Mark's introduction of Judas

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by neilgodfrey »

TedM wrote: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 was not clear, sorry. No, the names are not listed from "best to worst" but from bad to bad. They are all rotten. Peter leads the group as "rocky soil" to depict the whole lot as useless under pressure; all the disciples desert him; in fact Peter is argued by some to be worse than Judas in that he denies and deserts after being given the best opportunities.

Nor is the "who betrayed him" a prophetic device, agreed. My point was that ancient novellas/narratives set out what was going to happen -- often in prophetic devices but not always. They were not "who dunnits?" with mystery betrayers at the end. In fact, the end scenes were commonly a series of recognition scenes. Audiences knew from the outset what was in store for the characters and the fun of hearing the story was to find out how they went about what they were anticipating.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by neilgodfrey »

ghost wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote: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?
Joan Taylor argues for "chokey" so she would assign the mathematics to favour that one. (She bases it on the legends of the death of Judas -- how he died from being so chocked up/constricted inside that he exploded or something like that.)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by Solo »

neilgodfrey wrote: No, the names are not listed from "best to worst" but from bad to bad. They are all rotten. Peter leads the group as "rocky soil" to depict the whole lot as useless under pressure; all the disciples desert him; in fact Peter is argued by some to be worse than Judas in that he denies and deserts after being given the best opportunities.
FWIW, in my analysis, the original Mark did not have the "apostolic inventory" of 3:17-19 and Simon's renaming did not relate to the ordination of the Twelve. 'Simoni' in 3:16 is dative and everyone else named is in accusative. And then we have the witness of the Western text, which illustrates the 'evolution' of the passage, in the attempt to harmonize the Markan Twelve with the twelve disciples of Matthew. Peter, Andrew, James and John were already with Jesus when he called the Twelve. The Twelve were originally conceived as a mystical collective symbolizing the house of Israel. Judas was the one (and only one of the group named in the gospel) who "divided the house" by going to the priests and "betraying" Jesus ("delivering him up" as per Paul). This of course fulfils the prophecy of the divided house made earlier by Jesus. Unless Mark assumed his readers had a short memory, his repeating in 14:10 that Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve is without effect. Worse, actually, because it destroys the element of surprise the verse is supposed to carry. 'Ioudas' coincides in the name with 'Judah' who in Gen 37 suggests selling Joseph to the Ishmailites so his blood would not be upon his brothers.

As for Peter, IMO it was the oldest gospel which actually hellenized Cephas of Paul`s letters into Petros to give it an ironic twist. Given the behaviour of Peter after Jesus arrest I find it hard to believe that Mark did not intend to lampoon Peter visa-a-vis Romans 9:33:

as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock (petra) that will make them fall; and he who
believes in him will not be put to shame.".

For Paul, of course, Jesus was the "rock" of the scandal, but Mark systematically misplaces and or reverses attributes of actors and objects to give the appearance of a fools' tale. In this instance, Peter was not the stumbling rock but the one who stumbled on the rock laid by God in Zion.

Best,
Jiri
Nor is the "who betrayed him" a prophetic device, agreed. My point was that ancient novellas/narratives set out what was going to happen -- often in prophetic devices but not always. They were not "who dunnits?" with mystery betrayers at the end. In fact, the end scenes were commonly a series of recognition scenes. Audiences knew from the outset what was in store for the characters and the fun of hearing the story was to find out how they went about what they were anticipating.
User avatar
pakeha
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by pakeha »

steve43 wrote: [ . . . ]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.
I agree with you there.
I'll never read Josephus in the original, but the on-line translation I read last weekend of the last book of Wars was an extraordinary read- horrifying, brutal yet utterly riveting.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by Blood »

TedM wrote:
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.
Issachar was one of the 12 tribes of Israel, named after the son of Leah. The name means something like "there is recompense" or "he will bring a reward."

