Mark's introduction of Judas

[TedM]

Mark 3:16 NASb: [quote}And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), 17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder”); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.[/quote]

Do you see anything odd about this verse? If Mark was simply telling a story why would he indicate at the introduction of Judas that Judas was the one who betrayed Jesus at the end? To me, either that 'who betrayed him' was tacked on later as an interpolation, or Mark wasn't making up that part of the gospel.

[MrMacSon]

or; that part of the narrative was being told or redacted in retrospect, as likely it was.

(edited to add likely)

[ghost]

The Iunii (IOYNAC > IOYDAC) killed Caesar.

The apostles were legates (leaders of legions).

Isn't "Iscariot" related to "sicarius"?

[neilgodfrey]

Do you see anything odd about this verse? If Mark was simply telling a story why would he indicate at the introduction of Judas that Judas was the one who betrayed Jesus at the end? To me, either that 'who betrayed him' was tacked on later as an interpolation, or Mark wasn't making up that part of the gospel.

I don't think this is so odd when read in the context of other ancient narratives. It is not uncommon for the character types and their future function to be made clear at the outset. Indeed, in most of the "erotic novellas" -- novels about love (eros) something equivalent to our "popular novels" but restricted to a relatively small elite audience -- plots are driven by prophecies set out from the beginning. The reader knows what is going to happen from the start and the anticipation lies in wanting to see how it all happens.

Further, by singling out the last name in the list as the one who is the betrayer we have a balance with the opening name who is singled out as being given the nickname of "rocky". I think it was Mary Ann Tolbert who commented in "Sowing the Gospel" (and maybe others too I can't recall at the moment) that this bracketing of the twelve sets them up for a certain function: "Simon/Peter", the first named, is seen to be the "rocky soil" of the parable that soon follows, and Judas the betrayer -- thus bracketing all twelve as the failures who fall apart at the end.

The reasons to accept the epithet as being created from the outset to serve an intentional literary function are thus strong, I think.

[neilgodfrey]

Isn't "Iscariot" related to "sicarius"?

Joan Taylor in a 2010 article in the Journal of Biblical Literature tells us of six possible meanings:

• man from Qarioth
• assassin or robber
• liar or false one
• red, redhead, red dyer
• deliverer
• chokey, chokiness, constricted

[ghost]

Joan Taylor in a 2010 article in the Journal of Biblical Literature tells us of six possible meanings:

• man from Qarioth
• assassin or robber
• liar or false one
• red, redhead, red dyer
• deliverer
• chokey, chokiness, constricted

Is it possible to assign numerical probabilities to these?

[TedM]

I would agree that listing them in order of 'best' to 'worst' is intentional, but I don't think that means anything in terms of whether he is intending to tell a historical or fictional story. I think the prophecy/foreshadowing intention makes more sense had the phrase been 'who was going to later betray him' instead of 'who betrayed him'. Maybe the reading could go either way but 'who betrayed him' does not sound prophetic or a literary device to me.

Do you see anything odd about this verse? If Mark was simply telling a story why would he indicate at the introduction of Judas that Judas was the one who betrayed Jesus at the end? To me, either that 'who betrayed him' was tacked on later as an interpolation, or Mark wasn't making up that part of the gospel.

I don't think this is so odd when read in the context of other ancient narratives. It is not uncommon for the character types and their future function to be made clear at the outset. Indeed, in most of the "erotic novellas" -- novels about love (eros) something equivalent to our "popular novels" but restricted to a relatively small elite audience -- plots are driven by prophecies set out from the beginning. The reader knows what is going to happen from the start and the anticipation lies in wanting to see how it all happens.

Further, by singling out the last name in the list as the one who is the betrayer we have a balance with the opening name who is singled out as being given the nickname of "rocky". I think it was Mary Ann Tolbert who commented in "Sowing the Gospel" (and maybe others too I can't recall at the moment) that this bracketing of the twelve sets them up for a certain function: "Simon/Peter", the first named, is seen to be the "rocky soil" of the parable that soon follows, and Judas the betrayer -- thus bracketing all twelve as the failures who fall apart at the end.

The reasons to accept the epithet as being created from the outset to serve an intentional literary function are thus strong, I think.

[Charles Wilson]

For those of us who are persuaded by the Roman Thesis, Judas is perfectly intentional. There is no puzzle

To pull a ghostian statement out of the hat, "Judas" <=> "Cestius".
Cestius commanded the 12th Legion. Josephus records that he would have put down the Jewish Rebellion in another day but he withdrew from Jerusalem:

War 2, 19, 6 - 7, in part:

"6. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately; but the people upon this took courage, and where the wicked part of the city gave ground, thither did they come, in order to set open the gates, and to admit Cestius as their benefactor, who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.

"7. It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world. But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his, they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their horsemen and footmen..."

The internal Story is that Cestius took a bribe - the 40 peices of silver - and nearly met his doom at Beth-Horon, near Lydda. The inhabitants are in Jerusalem -"Desolate be his abode" and because he did not march according to Roman sensibilies, lost his baggage to the Seditionists. Cestius is replaced - "Let another his office take" - and this means that there is no contradiction at all in the descriptions of Judas' "death". He did hang himself and his guts did spill out when he carried his baggage in the rear as opposed to where the proper Legion Protocol demanded it, in the middle.

Note that Josephus is not being completely truthful here - "...without a reason in the world..." - after invoking God preparing for the destruction of Jerusalem. Those who believe that Josephus anywhere always and everytime tells the truth are being set up here for a justification for Titus razing the city. Many probably believe that Titus tried to prevent his troops from burning down the Temple as well - "The troops were just...just...CRAZY, that's all.."

Sure they were.

Nobody here will believe this analysis but it is complete and consistent and it certainly implies that Mark wrote with intention as to, for example, Domitian, aka the "Holy Spirit" and Cestius, aka "Judas". Mark put together a very literary Story for a definite (Roman) end.

CW

[ghost]

Where does the name "Judas" come from?

[robert j]

The character of Judas in GMark may be related to the connection of the story with the Galilee.

For Mark, the Galilee was very significant. He placed the beginning of his tale there -- and the implied ending. One likely source for Mark's location of his story is Isaiah 9:1-2,

“ … Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them.” (NASB)

Matthew 4:14-16 echoes this passage, and perhaps Luke also (1:79 and 2:32). Then, following closely in Isaiah 9:6-7 we find,

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; … Prince of Peace … On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore … “ (NASB).

But back to Judas. In his book, The Jewish Revolts Against Rome, A.D. 66-135: A Military Analysis (2010), James Bloom, following Josephus, discusses the wave of unrest that swept through Palestine following the death of Herod in 4 BCE. Bloom characterized the story like this --- After simmering a while, the unrest turned to open revolt. The Sepphoris-based Judas the Galilean, with religious-political motives, gathered a large group of followers, raided the royal arsenals and, once armed, attacked the other competitors for supremacy over Judea. (p. 44).

---- An assassin? --- A traitor against fellow revolutionaries?

The passage from Josephus that Bloom describes is found in Antiquities (17.10.5). And Josephus --- in Antiquities 18.1.1 --- laid a good deal of blame on this (same?) Judas for sowing the seeds that led to the later war and the destruction of the temple.

There is no clear parallel between the events of Judas in Josephus, and the Judas in Mark. And certainly this connection involves a good deal of speculation, but Mark may have had good reason to choose the name of Judas for the Galilean traitor in his tale. At least something to consider.

robert j.