Judas Iscariot

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

My view of Judas was shaped by Hyam Maccoby's Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil over twenty years ago and I haven't looked into Judas much since then beyond assuming that he is entirely fictional and intended to malign Jews because of his name (from which "Jew" is derived). But now that I'm starting to see Jesus as a Fourth Philosopher and that his disciples were consequently a mixed bag, I'm starting to wonder if there could be anything to the idea that Judas had belonged to the sicarii (and perhaps actually existed). Oh, there's this and that book on Google books that I could link to that argue for the sicarii connection, but for now I'm just curious to see what people here might have to say about this idea. The "ish Kerioth" (or "man from Kerioth") idea doesn't seem to explain why Judas betrayed Jesus. But if he had belonged to the sicarii, then it would make a lot of sense, since Fourth Philosophers are known to have turned on each other (like Niger of Perea, who was killed by more extreme Fourth Philosophers).

For me, it would make sense if someone who had belonged to the sicarii had betrayed Jesus, given his moderation.

And while we are at it, I want to take another look at Simon the Canaanite (or Zealot), who appears to be associated with Judas and is called Iscariot in John 6:71 (for whatever that may be worth). Again, I'm thinking that, as a Fourth Philosopher, it would make sense if Jesus had a "zealot" disciple. But I'm seeing that in Mk. 3:18 he is called "Καναναῖον" and in Matthew 10:4 he is called "Καναναῖος." Does this mean that Matthew misunderstood Mark, or did Mark fail to appreciate the "zealot" sense of Καναναῖον (and/or do translations that say "Canaanite" -also?- misunderstand the "zealot" sense behind it) and Matthew corrected it? What does it even mean to say that Simon was a "Canaanite" in this time period anyway? Offhand, it seems like "zealot" would fit the context of the times better. As noted here, for example, zealots are called Kanayim in Hebrew:
The Great Revolt that led to the destruction of the Second Temple was led by the Kanayim.

https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/kanai-1.8032
So, before I go checking around to see what else I can find about this on Google books, I thought I'd see what people here might think of the idea that Judas had belonged to the sicarii and that Simon was a zealot. It seems like the simplest (and best) idea to me.
Last edited by John2 on Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

And I do take into consideration the argument that the sicarii interpretation "is problematic, however, because there is nothing in the gospels to associate Judas with the Sicarii, and there is no evidence that the cadre existed during the 30s AD when Judas was alive" (as the Wikipedia page for Judas puts it).

But I'm thinking that Judas' betrayal of Jesus alone is enough to associate him with the sicarii, but whether or not "the cadre existed" in the 30's CE is a good question, and offhand, all I can say is that, as the link I gave above notes, "zealots," at least, had been around since biblical times, so that wouldn't necessarily be an issue, even if the people Josephus labels as "zealots" did not emerge until after the 30's CE (which I need to take another look at). Paul uses the term too in reference to his own "zealousness" for the oral Torah in Gal. 1:14, as does Acts 21:20, presumably in reference to the written Torah ("You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law"; cf. Acts 15:21: "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues”).
Last edited by John2 on Fri May 24, 2019 10:31 am, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

And while I'm at it, I keep hearing "Aramaic" in NT studies, but I lean towards the idea that Hebrew was the dominant language of Jesus' time (as the majority of the DSS attest). I can dig up some things that make me suspect this, but as I was reading the Judas Wikipedia page I noticed yet another example of "Aramaic" with respect to the NT:
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", 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.


Okay, but can someone explain to me why, when the NT says Hebrew, it is often translated as "Aramaic"?

For example, Acts 1:19 says:
Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.
I need to look into "Akeldama," but in the meantime, I see that the rest of Acts uses the word Ἑβραΐδι (Hebrew) to describe "their language" yet it is often translated as "Aramaic":

21:40 (NIV):
After receiving the commander's permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
ESV:
And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying:
Greek:
προσεφώνησεν [he spoke] τῇ [in the] Ἑβραΐδι [Hebrew] διαλέκτῳ [language]
And again in Acts 22:2 (NIV):
When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.
ESV:
And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they became even more quiet.
Greek:
Ἑβραΐδι [Hebrew] διαλέκτῳ [language]
And Acts 26:13 (NIV):
We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'
ESV:
And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?'
Greek:
Ἑβραΐδι [Hebrew] διαλέκτῳ [language]
And this word is also used in John, such as 5:2:

NIV:
Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda ...
And here even the ESV has "Aramaic":
Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda ...
But there are other translations that say "Hebrew," such as the NAS:
Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda ...
Greek:
Ἑβραϊστὶ [in Hebrew]


And the same thing is going on in John 19:17 and 19:20. Why is "Hebrew" being translated as "Aramaic"? And isn't the same thing going on in translations of Papias regarding Matthew, that he says "Hebrew" but people take it to mean "Aramaic"? Why is "Hebrew" understood to mean "Aramaic"?

And Rev. 9:11 and 16:16 appear to use the same word and it is always translated as "Hebrew."

https://biblehub.com/revelation/9-11.htm

https://biblehub.com/revelation/16-16.htm

https://biblehub.com/greek/1447.htm
Last edited by John2 on Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:28 pm, edited 11 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

And I see from the Wikipedia page for Judas that the sicarii "were known for committing acts of terrorism in the 40s and 50s AD." If this is the case, then come on, what's the big deal if Judas was a slightly earlier version of a sicarii (or proto-sicarii)?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

As I start to take a closer look at the sicarii, this is jumping out at me from Wikipedia:
On some occasions, the Sicarii could be bribed to spare their intended victims. Once, Josephus relates, after kidnapping the secretary of Eleazar, governor of the Temple precincts, they agreed to release him in exchange for the release of ten of their captured assassins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii
This event is mentioned in Ant. 20.9.3 (the same chapter as the James and Saul passages):
But now the Sicarii went into the city by night, just before the festival, which was now at hand, and took the scribe belonging to the governor of the temple, whose name was Eleazar, who was the son of Ananus [Ananias] the high priest, and bound him, and carried him away with them; after which they sent to Ananias, and said that they would send the scribe to him, if he would persuade Albinus to release ten of those prisoners which he had caught of their party; so Ananias was plainly forced to persuade Albinus, and gained his request of him. This was the beginning of greater calamities; for the robbers perpetually contrived to catch some of Ananias's servants; and when they had taken them alive, they would not let them go, till they thereby recovered some of their own Sicarii. And as they were again become no small number, they grew bold, and were a great affliction to the whole country.


Now, this wasn't "thirty pieces of silver," and the bribes were the release of prisoners and not money for "betraying" anyone, but it's at least curious that sicarii were willing to take bribes to get what they wanted, and I wasn't aware of this.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by perseusomega9 »

Yabbut was he a member of the Judean Peoples Front or the Peoples Front of Judea?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

But then Wikipedia goes on to say:
Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus according to the New Testament, was believed to be a sicarius. This opinion is objected to by modern historians, mainly because Josephus in The War of the Hebrews (2:254–7) mentions the appearance of the Sicarii as a new phenomenon during the procuratorships of Felix (52–60 AD),
So now we're in the 50's instead of "in the 40s and 50s" as per the Judas page (and I guess that's Wikipedia for you).

This event (as noted above) is mentioned in War 2.13.2-3:
This Felix took Eleazar the arch-robber, and many that were with him, alive, when they had ravaged the country for twenty years together, and sent them to Rome; but as to the number of the robbers whom he caused to be crucified, and of those who were caught among them, and whom he brought to punishment, they were a multitude not to be enumerated.

When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; and while every body expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance.
And as also noted above, Felix ruled from 52 CE to 60 CE, and this is when Josephus says the sicarii "sprang up," which I suppose does make their connection with Judas "problematic."

At this point then I'm looking at it this way. Maybe Mark (being, in my view, a follower of a moderate Fourth Philosophic faction) is maligning later and more radical elements of the Fourth Philosophy (who would be fresh on his mind if he was writing c. 70 CE) by portraying the person who betrayed Jesus (whether he is fictional or not) as being associated with "those guys." And maybe even the choice of the name Judas (or the choice of an actual disciple who was named Judas) as the one to betray Jesus is another swipe at "those guys," i.e., the archetypal one, Judas the Galilean. In any event, I don't buy the Judas-being-a-swipe-at-Jews idea anymore since Mark strikes me as being a "Jewish Christian" writing and I buy what Papias says about Mark being a follower of Peter.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:37 pm, edited 11 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

perseusomega9 wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:24 pm Yabbut was he a member of the Judean Peoples Front or the Peoples Front of Judea?
I hear you, and I used to be dismissive of the idea of an historical Judas and reckon I still might be after all the cards are on the table, but I want to at least look at all the cards.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:33 amThe "ish Kerioth" (or "man from Kerioth") idea doesn't seem to explain why Judas betrayed Jesus.
The influence may go in the other direction: a northern (Galilean) tradition about the betrayer of Jesus, noticing (as many commentators do) that Judas is based upon Ahithophel, betrayer of David, and also that Ahithophel hailed from the north (from Giloh, in the hill country), made sure to make Judas hail from possibly the southernmost town in Judea (refer to Joshua 15.25, for example) instead. It is worth pointing out that early Christians knew that Iscariot meant "man from Kerioth," as preserved in the manuscripts:

John 6.71: 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot [א: Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος ἀπὸ Καρυώτου; A: nonextant; B, W: τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου; D: Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος σκαριώθ; Byzantine: τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτην], for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

John 12.4: 4 But Judas Iscariot [א, B, W: Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης; A, Byzantine: Ιούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης; D: Ἰούδας ἀπὸ Καρυώτου], one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said....

John 13.26: 26 Jesus therefore answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot [א, B: Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου; A, W, Byzantine: Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτῃ; D: Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος ἀπὸ Καρυώτου].

John 14.22: 22 Judas, not Iscariot [א, A, B, W, Byzantine: Ἰούδας, οὐχ ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης; D: Ἰούδας, οὐχ ὁ ἀπὸ Καρυώτου], said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?"

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:58 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:33 amThe "ish Kerioth" (or "man from Kerioth") idea doesn't seem to explain why Judas betrayed Jesus.
The influence may go in the other direction: a northern (Galilean) tradition about the betrayer of Jesus, noticing (as many commentators do) that Judas is based upon Ahithophel, betrayer of David, and also that Ahithophel hailed from the north (from Giloh, in the hill country), made sure to make Judas hail from possibly the southernmost town in Judea (refer to Joshua 15.25, for example) instead. It is worth pointing out that early Christians knew that Iscariot meant "man from Kerioth," as preserved in the manuscripts:

John 6.71: 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot [א: Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος ἀπὸ Καρυώτου; A: nonextant; B, W: τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου; D: Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος σκαριώθ; Byzantine: τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτην], for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

John 12.4: 4 But Judas Iscariot [א, B, W: Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης; A, Byzantine: Ιούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης; D: Ἰούδας ἀπὸ Καρυώτου], one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said....

John 13.26: 26 Jesus therefore answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot [א, B: Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου; A, W, Byzantine: Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτῃ; D: Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος ἀπὸ Καρυώτου].

John 14.22: 22 Judas, not Iscariot [א, A, B, W, Byzantine: Ἰούδας, οὐχ ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης; D: Ἰούδας, οὐχ ὁ ἀπὸ Καρυώτου], said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?"

I didn't know any of that! That sounds very interesting. Geez, that would make a lot of sense too. Then I wouldn't have to deal with the "problematic" timing issue. And is this your preferred idea?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply