Opus1

Layman:

I enjoy this conversation as well. I don't think this is really a "provable" issue one way or the other. Unlike most Christians, you are willing to admit that some of the details of Judas are typological in nature. The problem for me is that when we remove such details--the manner of his death, the kiss, the potter's field, the thirty pieces of silver, etc.--we are left with little but the act of the betrayal itself. If the gospel writers were willing to make up all of these details, couldn't they have created the character of Judas as well?

It is important to note that really only one gospel writer needed to invent Judas: Mark. Matthew and Luke both depended upon mark. John may have (scholarly opinion is mixed), but could have simply been writing so late that the tradition was well established in Christianity at the time.

Furthermore, the development of the character of Judas shows the progressively greater knowledge of the Old Testament on the part of the authors. Matthew and Luke were both much more familiar with the Old Testament than was Mark, hence the typological expansions about Judas.

What I find most damning is that Paul seems unaware of Judas at all, or at the very least unaware of his death. Paul is our earliest source. He alludes to many Old Testament stories, but rarely any from the life of Jesus, his betrayal included. This indicates that many of these stories are later inventions, based upon the Old Testament and Greek mythology.

The Bible does not invalidate itself as a whole by being contradictory, only in the areas directly touched by the discrepancies. In this instance, John and the Synoptics disagree as to whether Judas actually kissed Jesus. Matthew and Luke disagree as to Judas' motivation: in Luke, the money is an afterthought, in Matthew it is the chief motivation. Since I have trouble believing that Judas would betray Jesus for money (especially such a symbolically appropriate amount) after having served in his ministry faithfully for so long, and since I certainly don't believe that Satan enters anyone and makes that commit evil deeds, I tend to see Judas more as a literary device than an actual person.

Can I prove that Judas didn't exist? No. But I think that based on the evidence it is probable that the story of Jesus' betrayal was crafted "so that the Scriptures may be fulfilled," as Jesus himself was alleged to have said.

I think we've exhausted the argument on this issue, but I wanted to respond to this:

"What I find most damning is that Paul seems unaware of Judas at all, or at the very least unaware of his death. Paul is our earliest source. He alludes to many Old Testament stories, but rarely any from the life of Jesus, his betrayal included. This indicates that many of these stories are later inventions, based upon the Old Testament and Greek mythology."

The argument from Paul's alleged silence is wholly inadequate. First, Paul was writing occasional letters. Second, we don't have all of the letters which Paul wrote. Third, Paul does refer to the "human" Jesus more than most admit.

Please see my post, "The Earliest References to Jesus."