Steven Carr

What arguments have supporters of the HJI brought forward which show that Judas Iscariot existed?

Peter Kirby

Seems that if you find the evidence for a historical Jesus scant, Judas is going to be a might bit scantier, as Judas is not found anywhere in the ancient texts independent of his role in Jesus's life.

Clivedurdle

There is a play on in Britain somewhere about Judas and the BBC asked a Bishop to review it. One comment by the Bishop was very telling, that the playwright had made Jesus a lightweight character.

Now why might that have happened - because Jesus never was a real person and as a character in a play and or story another playwright could only use the material in front of him?

:devil1:

Solo

One possible indication of Judas being added to the cast later is The Gospel of Peter which seems to know nothing about his treachery (or special relationship w Jesus). GoP is an early text, dated cca 80-90 CE:

Here is the crucial postcrucifixion verse from GoP:

Jiri

Chili

[QUOTE=Solo;5261755]One possible indication of Judas being added to the cast later is The Gospel of Peter which seems to know nothing about his treachery (or special relationship w Jesus). GoP is an early text, dated cca 80-90 CE:

Here is the crucial postcrucifixion verse from GoP:

Judas would be absent in the Gospel of Peter for whom only tradition based faith was left. Judas represents Judaism and here Jewish tradition makes itself known by this Levi.

Chili

Judaism is a religion but not an end in itself and cannot have "being" that exists beyond the being (or there would be Jews in heaven and temples in the New Jerusalem).

Doug Shaver

I don't think all historicits believe Judas existed. It seems to depend on why they believe Jesus existed -- more particularly, on how much real history they think is in the gospels. Some of them think that although Jesus was real, the gospel stories about him are largely fictional, and they may well think that the Judas character was pure legend.

Of course, there is that reference by Paul to, as usually translated, "the night on which he [Jesus] was betrayed." Such an early reference to a betrayal strongly suggests the existence of a traitor. Paul doesn't identify him, but if I were a historicist, I might well argue that we might as well call him Judas, never minding whether the gospel authors got any of the facts about him right.

Peter Kirby

Doherty (rightly) points out that the Greek demands a "handing over" but not a betrayal/traitor figure. On (even) a historicist view of Paul, this could be Jesus delivering himself over to authorities, delivering himself up.

Ben C Smith

The following scenario has occurred to me more than once:

1. A disciple named Judas, but not one of the twelve, betrays Jesus.
2. Verses such as Psalm 41.9 and, perhaps more simply, the process of elaboration and exaggeration that obviously affects the Judas tradition as a whole soon turns Judas into a closer confidant than he really was; some tradent erroneously assumes he was one of the twelve.
3. Some strands of the tradition now preserve the original twelve in a postresurrection role (Paul, gospel of Peter, Revelation), while other strands reduce that number to eleven (Mark, Matthew, Luke).

I am not at all committed to this scenario; I would like to see arguments both for and against it.

Ben.

Toto

I think that the simplest explanation is that Judas personifies all of those who "betrayed" the Jesus movement - namely the other Jews. There is no need to see this as a reflection of an actual close associate who betrayed Jesus. The entire betrayal sequence makes no actual sense, after all. Why did the authorities need anyone to point Jesus out to them?

And what explanation do you have for Judas coming from a far country and acting as the treasurer for the 12?