This episode was absolutely fascinating and thought-provoking. The whole idea of jewish messianic movements in the 1st century should be addressed in a future video
I would really love to see Bart tackle the lines where Jesus calls out to God “why have you forsaken me.” It’s especially chilling in the context of him not being resurrected and seems to be an odd thing to just write in.
I would to! I'm pretty sure that is what the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" was all about.. The line indicates doubt, which Jesus could not have...the movie/story lets Jesus play that doubt out and in the end, he reconciles the doubt and willingly "dies for our sins". That said, I am an atheist and do not believe in the bible whatsoever but thought the movie was brilliant...in the way it dealt with that obvious contradiction.
The Trinity is the theological construct to resolve this issue The more interesting thing is as the Disciples are asleep - the author says this 3 times - who would hear this prayer The answer is the author who casts himself as the Naked man This sounds so like a mythical tale ... It was just made up.
He covered that exact thing in depth and detail in one of his courses, and I think he might have mentioned it on the podcast at one point. It is a pretty weird story behind the totally different versions and translations and theology drivers for just that one line in that one scene that isn’t even consistent across the canonic gospels.
I once tripped and fell down in a parking lot. My only injuries were scrapes on my hands and knees. And another time I actually fainted and fell face first onto a hard tile floor, and I woke up with bleeding on one of my eyebrow ridges. Judas fell in a field, onto dirt; his guts bursting out makes literally no sense.
The Greek doesn't say he fell. It just says that he was facedown in a field and his guts burst out. If he was facedown dead, completely possible for his stomach to explode as he decayed. This famously happened when William the Conqueror was entombed.
@@andrelegeant88 The Greek says he fell headlong (meaning he fell head first), and right afterwards it says his middle burst open, that's it. So he died from hitting his head on dirt and his body just laid in the field until it decayed? It still doesn't make sense. It also contradicts Judas's death in Matthew, where he returns the money he got for betraying Jesus, and he doesn't buy a field, he just hangs himself. The authorities who received the returned money were the ones who bought a field.
@@MisterJang0 The literal Greek is "he was facedown." There's no sense of time or how he died. He could have simply died of heart stroke or a heart attack according to Acts. Mentioning that his guts exploded - which absolutely happens - could be an attempt to show some vengeance from God where the author of Acts otherwise has heard that Judas died a natural death.
A corpse that hung for a while, that decomposes, and then eventually falling to the ground, bursting and spilling insides - might make sense in terms. IOW, the mashup scenario of the two accounts may make sense, contrary to Bart’s opinion. Judas hangs himself, the body hangs for some time, rotting, the rope breaks, and the corpse falls and burst on the ground spilling out innards.
@@lunarlight3131 I mean why did Judas have to point out who Jesus was? The Romans could have easily arrested him in public in Jerusalem. They didn't need to sneak around in secret or have Jesus pointed out to them. Also, didn't Jesus interact with the relgious leaders? They knew what he looked like.
Not necessarily. He spent a year perhaps preaching in Galilee, a backwater. Wasn't like some famous celebrity the Romans knew about. Ditto the local Jerusalem Jewish leaders. We don't know how many miracles he actually committed. Other people did "miracles." Doing it in public -- with crowds in town for the festival -- could have caused problems.
I learned that Judas did this because he was disappointed that Jesus wasn’t intending to start a revolt against the Romans. And was mad at him. His betrayal being an impulsive decision, and he regretted it sincerely very soon. I always felt sorry for the guy. Later, when I saw the life of Brian, the revolutionary played by John Cleese fitted this picture perfectly.
It makes sense if Jesus' disciples believed that he was the Jewish Messiah, someone who was going to overthrow the Romans and create a new Jewish state.
@@jannetteberends8730 Well, it IS fiction, you know! So is jesus, by the way! Well over 50 choniclers, among them over 30 Roman and Greek scholars who were in Jerusalem from 25 to 38 AD precisely to study jewish cults, and who all wrote voluminously about events of the times saw: NO jesus/yeshua, NO disciples, NO ministry, NO miracles, NO teachings, and NOT ONE crucifixion of ANYBODY of jesus description was ever seen or reported by them!!! In fact we can find NO other writing about ANY jesus till after destruction of the temple in 70 AD, except Paul in 50 AD, he was killed in Rome along with Peter in 60 AD by Nero!! Paul was a Roman named Saul originally, who was a member or familiar with a cult in Greece and Turkey who worshipped the archangel Yeshua, which in Daniel and Zachariah in the torah was, in jewish angelology, the first created angel of yahweh, son of yahweh, and who was said to have performed the creation of the world for yahweh!! This cult existed long before 1 BC! Their worship ritual was praise of archangel Yeshua while eating bread and wine symbolizing his heavenly flesh and divine blood!! It was called the Lord's Supper, as all angels were addressed by jews and Greeks as Lord. Their lore has it that his ascension to the right hand of yahweh was by venturing into satan's lowest level of heaven, below the moon, and being captured and crucified by satan and his demons and in three days reanimated and escaped up to the 7th heaven to the right hand of yahweh and that he assisted in the judgment of the dead! This narrative by Paul, who in his validated epistles, spoke ONLY of the archangel Yeshua, but not on earth, he said he received a revelation of Yeshua Christ in his visions and dreams, he never met any jesus/yeshua on earth, never spoke of any disciples, nor miracles, nor ministry nor any teachings of this yeshua/jesus on earth, nor any disciples nor followers, except those receiving similar revelation, whom he called brothers!! He NEVER clearly spoke of any jesus ever living on earth. His yeshua archangel was solely contrived from his belief in Daniel and Zachariah, and his schizotypal visions and dreams! It's believed by scholars that a group of Greek speaking high rabbis of the jerusalem temple that was destroyed in the 70's AD who fled in the diaspora that followed, wrote what turned into the anonymous gospels, hijacking Paul's epistle narrative and fashioning it into a story of a fictional jesus on earth, written anonymously to protect themselves, and set back in history 50 years so there would be no witnesses to be fact-checked! And yahweh, whom the jews assumed had been killed or run off by the Romans, the jews believed yahweh's existence was tied to the temple! So these rabbis were trying to reignite a new judaism under the SON of Yahweh, one free of the temple mostly so these high priests could get their phony baloney jobs back, they had enjoyed extereme wealth and luxury and power in the jerusalem temple, and wanted it back!! In spreading the several gospels, the several tries to do so, each later named the 4 gospels, they inadvertantly created christianity, which when examined in just another jewish cult! But it was based solely on the ever better and more well-written stories of jesus on earth, in the 4 anonymous gospels, even set back in time 50 years so no witnesses of the events could be fact-checked, since people only lived to about 50 in that time!! But which story was all fiction!! Christianity was tiny for a long time. Only in the third century when Constantine's mother grew enamored of it did the Emperor start diverting money to it from pagan coffers, only then did it even start to grow. But after Constantine's death his mothers christian friends had Theodocius become emperor and he declared christianity the only legal religion! He sent his cavalry to enforce this and they went around killing pagans and stealing and burning the farms of pagans, and enslaving their wives and children and selling the girls as sex slaves!! The people hurriedly taught their kids the christian catechism just so that they did not die or be raped!!! This christianity finally grew like crazy only at the point of swords and spears and cavalry burning and torturing people in middle of the night!!! It was NOT in the beginning that it was popular or persuasive!!! Europe was christianized by extreme violence!! So were all things done back then!! "Nobles" saw the people as nought but their property! So you see, kids, it was ALL nothing but made-up shit, just as was every single story in the jewish torah/old testament!!!
@@jannetteberends8730 Well it IS only fiction! So was the jesus story!! Well over 50 choniclers, among them over 30 Roman and Greek scholars who were in Jerusalem from 25 to 38 AD precisely to study jewish cults, and who all wrote voluminously about events of the times saw: NO jesus/yeshua, NO disciples, NO ministry, NO miracles, NO teachings, and NOT ONE crucifixion of ANYBODY of jesus description was ever seen or reported by them!!! In fact we can find NO other writing about ANY jesus till after destruction of the temple in 70 AD, except Paul in 50 AD, he was killed in Rome along with Peter in 60 AD by Nero!! Paul was a Roman named Saul originally, who was a member or familiar with a cult in Greece and Turkey who worshipped the archangel Yeshua, which in Daniel and Zachariah in the torah was, in jewish angelology, the first created angel of yahweh, son of yahweh, and who was said to have performed the creation of the world for yahweh!! This cult existed long before 1 BC! Their worship ritual was praise of archangel Yeshua while eating bread and wine symbolizing his heavenly flesh and divine blood!! It was called the Lord's Supper, as all angels were addressed by jews and Greeks as Lord. Their lore has it that his ascension to the right hand of yahweh was by venturing into satan's lowest level of heaven, below the moon, and being captured and crucified by satan and his demons and in three days reanimated and escaped up to the 7th heaven to the right hand of yahweh and that he assisted in the judgment of the dead! This narrative by Paul, who in his validated epistles, spoke ONLY of the archangel Yeshua, but not on earth, he said he received a revelation of Yeshua Christ in his visions and dreams, he never met any jesus/yeshua on earth, never spoke of any disciples, nor miracles, nor ministry nor any teachings of this yeshua/jesus on earth, nor any disciples nor followers, except those receiving similar revelation, whom he called brothers!! He NEVER clearly spoke of any jesus ever living on earth. His yeshua archangel was solely contrived from his belief in Daniel and Zachariah, and his schizotypal visions and dreams! It's believed by scholars that a group of Greek speaking high rabbis of the jerusalem temple that was destroyed in the 70's AD who fled in the diaspora that followed, wrote what turned into the anonymous gospels, hijacking Paul's epistle narrative and fashioning it into a story of a fictional jesus on earth, written anonymously to protect themselves, and set back in history 50 years so there would be no witnesses to be fact-checked! And yahweh, whom the jews assumed had been killed or run off by the Romans, the jews believed yahweh's existence was tied to the temple! So these rabbis were trying to reignite a new judaism under the SON of Yahweh, one free of the temple mostly so these high priests could get their phony baloney jobs back, they had enjoyed extereme wealth and luxury and power in the jerusalem temple, and wanted it back!! In spreading the several gospels, the several tries to do so, each later named the 4 gospels, they inadvertantly created christianity, which when examined in just another jewish cult! But it was based solely on the ever better and more well-written stories of jesus on earth, in the 4 anonymous gospels, even set back in time 50 years so no witnesses of the events could be fact-checked, since people only lived to about 50 in that time!! But which story was all fiction!! Christianity was tiny for a long time. Only in the third century when Constantine's mother grew enamored of it did the Emperor start diverting money to it from pagan coffers, only then did it even start to grow. But after Constantine's death his mothers christian friends had Theodocius become emperor and he declared christianity the only legal religion! He sent his cavalry to enforce this and they went around killing pagans and stealing and burning the farms of pagans, and enslaving their wives and children and selling the girls as sex slaves!! The people hurriedly taught their kids the christian catechism just so that they did not die or be raped!!! This christianity finally grew like crazy only at the point of swords and spears and cavalry burning and torturing people in middle of the night!!! It was NOT in the beginning that it was popular or persuasive!!! Europe was christianized by extreme violence!! So were all things done back then!! "Nobles" saw the people as nought but their property! So you see, kids, it was ALL nothing but made-up shit, just as was every single story in the jewish torah/old testament!!!
I agree with the idea that Judas was trying to kick-start the return of the kingdom of god. It never made sense to me that he did it only for money. Thank you, Bart and Megan. 👍👍👍
Agreed. Judas didn’t want money. * I would add that there was a divine aspect to what Judas believed. Jesus, John the Baptist, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls; truly thought that God was going to intervene in the world & support Judaism & defeat the enemies of Israel. * When Jesus was alive, he & his apostles were certain of this victory. - Judas spoke to the priests because he thought they would follow Jesus. Then he believed that the Angels would appear to help Israel be victorious. * But the plans of Judas all went wrong. The apostles ran from the soldiers & hid from the Temple priests. The priests rejected Jesus as the king Messiah. God didn’t save him. The Angels did not appear to lead Israel to victory with Jesus as its king. * The torture of Jesus and the crucifixion was a terrible shock to Judas. - The whole situation was a nightmare. And from that Judas took his own life.
How do you know the motivations of someone who lived 2000 years ago and we oly know about from a few mentions in texts written decades after by people who hated him?
@@alvedonaren ; texts motivated by hate can be dismissed especially when the hate is irrational as is the case with Judas. The motivation of historical figures, who lived thousands of years ago, gets to the core of the study of ancient history which takes into account; the culture, the situation and the most likely explanation for why someone did what they did.
@@bb1111116 I'm not sure I would call the hate against Judas irrational (assuming tat he really did betray his mentor). Your thesis just assumes way too much stuff, like that Judas still believed that Jesus was the actual Messiah rather than losing faith in him, which would be an obvious possibility if he really did turn Jesus over to the pharisees.
@@alvedonaren; you previously wrote about *“a few mentions in texts written decades after by people who hated him”* I wrote; *“texts motivated by hate can be dismissed”* @alvedonaren ; in your last comment you wrote; *”assuming that he really did betray his mentor)”* * My reply; I do not assume that Judas betrayed Jesus. This betrayal idea comes from the “hate” language in the New Testament (which you mentioned) and can be dismissed. - The text says that Jesus thought he was the king Messiah. - To be the king Messiah of Israel, Jesus would need to be accepted by the priests and scribes. - Judas speaking to the priests was because they were supposed to follow Jesus as king Messiah. Judas was helping the process along. - It was not a betrayal.
I used to think Jesus dying for the sins of mankind was sad. Now as I am deconstructing, it is even more sad to me that the historical Jesus preached a message that gave people hope, and then was suddenly killed for it.
Its interesting that the tenple liturgies actually included a dying "annointed king" and then it happened in real life. Imagine being a disciple and making that comparison
Has anyone else ever questioned the stated timing of the events from the time Jesus is arrested and executed? He got arrested late Thursday night, is taken (on foot) before the Roman Governor, sent (on foot) to see the King, Herod, sent back (on foot) to the Roman Governor was scourged, offered up to a crowd that appeared out of nowhere, then went (on foot) through the city carrying the cross just as two other people just happen to also being crucified? And he died before sunset Friday early enough to be laid to rest before the sabbath so his grave can be found empty the morning after the sabbath?
@sailorbychoice 1 The Bible does not say that Jesus was arrested on Thursday night. Why then are you basing your argument on misinformation?? No where in the bible does it show that Jesus died on any Friday.
He was likely arrested Wednesday night, tried informally (because at night, when the Sanhedrin could not legally meet) by Ciaphas, then more formerly by Pilate early Thursday morning, crucified, and died before sunset Thursday, the beginning of the first day of Passover - also a Sabbath - which was on Friday in AD 30 and therefore immediately preceded the regular weekly Sabbath. One of the gospels (in its original Greek) describes Mary arriving at the tomb around dawn on Sunday after the Sabbaths, plural. Some translations may obfusticate this. Herod, visiting Jerusalem for Passover, would almost certainly have been staying in the guest suite of the (his) Palace which was Pilate's HQ; Jesus would have merely been taken across the Palace courtyard and back, not a lengthy trip. Jerusalem on the Thursday would have been getting _very_ crowded by people arriving for the imminent Passover, so there would have been no lack of onlookers, particularly as the likely spot for such a presentation (if it happened) was the steps (recently excavated) on the outer side of the city wall by Pilate's residence and overlooking one of the routes to the city. How many of these onlookers could have actually understood what was going on is debatable, and in any case the Saducees were entirely capable of organising a claque. From there, Jesus would likely have been taken directly to the crucifixion site, on the hillside across the Kidron Valley from the city (and therefore in full view): the area already had many tombs. The whole 'Via Dolorosa' procession through the City would have been geographically unnecessary, and a risky provocation. Its claimed route has been varied several times over the centuries, and it culminates in a very unlikely location within the city walls, not outside. The other two victims are referred to as 'lestai', translated as 'thieves' but the term then used by the Romans for Jewish guerilla insurgents fighting the Romans' occupation. There were probably regular executions of captured lestai, and these two might even have been associated with the near riot in the Temple precincts Jesus had instigated earlier in that week - the actual Jewish uprising of AD 66 began in similar circumstances. His body would have had to be left from Thursday dusk to Saturday dusk in the 'emergency tomb' that the rich Sanhedrin member (and Jesus supporter) Joseph of Arimathea had commandeered. Mary of Magdala, with or without female companions, would not have dared to visit a tomb in an extra-city graveyard and execution site at night, but a party of men organised by Joseph could have done so in order to move the body to a permanent tomb, almost certainly the one 2 miles away in Tapriot that we all now know about. There would likely not have been an opportunity for Joseph to keep all of Jesus' closest followers (scattered and in hiding) fully apprised, hence the women's initial confusion a few hours later.
@@terryhunt2659 the Sabbath is ALWAYS on the same day Saturday, so the AD30 date is irrelevant. The confusion lies that in Jewish reckoning the Sabbath ( Saturday) starts when it gets dark the previous day (Friday). The bible makes this clear many times. Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13-14; 56:1-8; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4, 11; Luke 4:16; Mark 2:27-28; Matthew 12:10-12; Hebrews 4:1-11; Genesis 1:5, 13-14; Nehemiah 13:19.
(Richard here) A thought crossed my mind today that given Thomas (the Twin) was in Jerusalem at that time, and perhaps even with Jesus in the dark that night, the kiss by Judas was simply to differentiate the two in order to avoid an embarrassing mistake in the arrest.
When I was a child and asked my father about this obvious conflict between scriptures. His explanation was that Judas BLOATED while he was hanging, which is why his body burst when the rope broke. I even felt weird about that answer when I was 9 years old.
I always ask people about the 30 pieces of silver. Did Judas give it back to the temple or did Judas keep them and buy a field. Nine times out of ten people immediately jump to how he died because they is the apologetic that is infamous. They hardly ever will stay on the topic of the actual money, they don’t have a rewritten excuse for it.
I've never understood why people are confused by The explanation that he was hanging and then fell and his intestines fell out. For as smart as he is it's like bart has no idea how it's even possible. But it actually makes perfect sense when you think about the fact that if you just said somebody was walking and fell and their intestines spilled out. You would think wait, what, I need more information. Either they fell on something or they fell From really high. it explains both If he was hanging and fell
@rickybailey4085 If you say he was hanged AND his guts fell out, you're writing your own book that is different from each other book. Did Judas return the money, or use it to buy the field?
Bart’s hypothesis makes sense regarding Jesus’ declaration that the twelve were to sit on the thrones ruling the new kingdom. This thought gives meaning to the need of the Eleven disciples in Acts who find it important to choose someone to replace Judas after his death. I often wondered why they did that. But Jesus’ words give the number twelve an importance.
I'd be interested to know Bart's thoughts on how Judas' betrayal relates to the preceding account of Jesus being anointed with perfume. In comparing the gospels, it always jumps out to my interpretation as an indication that Judas' betrayal was driven by a perception that Jesus did not practice what he preached. I feel as though this is advanced by the authors having different ways of explaining the story. In Mark, Judas goes to betray Jesus directly after the perceived waste of a perfume worth a year's salary. When he approaches the chief priests to betray Jesus, it is the priests who offer Judas money rather than him asking for it. If we see Matthew as building upon Mark, the author adjusts the story presented in Mark by downplaying the price of the perfume (changing from "a year's salary" to "a high price") and having Judas approach the chief priests for the purpose of asking for payment rather than them offering it. If we see Luke as also building upon Mark, the author instead chooses to remove any implication about the anointment leading to Judas' betrayal by moving the anointment story to a completely different part of the gospel and stating that Judas' actions were purely caused by him being possessed by Satan. If we see John as building upon all prior gospels, the author of John seems to double down on these changes to the story. Instead of just downplaying the price of the perfume, the author of John states the anointment occurred during a special celebration and the perfume had been intentionally saved for that exact moment rather than being an extravagance. Furthermore, the author explicitly states that Judas was the only one questioning the use of the perfume, and that he only did so because he was a thief who had planned to sell the perfume and pocket the money himself. Instead of just having Judas' betrayal be unrelated to the anointment due to a possession by Satan before the last supper, the author of John moves the possession to take place during the last supper at the command of Jesus. Not only was the betrayal purely driven by possession of Satan, but now it was unquestionably an intentional act by Jesus through divine power. It seems to me that the anointment of Jesus is an event which the gospel authors felt compelled to include, yet they increasingly attempted to suppress any link it had to Judas' betrayal and any questionability of Jesus' actions. I feel as though such authorial actions could make sense in response to contemporary rumors of the anointment being an event where Jesus was betrayed by a follower due to him betraying his own teachings. Refusal to omit the anointment even though it is somewhat awkward for Jesus' message seems to imply that it historically occurred. The progressive downplaying of its outcomes seen to imply that there were some who thought it reflected poorly on Jesus. I'd be curious to hear the perspective of a scholar on whether or not this theory holds any water. I'm sure there are many aspects beyond my understanding.
I am not a scholar, but what you are saying sounds very interesting. I think we lack some cultural context here. If Jesus had to become King of Israel, it would make sense that there had to be at least one anointment ceremony, and considering the importance of the event, it would make sense that some expenses would have had to be made; but some people would not have viewed it favorably. Now, considering that judaism was all but unified at that time in history, there would have been many different jewish group with many different beliefs, and in order to be recognized as the King, he would have had to be anointed several times, by different groups. That would have meant even more expenses, and even more critics. It is possible that he was close to achieve his goals when he was arrested.
This wasn't Rome's first messiah suppression, no tip off was needed. Judas was incensed that Jesus--who had introduced Hellenized philosophy into Torah teaching--was not radical enough. Judas was a traditional believer who thought Jesus cult betrayed the national uprising of the messianic Comng of the New Age.
I eagerly awaited this discussion. I was so glad that Megan asked the question of whether Judas really existed. Perhaps, perhaps not. I think Bart was drawing links between events of the life of Jesus involving Judas that are very hard to substantiate. I really do not believe Barts hypothesis on this matter.
Megan is spot on! This question@21.30 has been plaguing me for long time.For such a public figure like Jesus why Judas is required to identify,follow and arrest !
Once Judea became a Roman province and not a client kingdom the question of sedition comes up. Caesar was the titular ruler of Judea and if the people are proclaiming someone with a title reserved for Judean kings that would be sedition in their eyes. Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for sedition by non Romans. Roman citizens were beheaded. The labeling of “King of the Jews” attest to that theory. The 2 robbers on the crosses were probably escaped slaves that became robbers as other punishments were reserved for robbers not as public. Public punishment of slaves was used to keep them in line as slaves weren’t marked as slaves although proposed rules were made but not put into effect.
Unlikely Jesus was well known, maybe had about one hundred followers. The two others on the cross were almost certainly insurrectionists like Jesus, that is what people were crucified for.
Crucification was a method of execution that was reserved for high-profile criminals. According to Josephus, that execution method was used by the kings of Judea in coordination with roman authorities to execute dissidents, critics or subversive individuals. One of the chief institution of Judea that represented the ethnic population was the office of the high priest. Josephus portrays the office of the high priest and Roman governors and legates to be in constant communication with each other, especially after Herod Archelaus was ousted. Josephus' account of jewish history under the romans is replete with intrigues surrounding the office of the high priest, as it was the most prestigious position that could be gained without a fixed hereditary lineage. Priests conspired against other priest to make them fall out of favour in relation to the roman authority. This is what happened with Ananias and Jonathan. Numerous times, the chief priests used this relationship with the Roman governor to remove their enemies or individuals they found problematic. The most common method of execution for Jewish dissidents against the priestly establishment was stoning, but crucifixion was also used when they wanted to make an example out of someone. In return, the high priest would agree to be loyal and supportive of the roman rule. This was one of numerous tacit agreements between these two highly influential offices to maintain and exert their power.
It had been just a few days since he came back to Jerusalem; he wasn't a very famous public figure, not as much as temple officials. He was viewed more as thorn on the side of the Jewish establishment who could rally the support of the crowd in public confrontations due to his edifying and wise words. He never posed a serious threat to their authority, but had repeatedly offended them and denounced their practices (such as allowing money lenders in the temple), and they wanted to prevent public opinion from turning against them- it hadn't by that point, since the public ended up enthusiastically supporting Jesus' crucifixion. Their motivation was most likely due to a sense of indignation against him, and to prevent their popularity from waning further. Now, as for the ease of identification- we know that Jesus wore similar clothes to his disciples, he did not take adornments or flamboyant displays like the jewish priests. Confrontations between Jesus and the jewish leaders was not a regular or daily occurrence, but happened on a specific number of times- most of them were more busy with other religious duties. Putting all these facts together, it can be contended that the priests weren't sure of their ability to single out and spot Jesus amongst his disciples, especially at night time (they didn't want to create a fuss during daytime), thus they recruited the services of one of the close disciples to pick out Jesus for them
It seems odd that in Matthew's account, the priests refused to accept blood money, but then used it to buy a field. Didn't they use the money? This, to me, seems problematic. Essentially they took the money in the end.
I've always questioned the story of the betrayal for several reasons. Given that same amount of money was used in other places in the Old Testment, I questioned if it was more symbolic than actual. Then there was the issue of, if Jesus was omnicient, why would he choose Judas in the first place? And, if he knew what was going to occur, then was he using Judas as a prop?
Gospel versions of the 'Last Supper' have Jesus identifying Judas as a future traitor, and then telling him to go and do what he must. This always sounded to me like an incomplete story the tellers did not understand. Within (later-developed) Christianity, it has been interpreted by some as meaning Jesus knew he 'had to die to redeem everybody else's sins', so he needed Judas to 'betray' him, perhaps sincerely, or perhaps as a prearranged ploy. Others theorise that Jesus - influenced by interpretations of the Book of Daniel (a 2nd-century BC forgery, we now know) and similar works as prophesying the coming 'next world', i.e. one with Judea freed from the 'world' of Roman occupation (which had succeeded the 'world' of Greek occupation, which had succeeded Persian occupation, etc.) - expected an army of angels led by the mysterious heavenly 'Son of Man' to appear, save him from the cross, expel the Romans, the corrupt Priesthood and the illegitimate Herodian rulers, and maybe install him as the true 'Messiah', i.e. the legitimate, Davidic, anointed King of Judea or greater Israel.
Another explanation re Judas is grounded in normal , every day human nature: he had a huge secret and shared it with someone he shouldnt have. Not directly with the Authorities, as he was after all a peasant fisherman -who would listen him or allow him access to them.. He,though was the originating cause of the betrayal. Just a thought.. As always the two of you make brains tick over.. Thank you.
It's a typology of Joseph being sold into Egypt. His brothers reject him as the jews rejected Jesus. As Joseph went to Pharaoh and ruled Egypt, Jesus went to Rome and Christianity has ruled the west to this day. As Joseph brought his family to Egypt, so Jesus is supposed to redeem the jews.
How is it possible that there was not a single reference to the Gospel of Judas in this episode? When Dr. Ehrman was speculating about the possible reasons why Judas did what he did there wasn't a reference to the possibility of what is told in the Gospel of Judas as the motives. Very strange.
I wrote a gnostic gospel of Judas, and emailed it to Bart, but he didn't refer to that either. Very strange, and suspect. Dr. Ehrman talks in depth of that document in other classes and videos and question periods, so maybe check one or a dozen of those out. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
I was wondering the same thing. He focuses more on the accepted gospels rather than the gnostic gospels the way other scholars like Elaine Pagels. I read The Gospel of Judas a long time ago but don’t remember what it said. Have you read it and if so did it shed any light on the question?
There were no CCTV, cameras, fingerprint databases, id cards or mobile phones back then so ifentifying someone who does not want to be identified by you who tou are not familiar with would be difficult. You would need someone who is familiar with them to bring them to you or you to them. So thats what happened. Even today, if the police want to arrest someone, and know where they live, they would still need a photo of them to make aure they are arresting the right person, or id from their wallet, and would probably be in radio contact with colleagues for backup. There was none of that then, so logistically it seems plausible to me that a traitor would be required as a go between.
@@quietjarvis not if you intended to arrest him in front of his followers who would likely intervene to prevent you. The individuals employed by the authorities to carry out the arrest would likely never have even seen Jesus as they would not be interested in his teachings. Even if they went to his home, they would need to be able to distinguish him from his brothers and any other guests. Jesus wasn't on social media or TV like modern celebrities. They would only have a verbal description to go from. So they needed help from someone familiar with him.
One idea that just came to mind: You don't salute officers in the field, because it might let a sniper know that the officer is an officer, making them a prime target. Maybe the Romans just followed Judas after hearing that he was one of the disciples, and when he got to the group, just noticed the difference in how he treated Jesus as opposed to the rest of the group. Then, because of circumstances, they all decided that Judas must have ratted out Jesus. Then Judas, being blamed for Jesus's death and being rejected by the other disciples just offs himself. The thirty pieces of silver is just a retcon. Not sure if I buy into this idea myself, but maybe...
Like how the cops identified mafia bosses after The Godfather came out, because other mobsters started kissing the boss on the hand. That might be an apocryphal story, but it’s out there…
Yeah, but that's like saluting the one guy who's talking while an entire crowd stands around listening. It's not hard to identify him without the salute.
@@jeffryphillipsburns It's a standard used term in writing film/TV series scripts or story/novel series, meaning to introduce/invent new material which explains or re-interprets (or plain contradicts) something portrayed in an earlier episode so that it becomes more consistent with subsequently written material.
Thank you. I learned a lot from this. As a Theravada Buddhist, I believe in the law of karma/individual responsibility. The salvation doctrine makes no sense to me. But it's great to be able to learn about the thinking behind other religions (especially from an exceptional teacher like Bart).
Might wanna lower the input gain on your mic, Bart. We're getting a little distortion from clipping the signal. A compressor will keep your signal hot and clean. Just takes a little practice to dial it in 👍🏻
without Judas, there is no atonement for sins without the devil whispering to Judas, there is no atonement for sins without Pontius Pilate, there is no atonement for sins Without the Jewish high priest, there was no atonement for sins Is Pontius Pilate, the Jewish high priest, Judas, and the devil meritorious or sinful?
They are the heroes in the Christian mythology. Jesus as God cannot suffer. But if you buy that Jesus had to die on the cross so you could be saved, thank God everyday for Judas and Pilot.
I think that the typical way that is dealt with is that the intent in their actions matter. None of them were aware that they were following God's plan.
Hello Bart can you please do a segment on why you date the gospel of mark to 70AD ? Ide like to hear your reason for doing so, Should be pretty simple since its the somewhat "mainstream line of scholarship". Thanks !
@AaronGardner98 IF the mainstream line of reason is based on jesus prediction of the temple then I think that's extremely problematic. From what I'm hearing it sounds like that's the argument.
@JopJio That don't answer anything, I asked him what's the basis for it and your just tossing numbers out there. I've heard it's dated earlier & scholars only date it around 70 based on a "presumption" which is not how we are suppose to do history, That's bad methodology.
I agree, since the earliest shred of Mark we have is dated between late 2nd to early 3rd century. It's Papyrus 137. I''d like to know why 70 years is so generously given also, as it could easily be so much later. . Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
It's striking that Luke and Matthew tell discrepant but curiously similar stories about the death of Judas. Good indirect evidence for the *Q* hypothesis I think. For those fascinated by the enigma of Judas Borges presents some shockingly heretical theories (to ponder definitely not to take as *Gospel*) in his *Three Versions of Judas*.
One thing that just occurred to me: When Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, he was greeted by an adoring crowd. Yet at his trial (also in Jerusalem), he has NO supporters. Where did they go?
I always had a similar thought. Was he really that reviled by the crowd cheering for barrabas' liberation? Wasn't Jesús being adored a few days prior? I mean it was passover in Jerusalem, so different crowds maybe, and more wine flowing
It has long been suggested that the "crucify him" crowd in Pilate's courtyard was a hand picked crowd. Or this whole thing with Barabas was a fiction. I believe that Dr Ehrman is in this camp.
If you have ever seen a big religious festival in the Middle East, India, South-East Asia etc, there will by holy men followed by disciplined ranks of followers, often dressed the same or with some distinguishing mark, and all the crowds watching the procession will cheer them on for their great piety. Then will follow a ragtag backwoods hill-preacher with a dozen disciples and a few women and other followers bringing up the rear- and all the crowds watching will cheer them on for their great piety. I figure most of the onlookers had no idea who he was; they cheered him on because he was part of the parade.
I've always thought that Judas has an unwarranted reputation as a figure of evil. But it hadn't occurred to me until watching this episode that Judas may have been unaware of the potential consequences of his betrayal. He seems to have been motivated by impatience, frustration, and lack of faith in Jesus' approach. How devastated he must have been to see his well-intentioned plan run so completely out of his control.
In Acts 1:20 verse the verse is written as, 'May ("his,") place be deserted let there be no one to dwell in it,' and that verse apostle Peter mentions is supposedly about the psalm of Psalms 69:25
Apostle Peter said that the scripture of Psalms 69:25 verse was written and prophesied about Judas Iscariot by king David when it (Psalms 69:25) wasn't written about only 1 person
Question: why would early gospel writers knowingly contradict the death accounts of Judas? Why not change the account, in either Acts or Matthew, to align with each other. Doesn’t this indicate the reluctance to edit texts ?
Exactly! It shows they knew they weren't writing a "newspaper account" of events. Not until much later did some christians decide that everything had to be word for word true.
For the first time in my life I think I got the right answer, and Bark was wonderful at explaining it. Thank you. I believe he's dead on, very logical and quite believable incredible thinking.
i dont think people contemplate biblical events with a what and why. They take it as written literally. Judas was destined from start to betray christ to be crucified for mankind's redemption, hence he betrayed. End of story for a believer.
According to old dictionaries Ish Carioth Was a town in Judea and Ischia was an Island Near Naples. The word Carioth was used for a horse drawn carrier in the Roman Empire Papias: [60-130 AD. WROTE] "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.“ Acts: "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."
this is all coming at a wonderful time, we can reach spiritual reconciliation when people actually respect religious texts as offering something of value to us without denigrating other texts that people respect, but also recognizing errors/false information/mistakes/etc without misunderstanding.
"without denigrating" other faith? (as if any of them were worthy of respect!) Jesus, in the incomprehensibly vast universe, it the only son of God, the only savior, and the only soul sitting at the right hand of god. So Christians have ragging rights, at least, and might indulge in denigration, too without God judging it as a character flaw.
You assume the gospels' accounts are entirely accurate. Maybe those events were embellished over the years and in actuality they were small scale incidents that would have flown under the Roman radar.
@@Jyyhjyyh Even if they were small scale events they would have said to anyone who heard of them that Jesus was claiming to be the "Massiah." If those events didn't happen on some scale- is that something his followers would have made up later? Those events would be legitimate reasons for crucifixion. Whereas even with those events his followers tried to make him out to be inocent.
I was wondering about an explanation of Judas' betrayal more like this: Judas was afraid that Jesus was going to get a lot of people killed, and he betrayed Jesus to save these others. To me, that makes a lot more sense than Bart's guess. Also, that's a reason that might have been shared by the Pharisees.
Sounds like “Jesus Christ Superstar”: “Listen Jesus, do you care for your race/Don’t you see we must stay in our place?/We are occupied/Have you forgotten how put down we are?/I am frightened by the crowd/For we have gotten much too loud/And they’ll crush if we go too far.”
imagine you are having your former ex-best friend swatted and you decide to join the raid and then tell the cops "i'm gonna go in there and smooch him"
I’ve never understood Christians vilifying Judas. Without the betrayal, Jesus doesn’t get executed. If Jesus is not executed he doesn’t rise from the dead. If Jesus doesn’t rise from the dead there is no point to Christianity. Now tell me again how someone who played a key role in making possible the central event in Christianity deserves a bad rap. Religion really is for people who can’t think their way out of a revolving door.
Fun fact, if they were in the crowd that day, I keep asking them this question but they don't have any answer. Would they Save Jesus (like a normal human being) Push him to get to the cross faster Nailed him themselves in order to get "salvation" There's no right answer to it actually
IF it was an invented story, it would likely trace back to 1 Corinthians, where Paul refers to the night Jesus was "betrayed" (or "turned over" ["paredideto"]). Mark may be trying to explain the meaning of that word (which may have meant something entirely different to Paul).
35:35 - Couldn't another motive simply be that Judas didn't think the kingdom would really come that night, or that Jesus's plan to trigger it wouldn't work? So, rather than have the Romans discover this Jewish wannabe king and punish the Jews collectively, Judas turned in Jesus as a way to save his fellow Jews from the wrath of the Romans? Kind of like what Jesus Christ Superstar describes in "Heaven on Their Minds"?
I had a Christian “science” book when I was homeschooled and it said Judes died by hanging over a gulch and the branch broke and thats how he got the guts open and yada yada. The book actually said to ask this question to Pastors to test them because a good Pastor would know that Edit: you addressed it good
The writer of the book of Acts wrote it in the Greek language is what it was borrowing from the Septuagint and making it look like apostle Peter was speaking about Psalms 69:25 verse when he never did
Judas is so often depicted, especially in the arts and literature, as a revolutionary, who broke with Jesus because of the latter's desire to subordinate politics to the coming of the Kingdom of God (whatever that might bring); what Bart seems to be suggest6ing at 25 minutes is that Judas may well have betrayed Jesus inasmuch as he told the religious authorities that Jesus was claiming the Messianic mantle (whether true or not?). In such a case, is Judas not the apolitical supporter of piety over politics? Great show, as always!
