jakejonesiv

Yes, the guilt for the alleged death of Judas is soon passed from Pilate and the Romans to the Jews. And Judas (i.e. Judah) is then the personification of the Jewish people.


I will attempt to trace the meta text of how the character of Judas Iscariot developed over considerable periods of time. This is intertextuality, with succeeding tellers building and changing the earlier.


In the Pauline corpus, there is little indication of a betrayer. The only arguable instance is 1 Cor. 11:23. “For I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered (paradidOmi) unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed (paradidOmi) took bread:” The Greek word paradidOmi means delivered, not necessarily betrayed. The exact same word is used twice in the verse. Thus there is no betrayer, and certainly no Judas, mentioned in the Pauline material. Indeed, Jesus is being obedient to God, and his actions are voluntary. There is no need for a betrayer.

So let’s turn to the gospels. The Gospel of Peter retains an earlier stage of development that what we find in the canonical gospels. No individual member of the Twelve seems to be singled out as the betrayer of Saint Jesus. "But we the Twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and mourned, and each of us, sunk in grief over what had happened, retreated to his dwelling."

But soon, in a theoretical earlier version of urMark, the betrayal by Jesus is by the group of disciples as a whole. Robert Price in _Deconstructing Jesus_ suggests that Jesus is surrounded and ambushed by his own disbelieving disciples. According to R.Price, hints of this remain in the gospe. In the garden, Jesus is surrounded by armed men. But surprisingly, the disciples are armed, and are the ones to actually use the weapons (14:47). Then there is a surprising admonition by Jesus.

Mark 14
48 And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me, as you would against a robber?
49 "Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures."


What? Every day they were _with_ him? This means Jesus companions. That could only be Jesus disciples, not the crowd of henchmen sent to arrest Jesus. The crowd of henchmen were created to take away the collective guilt of the apostles. Please note that the armed crowd of v. 43 is allegedly only “from the chief priests, scribes, and elders.” These worthies do not deign to accompany their thugs in the dirty work. This only strengthens the argument that Jesus, in an earlier version, was admonishing his captors, the disciples. In fact Caiaphas the high priest and Cephas aka Simon Peter are mimetic doubles, and was responsible for killing Jesus.


This makes all twelve disciples the mimetic doubles of Jesus, which explains in the next twist of the story why Jesus had to be singled out from his “be alikes” with a kiss. They were all doppelgangers.


But every good story needs a specific villain, and soon Jesus splits into two characters, the single betrayer and the betrayed. In an early strata of the betrayal story in GMark, the betrayer is unnamed, he is merely “he that betrayed him” (Mark 14:44). By identifying a specific disciple as the villain, the guilt of the twelve as a whole is mitigated.


Hence, the "Judas Goat" evolved and tooks a life of its own. It is noteworthy that Judas is a late addition to the gospel story. The first mention of Judas by the church fathers is in Justin. The Judas character is likely derived from Judah (Gen 37:26) and his brothers’ betrayal of Joseph. Indeed, one possible explanation for the name Judas Iscariot is a conflation of the brothers Judah and Issachar, so listed consecutively in Genesis 35:23.


Again, we see the theme of the betrayal by a brother named Judah/Judas. Just as Judah was one of twelve brothers, so Judas was one of the twelve disciples (The twelve are another garbled grab bag of contradictions added late to the Jesus story). Indeed, in GMark, Judas is never mention outside the context of the Twelve. He is listed (Mark 3:19) in the ordination (Mark 3:14) of the twelve; and the betrayal scenes added to the arrest story, Mark 14:10, 43. That is it for Judas in GMark.

In GMatthew, we can see the mimetic process at work. Matthew created a brother of Jesus named Judas (Matt 13:55. Matthew introduced the thirty pieces of silver (Matt 26:15), and a complimentary death was invented for the mimetic double: Judas was hanged (Matt. 27:5) even as Jesus was hanged. It is worth noting that the thirty pieces of silver is Matthew’s innovation; the specificity of the money is not mentioned by Mark or even the Gospel of Judas.


When we turn to Luke, we see that Jesus now has _two_ disciples named Judas! “Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.” Luke 6:16. Ah, the Judas character has split again. It appears that a redactor didn’t like the implication in Matt 13:55 that Judas was Jesus’ brother. So the new Judas is still Jesus and James brother (cf Matt. 13:55) and a disciple, but not the traitor. Redactor fatigue is evident in Luke 22:47, where Judas is again merely “one of the twelve”, which is no longer a unique designation.


