Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[Dr. Danger]

Judas doesn't sound like a real person to me. I'm still trying to grasp it. I know there's not much historicity of Jesus in the gospels, but I was hoping for Judas—or a betrayer—something that would tie us to the historical Jesus.

Let's start with the conspiracy to arrest or kill Jesus

Mark 14:1 It was two days before the Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him; 2 for they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.”

Now on to the agreement to betray Jesus.

10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 11 When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look for an opportunity to betray .

The arrest

43 Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 All of them deserted him and fled.

And finally, his kangaroo court trial

55 Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree.

Now these men conspired to kill Jesus, hire Judas to reveal Jesus to the authorities..which is odd. Jesus says they were in the temple a few days ago and did nothing. They already know who the guy is. (What is Mark writing?) From there on, Judas does nothing to convict Jesus. No one can bring any crimes against Jesus, fictitious or not. What the hell was Judas paid for then? Just to point out a guy who the priests already knew who he was? Wouldn't you pay a guy for their testimony? Or hard evidence? Besides, isn't that false arrest? How can you apprehend a man without probable cause?

They knew who Jesus was because they already were conspiring to kill him. Why was Judas needed at all? Couldn't the high priest do what they did anyway? He didn't have a fair trial. Judas didn't testify. Seems like Judas is pretty useless.

[jimwalton]

Wow, great questions. Thanks for asking.

First of all, though, you've misspoken at the beginning. You said, "I know there's not much historicity of Jesus in the gospels." That is not proved, and there is no evidence to support that claim. There is sparse record of Jesus' life and acts outside of the gospels (and what there is is second hand, viz., Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, etc.). But that's *very* different than claiming there's not much historicity of Jesus in the gospels. Since the gospels are the only record we have of Jesus' life, they may be quite accurate and thoroughly historical. It just can't be evidenced by extra-biblical corroboration. But the silence of corroboration doesn't ensure non-historicity.

Now on to your question. We don't have as much information as we would like on the betrayal, so we are left to do some interpretation. A fairly good case can be made that, up until the betrayal, Judas might have been one of Jesus' closest friends. After all, he had been chosen as one of the Twelve and entrusted with the moneybag, not a responsibility Jesus would have taken lightly. A reconstruction of the seating arrangement for the Last Supper indicates that, while John was sitting at Jesus' right hand, the place of the honored guest, Jesus was sitting at Jesus' left, the place of the intimate friend.

One literary technique throughout the Gospel of Mark is *intercalation*, the sandwiching of narratives by other narratives. The events are related to the same theme and serve to interpret one another. It happens often in Mark, and there is one here in chapter 14. The plot against Jesus by the chief priests and scribes sandwiches the faithful devotion of the woman who anoints him with costly perfume. The woman is giving sacrificially while Judas and the leaders are grabbing treacherously. The woman is loving, while the leaders are murderous. She shows devotion while Judas double-crosses. It's at least one role Judas plays in the narrative.

The setting of the story is antagonism and opposition (another common theme in Mark). The leaders have been prevented from arresting Jesus because of his popularity, as you said. Their original plan was to kill him at the feast (Jn. 11.50). They were stalled by the Triumphal entry and the great Tuesday debate. Jesus plainly had too large a following.

We know from John 12:6 that Judas had a problem with greed and theft, so that could be one motive for his actions. Judas had betrayed Jesus and the other disciples before this by skimming off the purse. Perhaps Judas has come to finally realize that Jesus' kingdom was not going to earn for him the wealth and power he desired, but was going to be a spiritual kingdom. It's possible he betrayed Jesus for the cash and the status before the religious leaders (powerful people in the country). Knowing religious people, the leaders could easily look on Judas's treachery as an act of Providence, justifying their "godly" plots against Jesus. In an act of extreme hypocrisy, they give money that was meant for the poor (ironically, probably like the money poor widows tossed in the coffers, Mk. 12.41-44) and use it as blood money (another comparison using intercalation). Judas looked for an opportunity to hand him over when the crowds would not interfere.

Another role of the betrayal is to show the injustice of the deed. It's bad enough to be betrayed by enemies, but by friends is without excuse. Breaking bread was a sign of fellowship, association, and friendship in their culture. To this day Arabs will not violate hospitality by mistreating one who breaks bread with them. The betrayal scene shows how hypocritical and despicable the leaders and Judas were.

