bacht

It was actually Mark who introduced the betrayer:

Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray [Jesus] to them.
And when they heard it they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him.

14.10-11

Matthew just found the scripture to back it up.

Juststeve

Spin:

I'm still about. Had a chance to look at your blog and liked it quite a lot. Obviously some work and thought went into it.

As to this thread I have said about all I have to say on the subject and think I have heard all the mythers have to say as well. I'm not sure there is much disagreement about facts, mostly about interpretation.

Steve

Juststeve

Spam:

Exactly what is unlikely about Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver? Is it unlikely that Jesus would be betrayed? Is it unlikely that it was Judas that betrayed him? Is it the exact amount of money involved?

My life experience teaches that men betray and are betrayed. Why not Jesus?

Steve

Toto

This article / lecture is available from Polebridge

There is no mention of Judas in Paul's letters, and one instance usually translated as "betrayed" actually means only "handed over."

The whole scenario with Judas is contrived. In the gospels, Jesus entered Jerusalem with a fanfare and disrupted the Temple operations. Why would the High Priests need anyone to betray him? They could have just executed him on the spot, or arrested him then. And they didn't call Judas as a witness at the trial.

There is no positive reason to see any historicity in this.

spamandham

Ok, so Jesus pisses off the chief priests, and they are so incensed that they want him dead. But golly, none of them can remember what he looks like, and it never occurs to them to look for the guy with the hoards of people following him, so they have to pay Judas 3 month's wages to identify him.

... this sounds plausible to you? Good lord.

spamandham

This is one of the many many examples of the explanatory power of mythicism. Once we give up the idea that these stories are historical, the symbolism in them becomes obvious and actually helps us unravel what really happened.

dizzy

Adding to the list... Paul seems to know that Jesus was betrayed, but doesn't seem to know it was one of the twelve.

Juststeve

Spamandham:

Both you and Toto seek to use one part of what you say is an ahistorical story to attack another part. In doing so you erect a straw man that I for one have never endorsed.

If you read back through this thread you will find that no where did I endorse the triumphal enter. To the contrary I have said that during his life Jesus was not a particularly important figure. Therefore it is to me an open question how recognizable he would have been to the Chief Priests or to the Romans. It is you and Toto who assume everyone would have recognized him.

Pointing out who Jesus was however is not the only manner in which Judas could have betrayed him. The betrayal might have been simply guiding the arrest party to where Jesus was at the time. Should one of Bin Laden’s inner circle tell authorities where to find him that would be a betrayal even though everyone knows what he looks like.

Finally there may have been more yet to the betrayal. Judas may have informed with regard to what Jesus said and taught in private which may have been regarded either as blasphemous or sedition. It is only the latter that would have got him crucified since the Romans would not punish a religious crime like blasphemy.


Steve

show_no_mercy

This makes sense from all of the historical evidence, but once you toss out Jesus' popularity you've basically destroyed the backbone of the narrative structure. The entire reason that Jesus is crucified - according to the narrative - was because he was popular.

Once you've destroyed the narrative you are basically making a Jesus in your own image. You've created another fictional Jesus. Even though more naturalistically possible, there's no reason to think that this Jesus is probable.

There is a lot of conjecture in this part of the post. This is all fine and great, but conjecture is still conjecture. How do you propose we move from conjecture to something more substantial?

spamandham

I want you to try an experiment if you're game. For the purpose of this experiment, assume there was no historical Jesus, not even a core of a historical Jesus - and that the story of Judas is 100% literary based in no history whatsoever.

From that perspective, read the following and explain what you think the betrayal by Judas (it's ok to recognize what the name 'judas' actually means) and 30 pieces of silver is all about.

So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock. In one month I got rid of the three shepherds.

The flock detested me, and I grew weary of them and said, "I will not be your shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another's flesh."

Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations. It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the LORD.

I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

Then I broke my second staff called Union, breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

If you've been a good sport, compare what you came up with via this exercise to the explanatory power of the HJ story you're developing regarding the betrayal of Judas.

Can you honestly say the mythical perspective has less explanatory power?