It should be noted that while Matthew was somewhat sympathetic to Judas (he was remorseful and returned the money), in Luke Judas is pure evil, possessed by Satan (Luke 23:3 cf. John 13:2). Satan is the monstrous double of Judas, a tertiary scapegoat to shift some measure of the blame as sacred executioner from Judas.


The author of the gospel of John wished to place even more distance between Judas and Jesus. The author invents a father for Judas, name the ubiquitous Simon (another mimetic double) and harps the first four times Judas is mentioned (6:71; 13:4; 12:2; 13:2) , so the reader is sure to get the point. This reaches laughable extremes, when the other Judas is described as “Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?” Nothing subtle here, just “Judas not Iscariot.” The awkward phrasing suggests the hand of a redactor.


Still the problem of separating the betrayer from his other doubles (bother, disciple etc) remained. In Acts (quite a late work) we find that Judas “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his guts gushed out.” Acts 1;18. A satisfying end to the scoundrel so that the other Judas’ /Jude could proceed without taint.

[indent]The ill end of Judas is extravagantly exaggerated in the dubious claims attributed to Papias by Eusebius. “Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows:

Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface.

His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large. When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages. After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place. And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now. And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands. Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.”[\indent\


We find in the first logion of GThomas that Judas is the twin of Jesus. These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos JUDAS Thomas recorded. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." Thomas 1.
Thomas means twin in Aramaic, as does Didymus in Greek, so the full name here is Twin Judas Twin. This can only be the twin of Jesus. Judas is the twin brother of Jesus, his living oracle. Eusebius, Church History 1.8.10 also identifies Judas with Thomas. “ Judas who is also called Thomas …”


The Book of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas both identify Thomas as the Twin of Jesus. “for I know that thou art the twin brother of the Christ.”


The Gnostic “heretics” of Irenaeus AH 2.20.2 did not did not apparently distinguish between the betrayer and the sufferer.


Some traditions have it that Judas died on the cross in place of Jesus; i.e.. Abu Ja’far al-Tabira (d. 923 CE). Price, DJ, page 189.
“It is striking that such Christian docetism survived log enough in remote areas for Muhammad to have picked it up from Christians when they converted to Islam. And so here is a Christian tradition according to which Judas’ mimetic rivalry with his Lord came to an ironic fruition.” Robert Price, Deconstructing Jesus, page 190.


"They slew him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them." Qur’an 157. How this was allegedly accomplished is not stated, but Islamic tradition suggests that one of Jesus’ (Isa's) followers betrayed him (that is, Judas) and came to the Jews to guide them to him, and went with them to take him. God caused him to appear like Isa and he was taken and crucified.

According to the medieval Gospel of Barnabas 216,
“Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he, having awakened us, was seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marveled, and answered: 'You, Lord, are our master; have you now forgotten us?'
And he, smiling, said: 'Now are you foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!' And as he was saying this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus. We having heard Judas' saying, and seeing the multitude of soldiers, fled as beside ourselves. And John, who
was wrapped in a linen cloth, awoke and fled, and when a soldier seized him by the linen cloth he left the linen cloth and fled naked. For God heard the prayer of Jesus, and saved the eleven from evil. “


Returning to DJ, Price writes “It only remains to tie up a surprising loose end. If the panicky words of Judas quoted by Ibn Ishaq (“I am not one of his companions!”) should remind one of Peter’s denials (Mark 14:66-71), this may be no accident because Peter and Judas seem to be doubles of one another too.” Ibid, page 191. Simon is the other double that is often though to have taken the place of Jesus on the cross, i.e. Simon of Cyrene, Simon Magus.


We find in the Gospel of Judas the vindication of Judas. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lo...pelofJudas.pdf Here, it is Judas, not Peter, who recognizes the true nature of Jesus. “Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.” Jesus imparts secret revelations to Judas. Only Judas understands Jesus, and his actions are necessary. ““But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”


Jake Jones IV

mountainman

Have you not before heard of the term "playing the Devil's Advocate"?



There are many roads and pathways.


What sort of BC&H GPS do you use anyway aa5874?




Yet that appears to be precisely what happened.

One question is why did this happen?

Philosopher Jay appears to be addressing the how.

Best wishes






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

Not at all. The evidence from antiquity leads one way.

