Was Judas an afterthought?

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Neil

Could you please clarify exactly which passages of Justin you are referring to ?

Thanks

If you mean Dialogue with Trypho

The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' Numbers 24:17 and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

then I don't think the mention of Judas' betrayal would have been relevant to Justin's argument.

Andrew Criddle

You know Justin wrote more than that paragraph/chapter. I am addressing anyone who is aware of Justin's works.

Pick any specific item that Justin has mentioned and explain why that should have been more "relevant to his argument" than the unmistakeable and unavoidable plot device of Judas's betrayal -- when Justin's narrative at multiple points leaves absolutely no room for such a betrayal.

I really do begin to wonder if you like being the dog that is programmed to yap at my heels every time I say anything here.

Hi Neil

Justin is arguing that various events in the life of Christ were foretold in the Jewish Scriptures specifically Psalm 22. His omission of the betrayal of Judas in his debate with Trypho may just indicate that he did not regard it as a convincing fulfillment of this psalm.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

There are reasons for thinking that the Gospel of Mark was composed "roundabout" the year 70, or at least by the 90s if we want to interpret it as referencing persecutions in the time of Domitian.

Whether persecutions attributed to Domitian happened is up for debate, see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4596

I only mentioned that detail to try to cover the point of my introduction. I really don't know if the Gospel of Mark was composed in the first century at all. It may well have been and I am listing some of the arguments given for that setting. I have many reasons to think it was a first century work. But I keep running up against the problem of scant evidence for it until after Justin.

Surely the allusions in GMark to Vespasian are clear enough: healing a blind man with spittle; restoring a lame limb by a touch

It'd be interesting to know if the author of G.Mark got those tropes from Tacitus and Suetonius or from another source ...

We can assume, safely, that they were known in the Eastern part of the empire at least, maybe even in Rome, before Tacitus and Suetonius. I mention the point to allow room for an early date for the gospel. It's all about possibilities, making room for the start and end parameters of possibility for the authorship of the gospel, or "ur-gospel".

Is it reasonable to surmise that, after Justin wrote the works that we read today, that an earlier version of the Gospel of Mark was supplemented with the Judas details?

That's a rhetorical question? Would it have to be an earlier version of G.Mark?

That's what I am wondering. It's a kind of wishy-washy compromise. Yes, Mark was first century, but it was "redacted" (as they say), over time, and with likely significant additions (from our point of view) after Justin? That way I could have the best of both words: an early Mark and an explanation for Justin's ignorance of key points about the canonical narrative. But am I merely being ad hoc and settling for a harmonization when I should be looking more at the significance of the discordances? I don't know.

Is it not odd, or at least slightly eyebrow-raising, that in the Gospel of Mark, each time Judas is mentioned, he is identified as "one of the twelve" -- as if we might have forgotten that detail even though it was spelled out with demonic caps when he was first mentioned as one of the chosen twelve. There, the list of the twelve is concluded with "Judas, who also betrayed him". So we know Judas is going to betray him from the moment he is first named. So why do we read "who was one of the twelve" each time he is named in the later part of the book?

Mark 3:

[14] And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
[15] And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
[16] And Simon he surnamed Peter;
[17] And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The 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 Canaanite,
[19] And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him.

Mark 14:

[9] Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
[10] And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
[11] And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.

Mark 14:

[42] Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
[43] And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
[44] And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
[45] And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
[46] And they laid their hands on him, and took him.

How easy is it to remove Judas as a betrayer from the above passages? Paul said Jesus was delivered up. Is there a connection here and if so, how seamless or well-seamed is it?

[neilgodfrey]

Justin is arguing that various events in the life of Christ were foretold in the Jewish Scriptures specifically Psalm 22. His omission of the betrayal of Judas in his debate with Trypho may just indicate that he did not regard it as a convincing fulfillment of this psalm.

Of course, but the Judas passage is very prominent in all the canonical gospels and it is very much related to prophecy. And Justin explicitly expresses ignorance (if ignorance can be expressed explicitly) by consistently referring to the twelve all being together at all times throughout and after the Passion up to being sent out to the world to evangelize. There is no room in Justin's narrative for a Judas betrayal. He didn't just downplay it -- he wrote as if it did not exist and no-one else had ever heard of it either.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Well, let's suppose "Mark" was a competent writer. He reads Paul's letters, which are full of what American writers now typically call "prompts" (a brief description of some element of a scene or of an incident, which the writer expands upon to create a more fully developed experience for the reader or audience).

As you point out, Paul serves up this specific slice of dramatic red meat (betrayal - yes, that might hold an audience's interest). He gives no details at all, and even phrases it so that maybe it's just some "simple" arrest.

Of course we don't know Mark's "process" (how he worked). What we do know is that consonant with Paul's prompt, Mark crafted one of the best-known moments in drama: that betrayal with a kiss. Getting this stage picture to work as a moment in itself with full impact presents a worthy technical challenge for the writer, how to prepare the audience for this moment and yet still "surprise" them.

You've cited a few of the high points in Mark's solution of the problem. I'd include the masterful "last/Lord's supper" scene where Judas isn't ever named, and doesn't need to be by then.

How easy is it to remove Judas as a betrayer from the above passages?

If Mark never thought of the kiss, or declined to include it for whatever reason, then easy as pie. If he wants the kiss, however, then he needs something like what you've cited to establish that this is betrayal and not, say, a concerned civilian cooperating with law enforcement.

On the secondary point of "one of the Twelve," I think that's a formulaic epithet, mnemonic, appropriate for the betrayal theme, and handy all around for storytellers, especially when the venue acoustics are unpredictable. In this case, it also prepares for the supper scene's omission of Judas by name, because the Twelve are there and one thing the audience knows well by then is that Judas is one of the Twelve.

"Who also betrayed him" is a forward (a suggestion or outright disclosure that an interesting plot development is yet to come). Good storytelling resorts to forwards early and often. This one is also the pay-off for a hard imposition on the audience, the narrator rattling through a dozen names, only four or five of which are ever heard about again as individuals.

(Probably for us, for whom "Judas" is literally a synonym for "betrayer," you could leave off the explicit forward, and just rely on name recognition to fulfill the forward function. For the first audiences? Maybe not so much.)

[rgprice]

BeDuhn has "Judah Iskariotes, who became a traitor" in Marcion's Evangelion. He's also in the Gospel of John.

I have also considered that Judas being labeled a traitor was a later addition. But this is not so easy to achieve. Here is the problem:

17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”

19 They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely you don’t mean me?”

20 “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

So, even if we were to conclude that the naming of Judas as the betrayer were a later addition, that Jesus was betrayed by "one of the Twelve" is more firmly embedded.

Mark 14:17-20 would all have to be later additions to the text.

However, I do think this is possible. Here is my proposed theoretical solution:

1) Marcion's Gospel was derived from a proto-Mark.
2) In proto-Mark, Judas is not a disciple, rather there was another disciple who was replaced by Judas in Marcion.
3) In proto-Mark, Judas does betray Jesus, but he wasn't a disciple.
4) In Marcion's Gospel, Judas is made a disciple and labeled "one of the Twelve".
5) The Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John all derive from Marcon's Gospel (and Mark).
6) Canonical Mark was harmonized with the others when it was put into the NT anthology.

There are other points where I think this may have happened too. I think that the mother of Jesus was not named Mary in proto-Mark, nor was there any mention of Mary Magdalene, nor any discovery of the empty tomb. I think its possible those features were harmonized into canonical Mark when it was put into the four Gospel collection.

Again, this is all theoretical. I'm not saying I fully endorse this position, but I see it as a possibility.

[Charles Wilson]

Hello Neil --

Hope you are OK.

I've always thought that "Judas" was "Cestius" with the History being another "NT Story => Judas Internal" with Josephus telling of "Cestius => External".

Acts 1: 16 - 20 (RSV):

[16] "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
[17] For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
[18] (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
[19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it';
and `His office let another take.'

This is the story of the Twelfth Legion. At this point, it is under the command of Cestius. It was not always so:

Acts 9: 32 - 35 (RSV):

[32] Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.
[33] There he found a man named Aene'as, who had been bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed.
[34] And Peter said to him, "Aene'as, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed." And immediately he rose.
[35] And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.


Josephus, War..., 2, 19, 1:

"But when Cestius had marched from Antipatris to Lydda, he found the city empty of its men, for the whole multitude (28) were gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles; yet did he destroy fifty of those that showed themselves, and burnt the city, and so marched forwards; and ascending by Betboron, he pitched his camp at a certain place called Gabao, fifty furlongs distant from Jerusalem..."