Fast forward to the garden, and to your real questions. Why would they need to hire Judas to reveal Jesus to the authorities? First of all, they don't know where Jesus is. Judas does. Had they just generally searched for Jesus, their search would have become evident and given Jesus time to escape. Secondly, it's dark. They want no mistakes when the finally decide to do the dirty deed done dirt cheap. Third, it's a substantial (how substantial is unknown) group of soldiers, a mix of both Romans and Jews. The Jewish leaders may know Jesus quite well, but the soldiers don't necessarily know him. They want no mistakes. They may have expected Jesus to run; he had eluded their grasp several times before. They come with lanterns in case he runs and hides. His followers are there, so they have come with swords, expecting mayhem.

> Judas does nothing to convict Jesus

Judas does what he was hired to do. The account is clear that he is being paid to turn him over. You want Judas to participate in the trial, but remember the motives of Judas are not revealed and are still open to interpretation. They are difficult to understand. But we at least know what he was being paid to do: hand Jesus over.

> Isn't that false arrest? How can you apprehend a man without probable cause?

Absolutely. It is false arrest for sure. There was no law that justified this arrest, and no charge was expressed against him until later. Even the proceedings were illegal. In Jn. 18.19 they question Jesus about his disciples and teaching; the law stipulated that a man was innocent until proved guilty. Witnesses were supposed to be called before Jesus was cross-examined. Jesus brings this out in Jn. 18.21—it was the priest's duty to call witnesses (and in Jewish law witnesses for the defense were to be called first). In Jn. 18.22 Jesus was struck in the face. This is also against Jewish law. Jesus calls him on it in v. 23.

(Another intercalation here, not pertinent to your question, but of interest: Jesus' confession before the Sanhedrin is framed by Peter's denial (14.53-72) so that Jesus' faithfulness is set in contrast to Peter's unfaithfulness.)

> Why was Judas needed?

To make sure they found Jesus (he moved around a lot), got the right guy, in the cover of darkness, in a mass of people.

[Dr. Danger]

There's no evidence to support the claim? Read the bible and you'll see tons of it is literary device. Not much of Jesus' life is even covered in Mark, just his ministry. So even if its historical Jesus exists, his biography is not in Mark.

Great point about finding Jesus actually. Reading it I didn't see it that way, however I figured he be a pretty hard guy to miss. I don't know how the Roman Empire does court, but you don't just kidnap a person and have a kangaroo court. He goes on trial against himself? Jesus barabas, son of the father against Jesus, son of God? This sounds estoteric in nature.

At some points, the gospels are well written and some points they read like garbage.

[jimwalton]

> Read the bible and you'll see tons of it is literary device.

Of course tons of it is literary device, but you were claiming there wasn't much historicity there. That's different. The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. Because a literary device is used doesn't mean it's fiction. For instance, in Lk. 13.32, Jesus says of Herod: "Go tell that fox, 'I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' " This doesn't mean Jesus isn't real, Herod isn't real, or that Jesus thinks Herod is a fox and so the account is fictional. No, it's a metaphor of craftiness and deceit. The use of a literary device doesn't fictionalize the account.

It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but we don't have to take it either literally or throw it away.

Each of the gospels has an agenda to portray Jesus in a certain way. They're not truly biographies, but more like theological narratives. It's like historiographers about Abraham Lincoln. They all agree in some points, disagree in others, pick and choose what to include, and end up showing conveying a particular picture of Abe. We don't have a problem with that, but for some reason people have problems with the gospels.

> you don't just kidnap a person and have a kangaroo court

Remember Jesus was tried in both Jewish and Roman courts. His Jewish nighttime trial was an illegal travesty; his Roman trial in the early morning wee hours was on demand. There were some heavy politics going on. In the end Pilate found no criminal charge, but agreed to execution because of the political threats of the Jews. so the whole thing was a farce.

Jesus didn't go on trial against himself, but he did admit, on questioning, that he was equal to God (to the Jews) and that he was a king (to the Romans). He was executed for nothing else than the claim to be divine—punishable by death by Jewish law, but not by Roman. But the Jews needed a Roman seal of approval on it, because they didn't have the authority to crucify. The whole thing was a travesty of justice.

> I figured he be a pretty hard guy to miss.