I used to think that in the days before modern technology, they needed a known insider to identify him by face. The soldiers who came to arrest him likely had no idea who he was, and needed Judas to identify the right person. That's why Judas told them it's the one he greets. The theory that Judas was giving inside information about his claim to be the messiah is also plausible and fits in with the questions asked him at trials before the sanhedrin and pilate. Maybe it's a combination of all the factors working together, including the monetary reward as the final incentive to bring Judas to cross the line.
Matthew 26:24: "24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born."
And that throw away line of the 12 ruling the tribes of Israel didnt seem lost on early Christians either. Both the Dialogue of the Savior and the Gospel of Judas contain parts where Judas is directly told that he will govern.
It is interesting that although the two stories of Judas's death conflict, they both share the link with the naming of the Field of Blood, so they must be drawing on a common tradition that developed two separate explanations for the connection
I thought the narrative given in the Gospel of Judas was the most compelling from a magical standpoint. Someone who was giving up something significant would have to sacrifice the Lamb of God, not himself. But then that doesnt mesh with the confused Yeshua you describe.
Speaking about possible reasons for Jesus’ arrest, does anyone know if there is a video where Dr. Ehrman addresses the hypothetical relationship between Jesus (and his early followers) and the Zealots?
According to Maurice Nicoll, Jesus was being sarcastic when he told his apostles that they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel. He was letting them know that their understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven was incorrect and off the mark.
In addition to the blood field similarities, it is interesting that in both accounts Judas dies via trauma to the head: hanging, and "falling head first" . . .
In Acts 1:20 verse Apostle Peter says, 'May, ("his,") (meaning Judas's) place be deserted let there be no one to dwell in it,' apostle Peter supposedly said that in Psalm's 69:25 verse it was about Judas Iscariot when it wasnt
I have often wondered what were the 30 shekels of silver worth in comparative value? Could you live a week? A month? Year? Retire to the suburbs in comfort with servants?
Unless Judas Iscariot had a tent that was abandoned? Because king David wrote, 'May their place be deserted let there be no one to dwell in their tent's.' That's from Psalms 69:25 verse that was written about more than 1 person.
The Judas story inadvertently shows how destitute most people were back when they used gold & silver for money. The bribe he accepted was probably worth just a few hundred dollars at today's silver prices; but at the time it looked like winning the lottery.
As an atheist I've always thought that Judas did Jesus a favour by betraying him because Jesus had to die to redeem for our sins. That was the purpose.
Yeah, this is kind of a problem in Christian theology IMO. Either Judas had to do what he did (because Jesus had to die) or he was a bad guy who did bad things. It can't be both.
In many Christian circles there is a strong belief that God has a master plan and everything happens for a reason - his reason of course. So Judas was made to betray Jesus so he could be sacrificed, save the world, etc. But that thinking leads to some difficulties - was Hitler part of God’s plan because he was used to bring about the state of Israel? For my two cents I’m not sure Jesus was betrayed at all…maybe the Romans just arrested him for causing problems and then executed him…the many narratives developed in the decades that followed…
Deuteronomy 24 16. No one can suffer for the sin of another. This is in both the Christian Bible and the Torah. Yet Christianity doesn't subscribe to their own Book and continue to falsely believe Jesus came to die for their Sins.. ( what ya gonna do....free will)
@@notanemoprog darkness is the absence of light. To put it into perspective many are deeply embedded in their Earthly beliefs and no other. And are easily triggered by anything contrasting. How can we help heal the world in this way. Triggered by a Beer or a hat or a flag of many colors ....that's living in darkness don't you agree. 😊
I do find the idea that Judas wastrying ot force the issue and get Jesu and the people to start a revolution. Some version of that make so much sense. Given that there were excited crowds following Jesus and he was fantastically popular, why no revolution? Did the people look around and say to themselves 'me face a Roman soldier- no way' and fade into the background. Was Jesus as popular was portrayed? Was Judas frustrated by the apparent lack of interest and as Bart suggests - trying to promote interest in the an injustice. This simple betrayal leads to so many questons. TY Mega and Bart.
1. Judas's name bearing possible etiology would be sufficient to consider him very possibly a fabrication, but that's not the extent of the argument. Mark is a novella, and Judas is a key plot figure as the betrayer. We see vastly different portrayals of the motives of Judas by people who would have no basis for determining these motives, and would be consistent if the motives had been revealed. We have evidence from Papias of yet a third account of Judas's death, signifying that Mark's lack of comeuppance for Judas had inspired a cottage industry of inventing horrible ways for him to die. 2. The "12 thrones" is attributed to speculative reconstructions of the Q source, but this is only actually said in Matthew. Luke mentions the disciples will sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes, but does not say how many thrones. This is clear in the Greek (Luke 22:30) and every translation into English I can find, if you wanted to make an argument from lack of punctuation. It's also a strange thing to attribute to an historical Jesus, because there weren't 12 tribes available at the time to rule. This would require restoration of the lost tribes first. The passage definitely belies a spiritual event to have taken place, and not mundane conquering by a human ruler. This therefore seems to be especially likely to never come out of Jesus's own mouth. As for Matthew, he has sloppy timelines in how he relayed the pericopes of Mark and Luke all throughout the book, and this flub is entirely within character for him. 3. Considering the charges against Jesus and the conversations between him and his accusers as any sort of evidence to Jesus's beliefs and motives assumes that the stories we have of these encounters in the gospels are in any way correct. But even if we accepted traditional, early, eyewitness authors of the gospels, none of them were present at these trials. Nor do we have any evidence of there being a public record of these proceedings. I am cool with assuming the placard reading "KING OF THE JEWS" attached above Jesus's head on the cross as a detail that is more likely to have occurred than most in the gospels, but that doesn't give us those conversations. 4. Assuming that Judas went to the Sanhedrin with "something they wanted" presumes Jesus was A) on their radar but B) for some reason untouchable without further evidence. The local authorities DID have the power to stone Jesus for religious blasphemy. It's possible Judas was troubled and *alerted* the local constabulary of Jesus's words and actions, who then turned him over to the Romans, but it is both unnecessary and frankly unlikely for Jesus to have been some sort of "problem" for them before then. It's likely just development of foreshadowing of the novella's villains within the book of Mark. 5. Maybe Judas himself was a country bumpkin yokel who didn't realize the implications of his betrayal, but it's absurd to think the jewish authorities weren't painfully aware that Jesus would be crucified for this. Messiahs were a dime a dozen, Rome quashed several uprisings over and around the first century, and the eventual first Roman-Jewish war was fought over messianic claims.
Condidering your 4. : after the cleansing of the Temple, it was impossible for the religious authorities not to be aware of Jesus existence. Indeed, the aim of Jesus was probably the abolition of animal sacrifice in the Temple, and it was a dealy threat to both their authority and their money. And are you sure the priests really had the authority to kill someone? When the high priest Hanan ben Hanan put James the Just to death around 30 years later, he was removed from power by the romans because he had acted on his own. Maybe the laws changed in between?
Calling people in antiquity fictional because of their names is foolish. Many such etymologies were proposed for characters in the Homeric epics. Then we deciphered Linear B, and it turns out some names (such as Achilles) were actual, contemporary names.
@@andrelegeant88 "Judas" was indeed an actual, contemporary, and even popular name at the time. Deeming the startling appropriateness of the name to the character portrayed as "sufficient to consider him very possibly a fabrication" in no way implies that sufficient reason think he *necessarily* is a fabrication... this is just a reason to consider it. I provided an actual argument for why Judas could likely be a fabrication. Do you care to address the argument I made? Even Ehrman's blog has an entry on the muddy meaning and origin of the "Iscariot" part.If you're a member, you can read it at the entry "What Does the Name Judas “Iscariot” Mean?" from October 28, 2019. Basically, he finds that the most common interpretation of "man from Kerioth" seems unlikely given its distance (about 170km from Capernaum, or 48 hours of actual walking), and there have been a large number of speculative interpretations over the years, mostly etiological. I personally find Kerioth to be as good as any; Mark also cast Simon of Cyrene, a city in modern-day Libya over 1800 kilometers on modern roads from Jerusalem.