Aeneas was bedridden for 8 years. 70 - 8 = 62 AD and in 62 the 12th Legion would not even come out of their tents to fight the Parthians -Total Humiliation! This is found in Tacitus, Annals. If Annals had not been found, would we have been able to assert that there had to have been a Text that described an Aeneas in this Symbolic Manner?

There is supposed to be a Contradiction in the "Two Deaths" of Judas but that is not so. The external story is Cestius leaving Jerusalem:

2, 19, 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..."

The Internal Story is of Judas taking a Bribe, 40 pieces of silver.

1. He hung himself.
2. When leaving Jerusalem, he did not follow Roman Ordering for moving Legions. The baggage was to be placed in the middle of the moving Legion, with layers of soldiers as you move to the perimeter. Cestius allowed his guts to spill out and the 12th Legion nearly met its end at Beth Horon.

No Contradiction.

"Judas" => "Cestius". He took a Bribe and betrayed the Empire and met his Doom. The 12th Legion is all over the NT.

"Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it';
and `His office let another take.' "

"Afterthought"? Not on your life.

CW

[neilgodfrey]

Okay, thanks to responses I have been reminded to take more thought of the possible Pauline connection to the origin of the Judas betrayal - though of course Paul does not specify a "betrayal" but a mysterious "delivering up".

If the Gospel of Mark was built on Paul's writings then that could go some way to explaining why Justin appears not to know of major thematic lines in the canonical gospels: Justin avoided Paul totally. Reading Justin alone I don't think we would have any idea that there were Pauline letters.

The idea of a Jewish betrayal of Jesus (not just failure to accept Jesus) that Judas represents appears to have originated on that side of Christianity where Paul was a key presence, either to be followed or to be engaged with.

Justin's view seems to have been one in which the Jews themselves become the messengers of salvation when all twelve disciples follow Jesus' command and go out to the whole world preaching. Justin also says that other Jews went out to counter their message, so there was division, but nonetheless, true to one interpretation of the OT prophecies, it was the Jews, in Justin's mind, who were the ones bringing the light of salvation to the world.

The Gospel of Mark does not conclude with the disciples going out to the world; Matthew says some of them disbelieved at the time they were told to go to all nations; Luke-Acts arguably has the disciples being commanded to go throughout the Holy Land (not the ends of the earth -- see Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century) with Paul being the one tasked with going to the gentiles.

If Justin was concerned with opposing Marcion then his method appears to have been to insist on the Jews represented by the twelve apostles going out to bring Christ to the world.

If the canonical gospels were in some ways an engagement with Paul (for or against Paul or working out a compromise) then they were not part of Justin's world.

So perhaps Justin's apparent ignorance of the canonical gospels (despite the very flimsy threads by which more conservative scholars try to rationalize Justin's knowledge of them) is best explained by the Pauline connection (for or against) that the canonical gospels have rather than that they were not in existence by his time. Justin's response to Paul's letters was to keep them quarantined -- a covid era image -- out of his world.


(P.S. Please, please, read "Pauline" as Paul-LINE and NOT as Paul-LEEN! Thank you)

[John2]

Reading Justin alone I don't think we would have any idea that there were Pauline letters.

Not to sidetrack you, but your statement makes me wonder if there is any evidence that Justin knew any of the NT letters. If not (and I haven't seen anything that suggests it yet), I suppose it could mean that a) all of the NT letters were written after Justin; or b) any or all the letters may have existed, but Justin didn't view them as being as authoritative or useful as the gospels (or whatever writings he means by "memoirs" and such) and he didn't necessarily have a problem with Paul.

[neilgodfrey]

Reading Justin alone I don't think we would have any idea that there were Pauline letters.

Not to sidetrack you, but your statement makes me wonder if there is any evidence that Justin knew any of the NT letters. If not (and I haven't seen anything that suggests it yet), I suppose it could mean that a) all of the NT letters were written after Justin; or b) any or all the letters may have existed, but Justin didn't view them as being as authoritative or useful as the gospels (or whatever writings he means by "memoirs" and such) and he didn't necessarily have a problem with Paul.

Justin did write against Marcion so he presumably knew of Paul's letters. But as was the way of things, it was often considered best to completely ignore references to works or ideas that were part of the opposition's arsenal. As above, I now suspect that is also why Justin did not "know" the canonical gospels.

Justin's writings do raise many questions, though. Some passages of his sound as if they could have come from Romans or a Johannine letter but the context leaves anyone little room to think that he was drawing on any of our canonical material. Further, some of his points about the life of Jesus only elsewhere appear in apocryphal gospels that we normally think must post-date the canonicals.

And his Memoirs of the Apostles... if they were like our gospels, one would expect them to be called Memoirs of Jesus. The "title" Memoirs of the Apostles would lead us to expect a quite different type of work from our gospels.

We would have fewer questions to bother us if Justin had not left us anything.

[MrMacSon]

BeDuhn has "Judah Iskariotes, who became a traitor" in Marcion's Evangelion. He's also in the Gospel of John.

Klinghardt in his 2018 handbook, The Oldest Gospel, Quiet Waters Publications, Bolivar, Missouri (translated from German by Stephen Trobisch), has -

But the feast of unleavened bread, which is called the Passover, was near. And the chief priests and the scribes sought (an opportunity) to eliminate him, for they were afraid of the people. But Judas, who is called the Iscariot and came from a group of the twelve, set out and conferred with the chief priests about how he might extradite him. And they promised even money. And he looked for a favourable opportunity to extradite him [p.79]

(italics in the book; bold and underline mine)

[Jesus, p.80] “... For while the Son of Man follows his calling, woe to him by whom the Son of Man is extradited!”

p.82:

.
While he [Jesus] still spoke, see, there was a large crowd and the one called Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, led them. And Judas came near to kiss him. For he had given them this sign, Whom I will kiss, that is he. And he spoke to Judas, “With a kiss you extradite the Son of Man?”

But Jesus answered and spoke to them, “As if apprehending a robber, you have moved out with swords and clubs? I was with you daily in the temple but you did not lift your hands against me. But this is your hour and the power of the darkness!”
.

---

---

Iskariótés, Ἰσκαριώτης
Of Hebrew origin (probably 'iysh and qirya'); inhabitant of Kerioth; Iscariotes (i.e. Keriothite), an epithet of Judas the traitor -- Iscariot.https://biblehub.com/greek/2469.htm

Greek: Ἰσκαριώτης, Iskariṓtēs | Hebrew īsh-qərīyōth, man of Kerioth a village in Palestine via https://www.dictionary.com/browse/iscariot

.
There is a wide bouquet of explanations of the name Iscariot, but the most plausible is that it is Greek a transliteration of a Hebrew name or epithet, and that Hebrew name consists of two elements. The first element is the common Hebrew noun איש ('ish), meaning man:

איש אנש
The verb אנש ('anash) appears to emphasize the weakness of the human individual and mankind's consequent tendency to clan up and have strength in numbers first and then in social stratification. It either means to be weak or even to be sick, or it swings the other way and means to be friendly and social. It yields the important noun אנוש ('enosh), man or human male individual who is weak yet social.

The second part of our name appears in the Old Testament as Kerioth, which was a town situated on the southern border of the territory of the tribe of Judah, close to the border with Edom.1 The name Kerioth is a plural of the noun קריה (qiryah), meaning city, which comes from the verb קרה (qara), meaning to meet or get together:

קרה
Verb קרה (qara), and its by-form קרא (qara'), mean to near, to meet or to happen upon.

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Mea ... ariot.html

.
.1 Edom is the name of the nation that sprang from Esau, the son of Isaac and Rebekah, and the brother of Jacob (Genesis 25:30).

Edom bordered Israel on the south and was a kingdom long before Israel (Genesis 36:31). Edom and Israel skirmished throughout their existence. King Saul battled them (1 Samuel 14:47) but David conquered them (2 Samuel 8:14) and Edom remained under Israel's control until the reign of Jehoram (2 Kings 8:20).

The ethnonym אדמי, Edomite, occurs only sporadically in the Bible (Deuteronomy 23:8, 1 Samuel 21:8, 1 Kings 11:14), and is spelled without the signature letter waw. That means that Edomite is spelled the same as Adamite (one of Adam).

In Greek times Edom became Idumea (spelled Ιδουμαια and mentioned only in MARK 3:8) and the roles ironically reversed, since the Herod family was Idumean.

.
דמם
The root דמם (ddm) is all about beginnings — or rather the simplicity from whence complexity arises — from being still before the noise starts to being monochromatic before color vision starts ...

... Noun אדם (adam) is one of a few words for man but means literally probably "product" or likeness-made-from-soil; man as corporeal unit of humanity.
.

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Edom.html
.