Then Leah said, "God has given me my wages because I gave my maid to my husband." So she named him Issachar. (Genesis 30:18)

In the gospel mythology, Ishcariot/Issachar gets a reward for turning over Jesus to the authorities.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by TedM »

Interesting. Thanks.
neilgodfrey wrote:
TedM wrote: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 was not clear, sorry. No, the names are not listed from "best to worst" but from bad to bad. They are all rotten. Peter leads the group as "rocky soil" to depict the whole lot as useless under pressure; all the disciples desert him; in fact Peter is argued by some to be worse than Judas in that he denies and deserts after being given the best opportunities.

Nor is the "who betrayed him" a prophetic device, agreed. My point was that ancient novellas/narratives set out what was going to happen -- often in prophetic devices but not always. They were not "who dunnits?" with mystery betrayers at the end. In fact, the end scenes were commonly a series of recognition scenes. Audiences knew from the outset what was in store for the characters and the fun of hearing the story was to find out how they went about what they were anticipating.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3443
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by DCHindley »

pakeha wrote:
steve43 wrote: [ . . . ]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.
I agree with you there.

I'll never read Josephus in the original, but the on-line translation I read last weekend of the last book of Wars was an extraordinary read- horrifying, brutal yet utterly riveting.
The scenes of mutual genocide and fighting that occurred between Jewish and gentile populations of Judaea, Samaria, Galilee and areas of lower Syria up to Tyre & Sidon is part of the reason why I have become convinced that this period was the catalyst that caused the synthesis of high christology from the preceding theses that 1) Jesus was the Jewish messiah figure who may have been resurrected after being crucified by the Romans, and that 2) there would be a coming fruitful "kingdom of God" on earth in which gentiles who revered the Judean God could participate. The interracial strife and the utter defeat of the Judean revolutionaries by the Romans made it pretty clear that no earthly kingdom of God was likely to ever occur. The destruction of the Judean cultic center and sacrificial system lent itself to the idea that perhaps God had somehow "demoted" the Judeans and their "Law."

Gentiles who had placed their bets on Jesus as a military messiah could give up on Judaism entirely, but they had already cut all family ties to convert to Judaism, and the war just made that cut even more deep. What they did, it seems, was to refashion Jesus into something that fit into a new and improved "plan of God" for the world.