The first point contradicts rather than supports your position. Differing accounts of what happened to Judas suggests that the story of Judas' betrayal is extremely old, and not the creation of Mark, because early Christians later wanted to know what happened to him, resulting in different traditions, just as there are different traditions around the fate of other apostles. If Judas were invented, the inventor would have also invented an end for him. Also, to call Mark a novella is anachronistic. The genre didn't exist. Mark is written like a history or journal similar to Caesar or Xenophon. A fictional or artistic account in Greek would only be received as such if in meter. I'm not aware of any other prose account of a fictional person in the style of Mark from the time of Mark.
@@andrelegeant88 The story of Judas *might* have preceded Mark. But 20 years is plenty of time for people to read a story, not like how a villain's storyline went unresolved, and make up their own. The fact that Mark did NOT resolve Judas's storyline is sufficient to explain WHY these stories were invented. So your reasoning is insufficient to declare that it "must" have preceded Mark. I'm using "novella" as a modern parallel. The story seems closer to a tragedy, but it does not fit the strict format of a tragedy. Classifying ancient Greek literature isn't in my job description, but I'm certainly not going to accept that "if wasn't in meter it must have been true." I'm not convinced it was meant to be accepted as non-fiction, especially with its ironic "they ran and told no one" ending --- even if the reader didn't catch the parallel with the frequent "tell no one what happened here today" passages throughout the book, it should have slowly dawned on the reader that if the women told no one, how was the author writing it down? This was a nod from the author to the reader, a gentle breaking of the fourth wall. (Or perhaps, the author is implying to have been one of the women. That would be awesome if true, though I've not heard that take before.) And perhaps you are correct that it would only be correctly received as fiction if in the appropriate format. Luke and Matthew seemed to take it seriously enough to add to it. John arguably took it seriously enough to raise objections to it. Later readers added at least three endings to it, because they didn't understand the ending. This is the sort of storytelling we enjoy in modern times, and reminds me a lot of Mark Twain, but perhaps it just didn't fit neatly into genres available at the time and wasn't understood.
Kazantzakis' interpretation of "betrayal" in "The Last Temptation" has a frighteningly plausible and deeply human explanation. No "betrayal" - no death - no resurrection - no salvation. Therefore, Judas' deed is an indispensable part of the divine plan.
So Jesus wanted himself to be executed publicly so the human sacrifice could occur? And the beating and trial was a necessary part of this human sacrifice event? I'm sure you can imagine situations where Jesus' sacrifice occurs without this whole sequence of events being very different.
@@unkerpaulie Jesus didn't want it at the time, but i'm not sure that there is much room for a sacrifice without death or suffering in the framework of christian theology. And if he wasn't killed that way (or thought to be killed way) the religion would have had to evolve in a very different way. Maybe it would have stayed jewish?
@@unkerpauliewell I think the idea is that Jesus experience a nadir of suffering is what allows him to understand the human condition fully and why he is willing to sacrifice himself in the first place. It’s all up for interpretation obviously but that’s the interpretation that feels most powerful to me imo
@@unkerpaulie Of course, as an enlightened person of the 21st century, I can...but.... I was speaking of Kazantzakis' interpretation. (1) In the tension of human-divine dualism of Jesus he makes a particularly close emphasis on his human side - Jesus felt strongly and agonizing painfully God's call for his mission. Again and again under physical and mental agony he tried to evade this call. (2) As a pious jew of antiquaty living during vivid apocalyptic culture Jesus saw the absolute necessity of compensating for sins through sacrifice, as God's justice to preserve the order of his creation. (3) This sacrifice had to be violent - as all sacrifices in antiquaty have been. (4) Expecting that he would suffer greatly and that his fear and anxiety would overwhelm him, he asked Judas, as his closest confidant, to overcome this all too human side in order to fulfil the divine mission.
"we don't know" are the most important words any intellectually honest man can say
How about “ *I* don’t know”? “WE don’t know” requires no humility whatsoever.
Don't you think the story should have internal consistency?
By “honest” you must mean “lazy”
@@kevin6293 I must
@@alg11297 you’re smart
Dr. Bart seems to be a very pleasant person and therefore the perfect messenger for debunking entrenched beliefs.
This episode was absolutely fascinating and thought-provoking.
The whole idea of jewish messianic movements in the 1st century should be addressed in a future video
Have you watched ReligionForBreakfast's video on Second Temple Judaism?
I would really love to see Bart tackle the lines where Jesus calls out to God “why have you forsaken me.” It’s especially chilling in the context of him not being resurrected and seems to be an odd thing to just write in.
I would to!
I'm pretty sure that is what the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" was all about.. The line indicates doubt, which Jesus could not have...the movie/story lets Jesus play that doubt out and in the end, he reconciles the doubt and willingly "dies for our sins". That said, I am an atheist and do not believe in the bible whatsoever but thought the movie was brilliant...in the way it dealt with that obvious contradiction.
The Trinity is the theological construct to resolve this issue
The more interesting thing is as the Disciples are asleep - the author says this 3 times - who would hear this prayer
The answer is the author who casts himself as the Naked man
This sounds so like a mythical tale ... It was just made up.
He covered that exact thing in depth and detail in one of his courses, and I think he might have mentioned it on the podcast at one point. It is a pretty weird story behind the totally different versions and translations and theology drivers for just that one line in that one scene that isn’t even consistent across the canonic gospels.
I'm sure Ehrman has a vid about that if you look. Years ago. The 7 things is in the title.
By calling out the first line, Christ was directing attention to the Psalm that prophesied that very moment.
I once tripped and fell down in a parking lot. My only injuries were scrapes on my hands and knees. And another time I actually fainted and fell face first onto a hard tile floor, and I woke up with bleeding on one of my eyebrow ridges. Judas fell in a field, onto dirt; his guts bursting out makes literally no sense.
there's not a whole lot in the bible that does make much sense.
The Greek doesn't say he fell. It just says that he was facedown in a field and his guts burst out. If he was facedown dead, completely possible for his stomach to explode as he decayed. This famously happened when William the Conqueror was entombed.
@@andrelegeant88 The Greek says he fell headlong (meaning he fell head first), and right afterwards it says his middle burst open, that's it. So he died from hitting his head on dirt and his body just laid in the field until it decayed? It still doesn't make sense. It also contradicts Judas's death in Matthew, where he returns the money he got for betraying Jesus, and he doesn't buy a field, he just hangs himself. The authorities who received the returned money were the ones who bought a field.
@@MisterJang0 The literal Greek is "he was facedown." There's no sense of time or how he died. He could have simply died of heart stroke or a heart attack according to Acts. Mentioning that his guts exploded - which absolutely happens - could be an attempt to show some vengeance from God where the author of Acts otherwise has heard that Judas died a natural death.
A corpse that hung for a while, that decomposes, and then eventually falling to the ground, bursting and spilling insides - might make sense in terms. IOW, the mashup scenario of the two accounts may make sense, contrary to Bart’s opinion.
Judas hangs himself, the body hangs for some time, rotting, the rope breaks, and the corpse falls and burst on the ground spilling out innards.
Utterly fascinating. You two are such a wonderful team. Thank you so much!
I love your show/channel. So glad I subsribed
Thank you Dr. Ehrman for another interesting and thought provoking program. I learn something always.