As far as we can tell, Jesus looked like everyone else. There would have been nothing in particular about his appearance to single him out. In the dark of night the US executes ISIS and Al Qaeda leaders, but our government requires DNA verification that it was the person we think it is. Sometimes people of ethnic groups look awfully similar to each other.

> At some points, the gospels are well written and some points they read like garbage.

Now that would be an interesting discussion, if you are interested.

[Dr. Danger]

Barabbas means "son of the father," and some manuscripts even have Barabbas as "Jesus Barabbas". This sounds like Mark was going for an esoteric meaning. It is also fits the hypotheses of Jesus being an apologetic preacher. That's what I mean by Jesus going to trial against himself. To me, the Christian answer for this hasn't been satisfactory for my liking. There's a reason he has this scene in there.

I sincerely doubt the Romans would pardon a treasonous traitor on the accord of a small Jewish population. We have records of Pilate, although small and this guy wasn't too kind to the Jews. We also know he sent provacateurs dressed as Jews to disturb large crowds.

I find it incredulous about Jesus' ambiguity. Women grasp his clothes, anoint his head. He has a place prepared for him, a colt ready for him and so forth? This guy is known. Even if Jesus' location was given by Judas, you wouldn't need Judas to actually kiss him unless Jesus concealed his face in garb like a hijab to hide during the night.

But yeah, interesting discussion. I'm learning a lot.

[jimwalton]

Some manuscripts of Matthew have "Jesus Barabbas," but the best manuscripts don't. You're right that it is somewhat questionable, although the other gospels don't have that textual discrepancy. Mark, Luke, and John all have just "Barabbas." "Jesus" (Yeshua, or Joshua) was a common name, much like "John" in American about 50 years ago. So it doesn't say much that Barabbas may have had "Jesus" as a first name. Many people did. So the textual credibility for just "Barabbas" is strong, though it wouldn't be a bit odd if his name was "Jesus Barabbas." That his name is just Barabbas in 3 of the 4 gospels, though, steals away some of the power of your conjecture about the esoteric meaning. Mark doesn't have that reading, and it's also unlikely that it's meant to be symbolic of Jesus against himself (sort of like "Fight Club"?). Mark wouldn't be making that point, since he doesn't use the name "Jesus" for Barabbas.

The story of Barabbas is uncorroborated in extra biblical material—the person, the name, the event, and the tradition (of pardoning a prisoner at Passover). Historians Paul Winter and Max Dimont both claim such a Jewish custom never existed. Oddly enough, it's a story that occurs in all four gospels.

So there is quite a bit of debate about whether the Romans would pardon a murderous insurrectionist. Roman records show that Pilate was brutal and sometimes vicious in his actions against rebels, but the records also show that Pilate was intensely political and could be swayed by political threats and potential benefits. A story like the Barabbas story could go either way as far as credibility: Pilate was no softie, but he was very much a political animal.

> I find it incredulous about Jesus ambiguity.

During Jesus' life he was mostly a thorn in the side to the Jewish leadership. They would have known him well. Whether the Jewish temple guard would have known him is another matter. Jesus only had one newsworthy incident in the temple mount area, so it's reasonable to assume some would recognize him and some not. I would not expect the Roman guard stationed in the Antonia fortress, however, to have a clue. Jesus hardly interacted with the Romans, especially in Jerusalem (he did meet a few centurions up in Galilee). They often watched from afar unless there was trouble, and there's no reason that they would have paid the least bit of attention to another Jewish man.

The women who grasped at his clothes and anointed his head and feet were Jewish. The colt and the Passover were interactions with Jewish commoners as well. He is known by the Jewish rabble, the Jewish leadership and elite, and a few Romans. Pilate doesn't seem to have had any previous knowledge of him; I wouldn't expect the Roman soldiers to either. We read in the gospel stories that Herod Antipas had heard of him and was pleased to finally be meeting him (Lk. 23.6-12).

Would Judas need to identify him? I would think so, just to be sure. Jesus was with 11 others (who knows how similar they looked), it was night, he may have wrapped his head in the coolness, many of the soldiers may not have been that familiar with him, and it makes sense that they wanted to be SURE they had the right guy.

[Dr. Danger]

Thanks for the elaborate answer! You addressed my concerns and I am learning a lot. Wonderful discussion.