Ben C Smith

One answer is that Jesus was in hiding. This is something hinted at in the gospels but apparently forgotten as a live datum by all except perhaps John:

1. In John 11.53-54; 12.36 Jesus is said to be in hiding.
2. Note the interference system in John 12.21.
3. In John 18.2 the point is explicitly made that Judas knew where Jesus would be gathering with his disciples.
4. In the other gospels, the weird signals (Mark 11.1-3; 14.13-15) are better interpreted, IMHO, as predesigned codes rather than as prescient miracles.

(Some of these points have been bandied about quite a bit amongst scholars.)

I wish to emphasize two things. First, again, I am not committed to this picture (at least not yet). Second, the gospels, especially the synoptics, are not at all consistent in their portrayal of Jesus as hiding during the days before his passion. I am not sure the evangelists were aware of what their traditions were telling them in that regard.

What is to explain? This is probably part of the legend. Judas does not come from a far country and act as treasurer in Mark.

Ben.

John Kesler

But doesn't Mark 14:48-49 give the real reason for the "betrayal" of Jesus?

Ben C Smith

The real reason?

When a politician offers reasons why the government should subsidize some big pharmaceutical company, do you automatically accept those reasons (helps the economy, offers jobs, promotes medicinal research) at face value? Or is it a good idea to investigate whether that politician might have something more personal to gain from the subsidies (stock owned in the company, lobbyists who supported his campaign)?

I would say the fulfillment of scripture is the reason that Mark (or his Jesus) offers us. I would say it is at least worthwhile to look behind that reason to see if there is another.

Ben.

Solo

They did not have a picture.

Jiri

John Kesler

What I'm suggesting is that Mark invented the superfluous character of Judas Iscariot as a way to "fulfill" prophecy, not that the actions of a historical Judas de facto accomplished this.

Ben C Smith

I understand that. And that is a viable option. I am suggesting that it is not the only viable option. It may not even be the most plausible option.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

I know. That's why I threw in the bit about "as usually translated."

Yeah, could be. That's the neat thing about the historicist view. There are so many options to pick from.