LogicandReason

Today we differentiate between the names Judas, Judah and Jude - the original Greek that the NT was written in makes no distinction between these names which (Yehuda) in Hebrew are synonymous and translate as Celebrated or Praised. Judah is a tribe of Israel, the root word of Judea, was the Kingdom ruled by David's linage after Israel split into two kingdoms following Solomon's death - Judas or Judah are names that represent Jews.

Is it mere coincidence that the bad guy in the NT Gospels is also named Judas? Let's examine this choice in names and see if the evangelist we call 'Mark' choose that name (or simply parroted a name from an oral tradition) when in 14:10 he writes of a trusted disciple going to the Jewish priests and agreeing to betray Jesus.

These was another very famous person of the same name who had recently been a national hero was named Judas, Judas Maccabeus (Judah Maccabee). He was a hero to the religious Jews as he and his brothers fought against the Seleucids (Antiochus) and formed the Hasmonean dynasty that lasted from the middle of the 2nd century BCE until Pompey showed up and Rome installed Herod the Great. I point out that he was a hero to the religious Jews...in the Diaspora, in places like Alexandria, there were plenty of Hellenistic Jews who wished for Jews to assimilate into Greek culture, Judah Maccabee was not a hero to such Jews. Josephus tells us in The Antiquities of the Jews that such Jews existed in Jerusalem as well. In Book 12, chapter 5 we learn that disputes over the High Priesthood led a Hellenistic group (supporting Menelaus) to go to the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus, and ask him to overthrow the religious Jews who had installed the High Priest Jesus (familiar name?).

Fast forward to the end of the 1st century CE and the writing of Mark. Mark's telling of the Jesus legend from oral tradition used a character, Judas Iscariot, to represent the bad guy. Along with the evil plotting Jewish Priests, Mark clearly blames these parties for the death of Jesus (never mind this was the cosmic plan all along). This is the birth of Christian antisemitism. To truly appreciate how many Jews have been tortured, displaced, segregated, had their property stolen or destroyed, and killed over these words I suggest a person read James Carroll's Constantine's Sword. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The straw man argument, offered by Christian protagonist over the centuries, that the original Christians were Jews and therefore the NT is not antisemitic is a half truth. The NT was written primarily by sectarian Jews against the beginnings of Rabbinical Judaism after the fall of the Temple and the Jewish Temple system. These were two competing sides who were both Jewish. Never mind that the whole Jesus story is a legend that does not attempt historicity until the end of the 1st century CE. Trying to discredit and separate from Judaism, early Christian writers attempted to blame the death of their intentional object on the group they were competing with, the Rabbis of Judaism. By Matthew 23 we see the evangelist putting words in Jesus' mouth which blames the Jews for killing former prophets and actually referring to the high priests as a 'brood of vipers.' This has led to centuries of violence and death for Jews.

History records no man named Judas Iscariot...but Judas Maccabee is well recorded in Jewish, Syrian and Roman history. Judas Maccabee was a hero to religious Jews (those under the Temple system and later Rabbinical) but was not to Hellenistic Jews who wanted Judaism to go away and to assimilate into the Greek/Roman lifestyle. Judas Maccabee represented everything the early Christians were fighting to free themselves from. Either by developing through oral transmission or by the evangelist Mark's choice, the name Judas was chosen to blame the religious Jews of the late 1st century for Jesus' death. This affects people today.

bacht

I like the suggestion that 'Iscariot' is a mangled version of Sicarii, the knife-wielding terrorists allied with the Zealots. Mark could've picked this moniker as a commentary on the messianically motivated political troublemakers fighting Rome. That is, "Judas the Sicari" could be a symbol of the failed traditional messiah idea in comparison with the Christian message of passive belief in the coming saviour.

LogicandReason

Can you direct me to that speculation....it's interesting. Do you think the name Judas is chosen to discredit the Maccabees and other religious Jews?

gstafleu

As to your question "Is Judas Iscariot Judah Maccabee?" (my bold), I take it we agree that JI is likely not a historical figure. Given that it is generally agreed, I think, that most (if not all) of Mark is "fiction" (or perhaps better "religious embellishment" or "religious inventiveness"), but in any case not history as we understand it, the most reasonable assumption is that JI is a "fictional" entity. In that case the "is" in your question refers to a literary identity: is the character JI based on the historical character Judas Maccabee, in a roman-a-clef like fashion? Right?

That then means you have to adduce literary facts that would show this to be the case. You have so far, I think, given a historical argument: there was a historical figure called Judas whom the Hellenistic Jews, of whom Mark presumably was one, would have hated. I'm not sure if that is enough to establish your hypothesis as a likely one.

As to your remarks about this being the beginning of (Christian) antisemitism, who knows. I'm generally not a fan of big-bang thinking, usually things evolve. So the role of Judas in Mark may have been a symptom rather than a cause.

Gerard Stafleu

bacht

I think I came across it in Robert Price's "Pre-Nicene New Testament", I'd have to look for it. The footnotes he provides are fascinating to an amateur like me.

Judas Maccabbee was such a national hero that I don't know if a Jewish writer would have reason to criticize him. His Hasmonean successors are a different story; the Pharisees and Essenes had their differences with the dynasty over the high priesthood and Hellenizing.

I have seen a suggestion that the triumphal entry starting Holy Week was patterned on Simon Maccabbee's entry into Jerusalem; he was the one who removed the last Syrian forces in the citadel, thus freeing the Jews from external political control for the first time in centuries.

jjramsey

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. If a name is commonplace, why not attribute its appearance in different places to coincidence?

aa5874

But you need to show that Judas Iscariot was presented in similar fashion to Judah Maccabee.

In the Gospels Judas betrays Jesus and then commits suicide, and in the writings of Josephus, Maccabee is presented as a military political leader of the Jews who fought for the Jews, restored the Temple and gave his life for them.

Perhaps it can be argued that Judah Maccabee was a real Saviour.

bacht

Maybe Judas the Galilean was the model, the founder of the Zealots in Herod's day?

Toto

It is an axiom that there are no coincidences in literature (a saying attributed to Freud.)

The "horses" in your analogy correspond to an author who wrote a symbolic tale about a man named after Moses' lieutenant, borrowing elements from the LXX. It is therefore to be expected that there will be some symbolic reference to Judas.

Or that Jesus and Judas are twins. Judas Maccabee ultimately failed; Jesus is his divine twin who ultimately succeeds.

When you are dealing with literature, there can be many layers of meaning.

wordy

It sounds rather convincing to me as an interested bystander. I know nothing about it though.

It is interesting that Judah Maccabee is not disputed he seems to have existed.

I mean I doubt both Jesus and Paul to have existed. I see no reason to question this person though? Are Josephus sure about that he did exist? Could he have been a reason they created Jesus then to compete with him?