Go and look at the passages in the gospels where Jesus predicts "brother will hate brother" and "father will hate son" (or vice versa) and "you will be hated by peoples of all nations for my sake" and you can likely find one or more parallel passage in Josephus' War or his Life.
Josephus, in Jewish War 2 wrote: 457 Now the people of Caesarea had slain the Jews that were among them on the very same day and hour [when the Roman soldiers who had agreed to surrender the citadel were slain in Jerusalem by the revolutionaries led by the Captain of the Temple, Eleazar], which one would think must have come to pass by the direction of Providence; insomuch that in one hour's time more than twenty thousand Jews were killed, and all Caesarea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants; for Florus caught such as ran away, and sent them in bonds to the galleys.
458 Upon which stroke that the Jews received at Caesarea, the whole nation was greatly enraged; so they divided themselves into several parties, and laid waste the villages of the Syrians, and their neighbouring cities, Philadelphia, and Sebonitis, and Gerasa, and Pella, and Scythopolis,
459 and after them Gadara, and Hippos; and falling upon Gaulonitis, some cities they destroyed there, and some they set on fire, and then went to Kedasa, belonging to the Tyrians, and to Ptolemais, and to Gaba, and to Caesarea;
460 nor was either Sebaste (Samaria) or Askelon able to oppose the violence with which they were attacked; and when they had burnt these to the ground; they entirely demolished Anthedon and Gaza; many also of the villages that were around everyone of those cities were plundered, and an immense slaughter was made of the men who were caught in them
.
461 However, the Syrians were even with the Jews in the multitude of the men whom they slew; for they killed those whom they caught in their cities, and that not only out of the hatred they bare them, as formerly, but to prevent the danger under which they were from them;
462 so that the disorders in all Syria were terrible, and every city was divided into two armies encamped one against another, and the preservation of the one party was in the destruction of the other;
463 so the daytime was spent in shedding of blood, and the night in fear--which was of the two the more terrible; for when the Syrians thought they had ruined the Jews, they had the Judaizers in suspicion also; and as each side did not care to slay those whom they only suspected on the other, so did they greatly fear them when they were mingled with the other, as if they were certainly foreigners.
464 Moreover, greediness of gain was a provocation to kill the opposite party, even to such as had of old appeared very mild and gentle toward them; for they without fear plundered the effects of the slain, and carried off the spoils of those whom they slew to their own houses, as if they had been gained in a set battle; and he was esteemed a man of honour who got the greatest share, as having prevailed over the greatest number of his enemies.
465 It was then common to see cities filled with dead bodies, still lying unburied, and those of old men, mixed with infants, all dead, and scattered about together; women also lay among them, without any covering for their nakedness: you might then see the whole province full of inexpressible calamities, while the dread of still more barbarous practices which were threatened, was everywhere greater than what had been already perpetrated.
And the case was worse for those who sided with the other race against those of their own race:
466 And thus far the conflict had been between Jews and foreigners; but when they made excursions to Scythopolis, they found Jews that acted as enemies; for as they stood in battle array with those of Scythopolis, and preferred their own safety before their relation to us, they fought against their own countrymen;
467 nay, their alacrity was so very great, that those of Scythopolis suspected them. These were afraid, therefore, lest they should make an assault upon the city in the night time, and to their great misfortune, should thereby make an apology for themselves to their own people for their revolt from them. So they commanded them, that in case they would confirm their agreement, and demonstrate their fidelity to them, who were of a different nation, they should go out of the city, with their families, to a neighbouring grove:
468 and when they had done as they were commanded, without suspecting anything, the people of Scythopolis lay still for the interval of two days, to tempt them to be secure; but on the third night they watched for their opportunity, and cut all their throats, some as they lay unguarded, and some as they lay asleep. The number that was slain was more than thirteen thousand, and then they plundered them of all that they had
.
469 It will deserve our history to relate what befell Simon; he was the son of one Saul, a man of reputation among the Jews. This man was distinguished from the rest by the strength of his body and the boldness of his conduct, although he abused them both to the mischievousness of his countrymen;
470 for he came every day and slew a great many of the Jews of Scythopolis, and he frequently put them to flight, and became himself alone the cause of his army's conquering.
471 But a just punishment overtook him for the murders he had committed upon those of the same nation with him; for when the people of Scythopolis threw their javelins at them in the grove, he drew his sword, but did not attack any of the enemy; for he saw that he could do nothing against such a multitude; but he cried out, after a very moving manner, and said--
472 ``O you people of Scythopolis, I deservedly suffer for what I have done with relation to you, when I gave you such security of my fidelity to you, by slaying so many of those who were related to me. Therefore we very justly experience the perfidiousness of foreigners, while we acted after a most wicked manner against our own nation. I will therefore die, polluted wretch as I am, by mine own hands; for it is not fit I should die by the hand of our enemies;
473 and let the same action be to me both a punishment for my great crimes, and a testimony of my courage to my commendation, that so no one of our enemies may have it to boast of, that he it was that slew me; and no one may glory over me as I fall.''
474 Now when he had said this, he looked around him upon his family with eyes of pity and of rage; (that family consisted of a wife and children, and his aged parents;)
475 so, in the first place, he caught his father by his grey hairs, and ran his sword through him; and after him he did the same to his mother, who willingly received it; and after them he did the like to his wife and children, everyone almost offering themselves to his sword, as desirous to prevent being slain by their enemies;
476 so when he had gone over all his family, he stood upon their bodies to be seen by all, and stretching out his right hand, that his action might be observed by all, he sheathed his entire sword into his own bowels. This young man was to be pitied, on account of the strength of his body and the courage of his soul; but since he had assured foreigners of his fidelity [against his own countrymen], he suffered deservedly.
If one who even remembers the cases of Bosnia-Hergovina and Rwanda in the 80s and 90s, there were mass pogroms, instances of ethnic cleansing, and the dispatch (executions) of those who remained on friendly terms with the "enemy".
(JOE Jwr 2:477-480) 477 Besides this murder at Scythopolis, the other cities rose up against the Jews that were among them: those of Askelon slew two thousand five hundred, and those of Ptolemais, two thousand, and put not a few into bonds;
478 those of Tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a greater number in prison; moreover, those of Hippos and those of Gadara, did the like, while they put to death the boldest of the Jews, but kept those of whom they were afraid in custody; as did the rest of the cities of Syria, according as everyone either hated them or were afraid of them;
This was not universally the case, though:
479 only the Antiochians, the Sidonians, and Apamians spared those who dwelt with them, and would not endure either to kill any of the Jews or to put them in bonds. And perhaps they spared them, because their own number was so great that they despised their attempts. But I think the greatest part of this favour was owing to their pity of those whom they saw to make no seditions.
480 As for the Gerasens, they did no harm to those who abode with them; and for those who had a mind to go away, they conducted them as far as their borders reached.
Some NT examples:

(RSV Mat 24:9-10) 9 "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another.

(RSV Mat 10:35-36) 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

(RSV Mar 13:12-13) 12 And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 13 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

(RSV Luk 6:22) 22 "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil ...!

(RSV Luk 14:26) 26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by Stephan Huller »

Hi DCH.

Let me start by saying that I agree with your assessment of the atheist activist author in the other post. Nevertheless I am not sure here that the chaos of the period leading up to the end of the temple necessarily opens the door to a transformation of a historical man named Jesus to 'high Christology.' I can't see any precedent for this in Jewish history. Even Moses who could have been made divine in the Pentateuch remains wholly human (at least overtly) in the text.

Was the depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus influenced by 'history' (in the loosest sense)? Yes, I would agree with that. Does it mean that this 'history' has to come down to a single historical individual who was crucified or mass crucifixions in the age that was seminal here? I tend to think the latter. In other words, it would be expected that if the gospel was written c. 70 CE then the mass crucifixions in the lead up to the destruction (see Josephus) was identified as the שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם in Daniel and Mark in turn projected a narrative where God himself was humbled in the same manner.

I just don't see why Mark's retrojecting the contemporary circumstances of the final destruction to 49 years earlier necessarily involved a historical crucifixion of an individual named 'Jesus' to that time. I think you and I agree on most of the historical details save for whether or not there was a historical Jesus.

Was 70 CE a sabbatical year (whether Jubilee or otherwise)? I think we both agree yes.

Was the crucifixion set in 21 CE? I think we both agree, yes.

Did Titus prepare or 'announce' the impending destruction of the temple by setting large numbers of crucified Jews facing the city? I think we agree

Is the gospel 'parallel' of Jesus crucified one sabbatical cycle (the final cycle) earlier? Yes

I would just go one step further I think and say that Josephus's narrative is itself artificially constructed also insofar as Agrippa's rejection by the Jews after he appeals to them for peace is literally drawn from the Daniel 9:26 (= 'cut off'). It is for this reason that the surviving Jewish and (some) Christian exegeses of Daniel's 70 weeks are built around these events. I just can't explain WHY they almost all seem to do this - especially Josephus. I do know that the idea also shows up in Christian treatises like the Vengeance of the Savior (where the verb in Daniel 9:26 literally begins with the claim that Agrippa is 'killed' in the lead up before Titus's assault on the temple.

But I don't think it can be argued that both Josephus and Mark AREN'T developed as midrashes on Daniel. In my previous efforts I tried to argue that Agrippa and Titus and Berenice were literally involved in making history conform to scripture. I am not so sure about that any more. I have no firm opinion on what is actually going on here any more other than the parallel exists.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by Stephan Huller »

So to sum up.

1. the temple was destroyed in a year in the sabbatical cycle with mass crucifixions of Jews
2. the gospel is set in the parallel year in the sabbatical cycle only one cycle earlier with one crucifixion (or three I guess - I don't know what that means)

The two events are understood by Mark writing c. 70 CE to related in a significant way. Do we have to believe that 2 is historical or was it an artificial literary device? I tend to think the latter but there might be other possibilities. I just can't see how they are plausible yet.
robert j
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Mark's introduction of Judas

Post by robert j »


Solo wrote,
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.

Hi Jiri,

Consistent with Mark's extensive dependence on the Jewish scriptures as a source for the construction of his tale --- I agree with you here at least to the extent that the passage in Genesis would be well up-there on the list of possible sources for Judas the betrayer.

robert j.
Post Reply