both within and outside the New Testament.[35][36] Matthew 27:1–10 states that, after learning that Jesus was to be crucified, Judas was overcome by remorse and attempted to return the 30 pieces of silver to the priests, but they would not accept them because they were blood money, so he threw them on the ground and left. Afterwards, he committed suicide by hanging himself[37] according to Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 21:22 [38]) The priests then used the money to buy a potter's field, which became known as Akeldama (חקל דמא – khakel dama) – the Field of Blood – because it had been bought with blood money.[37] Acts 1:18 states that Judas used the money to buy a field,[37][39] and "[fell] headlong... burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."[37] In this account, Judas' death is apparently by accident[37] and he shows no signs of remorse.[37]

The early Church Father Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD) recorded in his Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord, which was probably written during the first decade of the second century AD, that Judas was afflicted by God's wrath;[40][41] his body became so enormously bloated that he could not pass through a street with buildings on either side.[40][41] His face became so swelled up that a doctor could not even identify the location of his eyes using an optical instrument.[40] Judas' genitals became enormously swollen and oozed with pus and worms.[40] Finally, he killed himself on his own land by pouring out his innards onto the ground,[40][41] which stank so horribly that, even in Papias' own time a century later, people still could not pass the site without holding their noses.[40][41] This story was well known among Christians in antiquity[41] and was often told in competition with the two conflicting stories from the New Testament.[41]

According to the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which was probably written in the fourth century AD, Judas was overcome with remorse[42] and went home to tell his wife, who was roasting a chicken on a spit over a charcoal fire, that he was going to kill himself, because he knew Jesus would rise from the dead and, when he did, he would punish him.[42] Judas's wife laughed and told him that Jesus could no more rise from the dead than he could resurrect the chicken she was cooking.[35] Immediately, the chicken was restored to life and began to crow.[40] Judas then ran away and hanged himself.[40] In the apocryphal Gospel of Judas, Judas has a vision of the disciples stoning and persecuting him.[43]

The discrepancy between the two different accounts of Judas's death in Matthew 27:1–10 and Acts 1:18 has proven to be a serious challenge to those who support the idea of Biblical inerrancy.[42][41] This problem was one of the points leading C. S. Lewis, for example, to reject the view "that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth".[44] Nonetheless, various attempts at harmonization have been suggested.[41] Generally they have followed literal interpretations such as that of Augustine of Hippo, which suggest that these simply describe different aspects of the same event—that Judas hanged himself in the field, and the rope eventually snapped and the fall burst his body open,[45][46] or that the accounts of Acts and Matthew refer to two different transactions.[47] Some have taken the descriptions as figurative: that the "falling prostrate" was Judas in anguish,[lower-alpha 1] and the "bursting out of the bowels" is pouring out emotion.[lower-alpha 2]

Modern scholars reject these approaches.[48][49][50] Arie W. Zwiep states that "neither story was meant to be read in light of the other"[41] and that "the integrity of both stories as complete narratives in themselves is seriously disrespected when the two separate stories are being conflated into a third, harmonized version."[41] David A. Reed argues that the Matthew account is a midrashic exposition that allows the author to present the event as a fulfillment of prophetic passages from the Old Testament. They argue that the author adds imaginative details such as the thirty pieces of silver, and the fact that Judas hangs himself, to an earlier tradition about Judas's death.[51]

Matthew's description of the death as fulfilment of a prophecy "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" has caused difficulties, since it does not clearly correspond to any known version of the Book of Jeremiah but does appear to refer to a story from the Book of Zechariah[52] which describes the return of a payment of thirty pieces of silver.[53] Even writers such as Jerome and John Calvin concluded that this was obviously an error.[lower-alpha 3] Evangelical theologian James R. White has suggested the misattribution arises from a supposed Jewish practice of using the name of a Major Prophet to refer to the whole content of the scroll group, including books written by minor prophets placed in the same grouping.[54]

Some scholars have suggested that the Gospel writer may also have had a passage from Jeremiah in mind,[55] such as chapters 18:1–4 and 19:1–13 which refer to a potter's jar and a burial place, and chapter 32:6–15 which refers to a burial place and an earthenware jar.[56] Raymond Brown suggested, "the most plausible [explanation] is that Matthew 27:9–10 is presenting a mixed citation with words taken both from Zechariah and Jeremiah, and ... he refers to that combination by one name. Jeremiah 18–9 concerns a potter (18:2–; 19:1), a purchase (19:1), the Valley of Hinnom (where the Field of Blood is traditionally located, 19:2), 'innocent blood' (19:4), and the renaming of a place for burial (19:6, 11); and Jer 32:6–5 tells of the purchase of a field with silver."[57]

Scholar Glenn W. Most suggests that Judas' death in Acts can be interpreted figuratively, writing that πρηνὴς γενόμενος should be translated as saying his body changed in position from vertical to prone, rather than falling headlong, and the spilling of the entrails is meant to invoke the imagery of dead snakes and their burst-open bellies. Hence Luke was stating that Judas became a snake and died like one.[58]

The Syriac Infancy Gospel[89] borrows from some of the different versions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.[90] However, it adds many of its own tales, probably from local legends, including one of Judas. This pseudepigraphic work tells how Judas, as a boy, was possessed by Satan, who caused him to bite himself or anyone else present. In one of these attacks, Judas bit the young Jesus in the side; and, by touching Him, Satan was exorcised. It further states that the side which Judas supposedly bit was the same side that was pierced by the Holy Lance at the Crucifixion.[91]

First page of the Gospel of Judas (Page 33 of Codex Tchacos)

During the 1970s, a Coptic papyrus codex (book) was discovered near Beni Masah, Egypt. It appeared to be a 3rd- or 4th-century-AD copy of a 2nd-century original,[92][93] relating a series of conversations in which Jesus and Judas interact and discuss the nature of the universe from a Gnostic viewpoint. The discovery was given dramatic international exposure in April 2006 when the US National Geographic magazine published a feature article entitled "The Gospel of Judas" with images of the fragile codex and analytical commentary by relevant experts and interested observers (but not a comprehensive translation). The article's introduction stated: "An ancient text lost for 1,700 years says Christ's betrayer was his truest disciple."[94] The article points to some evidence that the original document was extant in the 2nd century: "Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in what was then Roman Gaul, wrote a massive treatise called Against Heresies [in which he attacked] a 'fictitious history,' which 'they style the Gospel of Judas.'"[95]

Before the magazine's edition was circulated, other news media gave exposure to the story, abridging and selectively reporting it.[68]

In December 2007, April DeConick asserted that the National Geographic's translation is badly flawed: "For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a 'daimon,' which the society's experts have translated as 'spirit.' However, the universally accepted word for 'spirit' is 'pneuma'—in Gnostic literature "daimon" is always taken to mean 'demon.'"[96] The National Geographic Society responded that "Virtually all issues April D. DeConick raises about translation choices are addressed in footnotes in both the popular and critical editions."[97] In a later review of the issues and relevant publications, critic Joan Acocella questioned whether ulterior intentions had not begun to supersede historical analysis, e.g., whether publication of The Gospel of Judas could be an attempt to roll back ancient anti-semitic imputations. She concluded that the ongoing clash between scriptural fundamentalism and attempts at revision were childish because of the unreliability of the sources. Therefore, she argued, "People interpret, and cheat. The answer is not to fix the Bible but to fix ourselves."[98] Other scholars have questioned the initial translation and interpretation of the Gospel of Judas by the National Geographic team of experts.[69]

According to medieval copies (the earliest copies from the 15th century) of the Gospel of Barnabas it was Judas, not Jesus, who was crucified on the cross. This work states that Judas's appearance was transformed to that of Jesus', when the former, out of betrayal, led the Roman soldiers to arrest Jesus who by then was ascended to the heavens. This transformation of appearance was so identical that the masses, followers of Christ, and even the Mother of Jesus, Mary, initially thought that the one arrested and crucified was Jesus himself. The gospel then mentions that after three days since burial, Judas' body was stolen from his grave, and then the rumors spread of Jesus being risen from the dead. When Jesus was informed in the third heaven about what happened, he prayed to God to be sent back to the earth, and descended and gathered his mother, disciples, and followers, and told them the truth of what happened. He then ascended back to the heavens, and will come back at the end of times as a just king.

This Gospel is considered by the majority of Christians to be late and pseudepigraphical; however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic, Ebionite or Diatessaronic), redacted to bring it more in line with Islamic doctrine. Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus.