|
The Death of Judas Iscariot
His name conjures up images of treason. When it's spoken people immediately think "traitor". Judas Iscariot is a name synonymous with evil itself. "I am no Judas," a person might say, revolted at some notion. Despite the hostility and venomous sentiments, surprisingly little is known about Judas. Where was he born? Who were his parents? How old was he when he met Jesus? What was his trade? Was he married? What did he look like? Aside from knowing his Father's name (Simon) thanks to the Gospel of John any biographical details of Judas have been lost in the sands of time. The study of "Iscariot" might provide us with a glimpse into a possible region for his hometown but certainty regarding the etymology of this term is not to be had. See John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 2001 Vol. 3, p. 209-211 for a discussion of the etymology of Iscariot. Like so many other cultural icons from antiquity we know scarcely nothing about Judas Iscariot. His first mention in Matthew occurs in the tenth chapter where he is part of a list of the twelve. His name is followed by three words, "who betrayed him", which identify him as the man who was responsible for Jesus's death. Judas Iscariot has been stripped of all humanity and is solely identified on the basis of his betrayal of Jesus. We know Judas lived in the first third of the first century. He was Jewish. The canonical gospels depict him as one of the original Twelve apostles. The gospel of John says that his Father's name was simon and that he was also treasurer of the Twelve (John 13:29). We also are told that Judas betrayed Jesus (with a kiss) for a certain sum of money (thirty silver coins). Did Judas betray Jesus for money as Matthew suggests? Or was Jesus's teaching leading him down this path already and Judas figured he could make a quick buck? Might Judas have taken offense at Jesus' teaching? Did Jesus make grandiose claims about himself? If so, did Judas find this offensive as a good practicing monotheistic Jew of the first century should? Was he motivated by greed or pious adherence and devotion to the religion of his fathers-- all the way down to Abraham? Judas has been vilified throughout history because of the Gospel's portrayal of him but good historians must be frank in saying we know next to nothing about Judas Iscariot. Historical Jesus scholar John Meier writes, " Down through the ages, Judas has been a magnet for the artistic imagination of Christians. Literature and the pictorial arts have expanded his story and personality to such huge proportions that it is difficult to remind even critical readers that we know only two basic facts about him: (1) Jesus chose him as one of the Twelve, and (2) he handed over Jesus to the Jerusalem authorities, thus precipitating Jesus' execution. These two starkly contrasting facts are the colliding flints that have set ablaze Christian fantasy ever since." (Meier, Marginal, Vol. 3, p. 209)
The Evolving Judas The rudimentary beginning of Judas Iscariot mythology can already be seen in the Christian gospels. Midrashic expansion is found in the story of Jesus' anointing at Bethany with expensive myrrh. The Gospel of Matthew (ch. 26) places Jesus in Bethany in the home of Simon the leper where a woman comes with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume which she pours on Jesus' head. "When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."" (Matthew 26:8)
The anointing at Bethany Matthew identifies those indignant as Jesus' disciples. Mark identifies them as the very generic some of those present. "Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly. " (Mk 14:4-5) Luke has an altogether different scene. Jesus is having dinner at a Pharisee's house. A woman with a sinful life pours the perfume on his feet and and them with her hair. Nothing is mentioned about the waste of such perfume. Instead Jesus is criticized silently by the Pharisee who says to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner." The Gospel of John more closely follows the Gospels of Matthew and Mark but instead of "the apostles" or the generic "those present" the gospel of John identifies a single, indignant apostle, Judas Iscariot. John 12:4-6 reads, " But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." Judas is identified as the indignant apostle and furthermore, John is careful to call him a thief in order to evade the poignant criticism. John further presses this point home when he identified Judas as the group treasurer (John 13:28-30).
Betrayal for money. In Mark Judas spontaneously decides to betray this and at this the chief priests "were delighted" and they "promised to give him money". John Meier writes, "To take but one example: stark, dark, laconic Mark gives no motive for Judas' act of betrayal. Money is mentioned and given to Judas only after he spontaneously makes the offer to hand over Jesus to the high priests (Mark 14:10-11). As usual, Matthew is not satisfied with Mark's enigmatic narrative that leaves so many questions unanswered. Here as elsewhere in his redaction of Mark, Matthew clarifies by introducing motive (26:15): Judas initiates his offer to betray Jesus with the question, "What are you willing to give me?" Matthew thus makes everything clear: Judas was avaricious; he betrayed Jesus for money." (Marginal, v. 3 p. 208). Luke places the money in a similar position as Mark but puts Judas' motivation as demonic rather than human. It is Satan, not greed which is at the root of Judas' act against Jesus (Luke 22:3-5). Mark has nothing, Matthew has greed and Luke has demonic influences. John intertwined both Matthew and Luke: Judas is a greedy thief who was influenced by Satan.
The Death of Judas
Further midrashic expansion can be seen regarding the death of Judas. We actually do not know how Judas did in fact die. 1. Did Judas die from hanging himself (Mt.27:5) ? Some Christian apologists have suggested that a failure to supply all the details is not an error and that it is possible Judas hung himself and the rope broke and his stomach burst open. This is partially correct. A paucity of details failure should not necessarily be called an error. But in a case where it can be shown that the details would have been cited or in case where it can be shown that there is too much of a lack of overlap the lack of details leads to an error. Also it is conceivable that analyzing details surrounding the two accounts might reveal the fact that we are in fact dealing with two mutually divergent accounts. We have two possibilities: [1] MT and LK are both accurate and describe the same event but both stress completely different sides of the coin. [2] Matthew and Luke affixed an appropriate ending to Judas' life and
this explains the contradictory formulations. As will be seen, the evidence clearly leans conclusively in favor of one of these options.
Why does Matthew have hanging? Because Judas hung himself is the simple prima facie answer. If we dig deeper another solution presents itself. Jesus's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane in Mark and Matthew and Luke precedes Jesus arrest and it clearly echoes the Old Testament story of King David in 2Samuel.15-17. John Dominic Crossan (Who Killed Jesus--pp.76-78) highlighted four explicit parallels (1-3, 7) and here are listed three more ( 4-6) 1.Both scenes have a hero and traitor Jesus and Judas compared to David and Ahithopel. The details differ but in each case a trusted confidant turns traitor. 2.Both locales are the same. David crossed the Wadi Kidron (or Kedron Valley) and goes to the Mount of Olives as did Jesus (see the Gospels). 3.Both Jesus and David offered prayers as suppliants before God on the Mount of Olives, each distraught by what is happening to him. 4. Peter’s insistence he is ready to die with Jesus is similar to Ittai the Gittite’s statement to David (2-Sam15:21). 5.Both David and Jesus seem to have a "thy will be done" clause (2-Sam15:25). 6.Ahithophel requests soldiers to go and capture David (Sam-17:1-3). This may have been the model for Judas and the arresting band he led. 7.Both Ahithophel and Judas (only mentioned in Matthew) hang themselves, the only two Biblical characters to do so.
Condign Endings for Infamous Characters With that groundwork laid the gospels can be surveyed again and we can reassess the question of why Matthew has Judas hanging himself. We know that Mark was interested only in Judas‘ shameful act, but many of those that followed Mark were interested in his end as well. As Crossan wrote (ibid.p.73), “One who started with such a monstrous act, they reasoned, must surely have ended with an appropriately monstrous death.” Since Judas committed such a shameful act, Christians reasoned that he must have come to a very wicked end. The evidence for this outlook is fairly easy to document. We have not two, but THREE separate accounts of Judas’ horrible fate. As Crossan wrote, “There are three independent versions of that appropriate fate, and they all presume a death that was immediate, terrible, according to the scriptures, linked to a specific location in Jerusalem, and reminiscent of the horrible deaths of other infamous characters.” There was a popular imagination of condign endings for infamous lives in antiquity. Notice first the three (or four?) accounts of Judas death: Matthew has self-hanging as did another infamous character, Ahithophel, probably Matthew‘s source. Luke has Jesus swell up and burst asunder in Acts. Nadan appears to have had a similar fate (legend of Ahiqar which was very popular ). Preserved comments from Papias have him denigrate Judas harshly: “He was so swollen he could not pass where a wagon could.” He records that Judas was crushed by a wagon and his entrails poured out.” In the longer form Papias records that from Judas’ private parts pus and worms emanated from all parts of the inside of his body and “he died after many punishments and tortures.” So we may have four(?) different horrible endings ascribed to Judas. It must be noted that Papias is often believed to have read or knew of Matthew and Luke by many apologists. I disagree with this outlook but its important to note their view in light of this. Also, Papias probably wrote much earlier than most people believe he did (ca. 110, not 130) so his witness is not far removed from the gospel era (70-100 C.E.) It is telling to compare those gospel accounts of Judas's demise to the deaths of these infamous characters as recorded by Raymond Brown in volume two of the Death of the Messiah (p.1409.n.28), “The long form of Papias is closer to the full account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in II Macc 9:5-10 (worms, vile stench) than is Acts 1:18. The death of Nadan in the Arabic form of the Ahiqar legend (8:38) has a much expanded description of the effect of swelling on the body. Herod Agrippa is struck down and eaten by worms in Acts 12:23. Josephus (Ant. 17.6.5) includes in the death of Herod the Great ulceration of the bowels, rotting of the private organ producing worms, and malodorous breath. Besides going mad, the brutal governor of Cyrene, Catallus, has his ulcerated bowels fall out (Josephus, War.7.11.4). According to Herodotus (Hist. 4.205) the cruel Cyrenaean Queen Pheretime has maggots or worms come out of her body. The same fate befalls Cassander who acts against the family of Alexander (Pausanius, Graeca Descriptio 9.7.3-4). The hostile emperor Galerius is punished with an abcess in his private organ, ulcerated bowels, a multitude of worms, and an intolerable stench (Eusebius, EH 8.16.3-5)." Due to this process the unbiased historian will state the following: Christians did not know what happened to the disciple who betrayed Judas so they decided to affix horrible fates to his life that parallel the tortures and punishments of other infamous characters in antiquity. The historian would not harmonize them. To repeat: There is a popular imagination of horrible endings for infamous lives in antiquity. Matthew, Luke and Papias are a part of this ancient practice.
The Absurdity of Harmonization Here Some apologists contends that in order to demonstrate errancy, skeptics must prove how two statements absolutely violate the law of non-contradiction. This evasive standard is nonsensical. Turning this standard against itself, the skeptic could require absolute proof of the veracity of any theological statement before its truth claim could be accepted. Where would religion and "faith" be then? Logically we can evaluate this "absolutist" standard with the following thought example. We have three-to-four accounts of Judas death. Suppose we wanted to harmonize Luke-Matthew and both forms of Papias, we could do it easily. But now to make it more challenging, suppose we have we two more accounts of Judas death: 1) hypothetical text Farfanoogan.12.4 says “an arrow pierced Judas and he died” and hypothetical text Ortwagg 6.8 says “Judas died by fire“. Surely these are all logically possible and reconcilable. The can be harmonized them as follows: Judas had internal diseases and swelling (Luke) with worms and pus (Papias.LF) and underwent many tortures and punishments (Papias.LF). So he decided to hang himself (Matthew) and one of Jesus zealous followers, still angered by the betrayal, shot Judas with an arrow as he hung from a tree (Farfanoogan). The arrow was a flaming one and this lit Judas on fire (Ortwagg) and caused the rope to break and he fell headlong (Lk-Mt-Far-Ort) where a wagon rolled over him (Papias Short) and this caused his body to burst open and his entrails to fall out (Luke and Papias). Now this entire scenario is highly comical, but it is, we must admit, within the realm of logical possibility. Thus, using the standard above, there is a logically possible harmonization and apologists could say that all these accounts can be reconciled and therefore, there is no demonstrable error. On historical critical-grounds the evidence for the creation of condign endings for infamous individuals is overwhelming and the reader must view the evangelists in light of this process. But even on the grounds of harmonization alone, the though example above should demonstrate to the sober-minded, the absolute absurdity of the apologist's standard for evaluating the question of errors in the Bible. Requiring absolute proof of the violation of the law of non-contradiction is the safe sentiment of a pious, indoctrinated pastor, not the rational, critical criteria that diligent researchers should employ.
Further Divergence in the Judas Story
Acts 1:18-19 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) To summarize the differences: (using "Luke" for "Acts"] Judas returned the money (Matthew). Judas bought a field with the money (Luke) Judas is portrayed as remorseful (Matthew) The field was bought by the priests with the blood money as a burial
place for foreigners. (Matthew) The field was so named field of blood because it was a burial place for
foreigners and bought by the priests with blood money. (Matthew) Judas hung himself (Matthew)
Luke explicitly states: "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this." The failure of Matthew to supply any of these details as Luke has them is not reconcilable. More overlap is certainly expected and such popular, accurate, historical accounts should not have such diverse details. The only common ground is money was involved in Judas betrayal, a field was bought and Judas died miserably. After that, every who, what, why, where and how come are all different. For example, by definition, when Judas throws his money into the temple and leaves he relinquished possession of it. It was no longer his money. An apologists would have to equivocate on property ownership here to harmonize the account.
Final thought on Judas Very little is known about Judas Iscariot. His birthplace, trade, physical appearance and personal preferences are all lost to us. His motivation for betraying Jesus is also shrouded in impenetrable mystery. Rather than making a quick dollar Judas may have genuinely believed he was doing the right thing. We simply do not know. His death is also a riddle wrapped in an enigma with two mutually divergent canonical accounts sharing a bare minimum of overlap. Both authors are to be located within the common ancient practice of assigning condign endings to infamous characters. Midrashic expansion of the figure of Judas Iscariot began all the way back in the first century and has persisted unto this day. |