Mark's introduction of Judas

[ghost]

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.

What other sources are there for post-Herod unrest besides Josephus?

[Solo]

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.

I believe the original Mark script did not have the apostolic inventory in 3:17-19. The renaming of Simon to Peter does not relate to the ordination of the Twelve and the cockamamie grammar gives away the later harmonizing Mark's Twelve with Matthew's twelve apostles. (There is also a significant withess of the Western text which preserves the first milder recension of the passage). In Mark's original script, Peter, Andrew, John and James stand apart from the summoned twelve witnesses of Jesus as the king in Israel. In the design of the Paschal plot, Judas Iscariot - the sole member of the group who is named - is introduced in 14:10. Unless Mark assumed his readers had a short memory span, the identifier of Judas Iscariot as "one of the Twelve" in that verse is hopelessly redundant. However, it appears that Mark introduced him late as the one who "betrays" Jesus and divides the Twelve, i.e. the house of Israel, and thus fulfils an earlier prophecy of Jesus. The "betrayal" of Judas is a midrashic tale which rehashes the plan of Judah (same name 'Ioudas' in LXX.) in Gen 37:26-27 to sell Joseph to the Ishmailites so that his blood would not be on his brothers hands.

Best,
Jiri

[TedM]

Judas comes from 'Judah' doesn't it? I've heard it said that Judas may represent all of Judiasm. IE the Jews (Judas) betrayed Jesus. OTOH, Judas was a common name at the time. Iscariot has been interpreted various ways but to me the most persuasive is that it refers to a town in Judah. That GJohn, which doesn't even list the disciples, refers in 13:26 to Judas' father as Simon Iscariot adds credence to the idea that Iscariot referred to that town.

I find it interesting that Luke and Acts have a second Judas listed instead of Thaddeus. John also mentions this other Judas. An explanation given is that the other Judas didn't want to be mistaken or associated with Judas Iscariot, and decided to go by another name. This makes some sense.

Together with the use of the name Iscariot I think is a semi-compelling argument for Judas as having been a real person:

1. Iscariot means 'man of Keroth'. Kerioth was a real town in Judah.
2. Son of Simon Iscariot in GJohn is a detail not found in the synoptics. It corroberates the idea that Iscariot refers to a town.
3. The existence of another Judas in Luke, Acts, and John in place of Thaddeus. Why introduce another Judas if it weren't historical? Also, the unlikelihood that the difference in names between Luke and Mark/Matthew was this other Judas -- along with the argument that Judas changed his name so as to not be identified with Judas Iscariot -- has weight.
4. No indication in the gospels that Judas was to be taken as symbolic for all Jews.

While maybe none of these by themselves have much weight, I find them together to be fairly persuasive, expecially when you factor in John vs synoptics AND Luke being different than the other 2 synoptics, as being unexpected.

[TedM]

Thanks Solo. I question whether the list was added later for 2 reasons:

First, I notice that Luke, who mentions the disciples earlier still has that 'one of the twelve' in the passion chapters. If he did that, who is to say that Mark didn't do the same thing (ie was working from a basic passion script that had the phrase?).
Second, John does the same thing with Thomas in chapters 11 and 20.

So, it at least seems not improbable that whoever wrote Mark pieced together some sources and was slightly sloppy in this case. I suppose it is just as possible that the verses were added later.

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.

I believe the original Mark script did not have the apostolic inventory in 3:17-19. The renaming of Simon to Peter does not relate to the ordination of the Twelve and the cockamamie grammar gives away the later harmonizing Mark's Twelve with Matthew's twelve apostles. (There is also a significant withess of the Western text which preserves the first milder recension of the passage). In Mark's original script, Peter, Andrew, John and James stand apart from the summoned twelve witnesses of Jesus as the king in Israel. In the design of the Paschal plot, Judas Iscariot - the sole member of the group who is named - is introduced in 14:10. Unless Mark assumed his readers had a short memory span, the identifier of Judas Iscariot as "one of the Twelve" in that verse is hopelessly redundant. However, it appears that Mark introduced him late as the one who "betrays" Jesus and divides the Twelve, i.e. the house of Israel, and thus fulfils an earlier prophecy of Jesus. The "betrayal" of Judas is a midrashic tale which rehashes the plan of Judah (same name 'Ioudas' in LXX.) in Gen 37:26-27 to sell Joseph to the Ishmailites so that his blood would not be on his brothers hands.

Best,
Jiri

[ghost]

Judas comes from 'Judah' doesn't it?

Where do the different endings come from?

[TedM]

you got me, this is something I read and it sounded authoritative but has been a while.

[steve43]

Josephus IS our only source for much of first century Jewish history.

Philo to a certain degree as well.

Josephus is not hard to read. More people should take the time to read his Wars and the later books of Antiquities, as well as Josephus' autobiography for real insight into those interesting times.

[andrewcriddle]

Judas comes from 'Judah' doesn't it?

Where do the different endings come from?

Judas is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew Judah.

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

Ha ha ha "where does the different ending come from" ha ha ha

[ghost]

Judas is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew Judah.

OK. Now is it possible that it is also a Greek rendering (or misrendering, for that matter) of Latin "Iunius", considering that both [d] and [n] are both alveolar and that uppercase delta and uppercase nu are similar except for one stroke? And is it true that, analogously, Greek "-as" can be a rendering of Latin "-ius" in general, such as "Lukas"/"Lucius" or "Ananas"/"Ananius"?