Phlox Pyros

I don't think it would have been necessary to demonize the Jews. The gospels were written by them. This seems a bit of an anachronism.

Now, this sounds very plausible to me.

Amaleq13

No, that it is arguably worse.

It establishes the necessity of Judas' betrayal as opposed to that of Peter.

According to the Gospels, he knew of Jesus' apparent plan to be apprehended and killed. Jesus even tells him to be quick about it.

No. Possibly a template for a bit of useful fiction, though.

Phlox Pyros

Sorry...I don't get that at all, unless it is being argued for purely polemical reasons.

Do you believe in God? If you are reading the text looking for history, then "God's plan" does not matter because Judas did not know of it.

Wrong. Jesus knew of Judas' apparent plan. Even if you believe that Judas knew of Jesus' "plan", then why does he appear to have been so upset as to have killed himself? This makes no sense.

This is beginning to sound polemical. Are you honestly looking for tidbits of history, or do you simply see it as fiction? If the later, then there is not much point in further discussion because that is where we diverge.

credoconsolans

Heh, they believed The DaVinci Code would. They're in the business of crazy beliefs.:Cheeky:

Amaleq13

It isn't a matter of whether I "believe" Judas knew or not. That is what we are told in the Gospels:

"Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said." (Mt 26:25, KJV)

I agree that is a problem if you want to consider it history. The differing descriptions of his alleged death don't help, either.

I accept there is evidence that makes fiction a possibility. How do you tell the difference between history and fiction?

Phlox Pyros

Mark is the earliest and least theologically developed of the gospels, a fact with which I think you would agree. What does it say there about Judas?

Judas most likely did this quite silently. If Jesus knew of it as the gospels insist, then from a naturalistic viewpoint he had likely been informed by someone other than one of his disciples and simply told Judas to go and do what he was going to do. This does not indicate that Judas was on board with any plans about Jesus. His remorse for his deed shows this.

Probability and plausibility. One cannot read too literally like a fundamentalist. Those who do not like Christianity will often make the error of reading the texts too literally just like fundamentalists. Whether they are doing this as an "anti-missionary" technique (which is dishonest) or not, this has the potential to corrupt actual history.

Amaleq13

I'm sure you know as well as I that Jesus makes the same announcement for all the disciples to hear:

"And he answered and said unto them, [It is] one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish." (Mk 14:20, KJV)

For this passage to have any meaning, one must infer from it that Judas was, at that very moment, dipping his bread in the dish along with Jesus and everyone at the table was aware of what was going on. I fail to see how this helps your position.

There is nothing in the text to support this notion and certainly nothing to support "most likely". Mark's story makes it very clear that this was something Jesus told "them" and, as indicated above, it only makes sense if his words described actions taking place at that very moment.

I agree that one need not assume any supernatural powers of the part of Jesus for this knowledge but you seem to be completely missing the point that everyone knew what Judas was going to do and no one did anything to stop it. It seems obvious to me that this makes no sense as history but you seem to believe otherwise. The contradictory accounts of Judas' "remorse" adds to the appearance of fiction.

What specific evidence lends itself to your probability statement above (ie "most likely")?

My point is that an honest evaluation of the story reveals that the Gospel of Judas is not quite as heretical as has been suggested and, in fact, actually follows the logic of the story better than the orthodox interpretation.

While it is, of course, possible that a betrayal by an "inner circle" member is historical, it seems pretty clear that the story of that betrayal provided by the Gospels cannot be relied upon as an accurate description of the relevant events.

mikem

John's gospel gives a different version in which Jesus only tells one of his dsciples "lying close to the breast of Jesus", that he will be betrayed. Jesus dips a morsel and gives it to Judas, telling him to do quickly what he has to do. The other disciples noted this, but apparently thought that Judas was going on an errand of some sort.

If in fact, there was a betrayal, the most that can be said is that Jesus knew it was going to happen, and he knew who was going to betray him, and that he told his betrayer during his last meal with his disciples that he knew. It is unlikely that Jesus disciples knew what was going to happen, and if Jesus did tell them would probably not have understood him. The "when" and "how" of any betrayal may have raised themselves as questions in their minds, but Judas left pretty quickly, and Jesus clearly did not seek to elaborate.

As to Judas' motive, we may never know.

Amaleq13

Yep, the Gospel authors have a difficult time getting this particular story straight. That is one reason why the possibility of fiction remains viable.

That is the most we can say if we assume a betrayal and that what the Gospel authors agree upon can be considered historical. I question the wisdom of both assumptions though I think the first can be supported as more likely than not.

If there was a betrayal, the most we can say is that there was a betrayal because we clearly cannot rely on the Gospels for accurate information here.

Didymus

Yes, it has the ring of untruth. The vagueness of the stories suggests that the purported betrayal, like the rest of the Passion narrative, was a "lift" from scripture, i.e., fable rather than fact. For a couple of days before the trial, Jesus had been in constant public view, preaching and making trouble on the streets and in the Temple precinct. Under those conditions, who would have been stupid enough to offer Judas 30 pieces of silver for "revealing" the identity of Jesus? The gospels don't give us reason to think he wearing a disguise; surely someone in that "great crowd" could have pointed him out. From Judas' perspective, it made no sense to "betray" Jesus. He knew what sort of being he was ratting on - and the certain consequences of doing so. And it made even less sense for anyone to pay him 30 pieces of silver for information that could be gotten from just about anyone, merely for the asking.

If there's one thread that runs through the entire Passion narrative, it's uncertain or frail motivation; the Judas story is probably the most egregious example.

Didymus