The evidence was handed to us in a platter so there is no reason at all to play Devil's Advocate.

The story in the Canon is that Pilate found no fault with Jesus and that it was the Jews who wanted Jesus to be crucified.

We must first understand the story not play Devil's Advocate.

The Church Canonised the very evidence that have exposed the Myth Fables called Gospels.

We should USE the story that the Church preserved and presented. It is evidence from antiquity.


Mark 14 It is quite clear to me that the Jesus story with Pilate in the Canon was mere fabricated anti-Jewish propaganda to portray Jews as exceedingly evil.

ph2ter

But the prototype of the trial of Jesus is the actual ceremony of the Day of Atonement as it was carried out in the last days of the Second Temple. Jesus and Jesus Barabbas represent the two goats. The point of the scapegoat ritual was to transfer the sin from community onto the scapegoat. In that process the scapegoat was mistreated as if those sins were made by her. The Jews in the Gospel story do the same, they blame Jesus for their own sins and are responsible for his death as are responsible for the death of a goat in the prototype ritual. This is not invention, this is in the heart of the story.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Why would the gospel writers even mention Pilate if their whole point was to exonerate him? If you're making up a totally fictional story and want to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, why not just have the Jews or the Jewish Priests kill Jesus. That is the simplest and most direct root to what you want to prove.

For example, there is an apology by an ancient poet Stesichorus exonerating Helen of Troy for causing the Trojan. Supposedly he was struck blind after writer a poem blaming her for the war. If he did not write the first poem and if there was no story blaming Helen for the war, there would be no need to write a poem exonerating her.

I recently read a book by Andy Edmonds called "Frame-up!: The Untold Story of Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle." The book gives a great deal of evidence proving that Roscoe Arbuckle did not rape and cause the death of the actress Virginia Rappe, in 1921. Arbuckle went through three trials before being acquitted of any involvement in the famous crime. Obviously, if Arbuckle had not been accused and tried, there would have been no reason to write a book exonerating him.

Unless there was a text accusing Pilate of Killing Jesus, logically, there would be no reason for the gospel writers to spend so much time exonerating him. For me, this is a reasonable deduction.

It may be wrong, but perhaps we can find some evidence to support it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi jakejonesiv,

Wonderful analysis. Thanks.

The divorce between Christians and Jews was quite vindictive with all kinds of betrayal charges, apparently.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

It is clear that author of the Gospel wanted to show that the Sanhedrin of the Jews wanted Jesus dead but not Pilate.

Mark 14When Jesus was brought before Pilate at end of trial he did NOT even know what evil Jesus did.

Mark 15 The author is showing that the Jews and the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead regardless of the evidence and that is precisely why he wrote about the supposed trial before Pilate.

The Sanhedrin should have found those who gave false testimony guilty of death.

Deuteronomy 19Based on Hebrew Scripture it was the false witnesses that should have been found guilty of death.

semiopen

Apparently the gospels leave the blame unclear.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Jews wouldn't have crucified Yoshke. This could well have been a Jewish punishment, I'm not aware of any direct evidence to the contrary. Stuff I've seen takes the possible modes of execution from the Talmud, but this seems circular.

I'm also not sure about who would judge a capital offence. Why couldn't it have happened more or less like Pilate sort of rubber stamps the Sanhedrin's decision (or whatever Jewish legal entity was involved). In the real world, would Pilate even have to be involved?

The gospel account is consistent with the view that it never happened.

Horatio Parker

I think the need to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews is the reason the Jesus story had to be historicized in the way that it was.

If all humanity were to blame for Jesus' rejection and death, then it could've been set in ancient or primordial times.

aa5874

In the Gospels and indeed the Entire Canon, Jesus was NOT historicized and
that is precisely why there is an on-going quest for an historical Jesus.

One must reject the description and actions of NT Jesus in order to search for HJ.

The Jesus story does not really require history just Belief.

Now, the claim in the Gospels that Jesus, the product of a Ghost, was brought before Pilate after being found guilty of death by the Sanhedrin of the Jews appears to confirm that the authors used the info in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

In "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 it is claimed that James the brother of Jesus called Anointed was put on trial before the Sanhedrin who had him stoned to death WITHOUT the authority or knowledge of the Roman Procurator Albinus.

The authors of the Gospels merely made sure that the crufixion of Jesus, the product of a Ghost, was done through the proper procedure.