The story of Judas leading the soldiers to Jesus never made sense to me. Wasn't Jesus supposed to be a famous miracle worker?
What do you mean or trying to insinuate?
@@lunarlight3131 I mean why did Judas have to point out who Jesus was?
The Romans could have easily arrested him in public in Jerusalem. They didn't need to sneak around in secret or have Jesus pointed out to them.
Also, didn't Jesus interact with the relgious leaders?
They knew what he looked like.
Was Yoshua not first arrested by the Temple authorities?
Not necessarily. He spent a year perhaps preaching in Galilee, a backwater. Wasn't like some famous celebrity the Romans knew about. Ditto the local Jerusalem Jewish leaders. We don't know how many miracles he actually committed. Other people did "miracles." Doing it in public -- with crowds in town for the festival -- could have caused problems.
@@johnburn8031 Wanted: caucasian male, blue eyes, blonde highlights, Greek name, wears a crucifix necklace.
I learned that Judas did this because he was disappointed that Jesus wasn’t intending to start a revolt against the Romans. And was mad at him.
His betrayal being an impulsive decision, and he regretted it sincerely very soon. I always felt sorry for the guy.
Later, when I saw the life of Brian, the revolutionary played by John Cleese fitted this picture perfectly.
It makes sense if Jesus' disciples believed that he was the Jewish Messiah, someone who was going to overthrow the Romans and create a new Jewish state.
That's as much fiction as Monty Python. Xtians sitting around hypothesizing about fictional events is the height of stupidity!!
@@rstevewarmorycom thank you very much for you friendly reaction.
@@jannetteberends8730
Well, it IS fiction, you know! So is jesus, by the way! Well over 50 choniclers, among them over 30 Roman and Greek scholars who were in Jerusalem from 25 to 38 AD precisely to study jewish cults, and who all wrote voluminously about events of the times saw: NO jesus/yeshua, NO disciples, NO ministry, NO miracles, NO teachings, and NOT ONE crucifixion of ANYBODY of jesus description was ever seen or reported by them!!!
In fact we can find NO other writing about ANY jesus till after destruction of the temple in 70 AD, except Paul in 50 AD, he was killed in Rome along with Peter in 60 AD by Nero!! Paul was a Roman named Saul originally, who was a member or familiar with a cult in Greece and Turkey who worshipped the archangel Yeshua, which in Daniel and Zachariah in the torah was, in jewish angelology, the first created angel of yahweh, son of yahweh, and who was said to have performed the creation of the world for yahweh!!
This cult existed long before 1 BC! Their worship ritual was praise of archangel Yeshua while eating bread and wine symbolizing his heavenly flesh and divine blood!! It was called the Lord's Supper, as all angels were addressed by jews and Greeks as Lord. Their lore has it that his ascension to the right hand of yahweh was by venturing into satan's lowest level of heaven, below the moon, and being captured and crucified by satan and his demons and in three days reanimated and escaped up to the 7th heaven to the right hand of yahweh and that he assisted in the judgment of the dead!
This narrative by Paul, who in his validated epistles, spoke ONLY of the archangel Yeshua, but not on earth, he said he received a revelation of Yeshua Christ in his visions and dreams, he never met any jesus/yeshua on earth, never spoke of any disciples, nor miracles, nor ministry nor any teachings of this yeshua/jesus on earth, nor any disciples nor followers, except those receiving similar revelation, whom he called brothers!! He NEVER clearly spoke of any jesus ever living on earth. His yeshua archangel was solely contrived from his belief in Daniel and Zachariah, and his schizotypal visions and dreams!
It's believed by scholars that a group of Greek speaking high rabbis of the jerusalem temple that was destroyed in the 70's AD who fled in the diaspora that followed, wrote what turned into the anonymous gospels, hijacking Paul's epistle narrative and fashioning it into a story of a fictional jesus on earth, written anonymously to protect themselves, and set back in history 50 years so there would be no witnesses to be fact-checked! And yahweh, whom the jews assumed had been killed or run off by the Romans, the jews believed yahweh's existence was tied to the temple! So these rabbis were trying to reignite a new judaism under the SON of Yahweh, one free of the temple mostly so these high priests could get their phony baloney jobs back, they had enjoyed extereme wealth and luxury and power in the jerusalem temple, and wanted it back!!
In spreading the several gospels, the several tries to do so, each later named the 4 gospels, they inadvertantly created christianity, which when examined in just another jewish cult! But it was based solely on the ever better and more well-written stories of jesus on earth, in the 4 anonymous gospels, even set back in time 50 years so no witnesses of the events could be fact-checked, since people only lived to about 50 in that time!! But which story was all fiction!!
Christianity was tiny for a long time. Only in the third century when Constantine's mother grew enamored of it did the Emperor start diverting money to it from pagan coffers, only then did it even start to grow. But after Constantine's death his mothers christian friends had Theodocius become emperor and he declared christianity the only legal religion! He sent his cavalry to enforce this and they went around killing pagans and stealing and burning the farms of pagans, and enslaving their wives and children and selling the girls as sex slaves!! The people hurriedly taught their kids the christian catechism just so that they did not die or be raped!!! This christianity finally grew like crazy only at the point of swords and spears and cavalry burning and torturing people in middle of the night!!! It was NOT in the beginning that it was popular or persuasive!!! Europe was christianized by extreme violence!! So were all things done back then!! "Nobles" saw the people as nought but their property!
So you see, kids, it was ALL nothing but made-up shit, just as was every single story in the jewish torah/old testament!!!
@@jannetteberends8730
Well it IS only fiction! So was the jesus story!! Well over 50 choniclers, among them over 30 Roman and Greek scholars who were in Jerusalem from 25 to 38 AD precisely to study jewish cults, and who all wrote voluminously about events of the times saw: NO jesus/yeshua, NO disciples, NO ministry, NO miracles, NO teachings, and NOT ONE crucifixion of ANYBODY of jesus description was ever seen or reported by them!!!
In fact we can find NO other writing about ANY jesus till after destruction of the temple in 70 AD, except Paul in 50 AD, he was killed in Rome along with Peter in 60 AD by Nero!! Paul was a Roman named Saul originally, who was a member or familiar with a cult in Greece and Turkey who worshipped the archangel Yeshua, which in Daniel and Zachariah in the torah was, in jewish angelology, the first created angel of yahweh, son of yahweh, and who was said to have performed the creation of the world for yahweh!!
This cult existed long before 1 BC! Their worship ritual was praise of archangel Yeshua while eating bread and wine symbolizing his heavenly flesh and divine blood!! It was called the Lord's Supper, as all angels were addressed by jews and Greeks as Lord. Their lore has it that his ascension to the right hand of yahweh was by venturing into satan's lowest level of heaven, below the moon, and being captured and crucified by satan and his demons and in three days reanimated and escaped up to the 7th heaven to the right hand of yahweh and that he assisted in the judgment of the dead!
This narrative by Paul, who in his validated epistles, spoke ONLY of the archangel Yeshua, but not on earth, he said he received a revelation of Yeshua Christ in his visions and dreams, he never met any jesus/yeshua on earth, never spoke of any disciples, nor miracles, nor ministry nor any teachings of this yeshua/jesus on earth, nor any disciples nor followers, except those receiving similar revelation, whom he called brothers!! He NEVER clearly spoke of any jesus ever living on earth. His yeshua archangel was solely contrived from his belief in Daniel and Zachariah, and his schizotypal visions and dreams!
It's believed by scholars that a group of Greek speaking high rabbis of the jerusalem temple that was destroyed in the 70's AD who fled in the diaspora that followed, wrote what turned into the anonymous gospels, hijacking Paul's epistle narrative and fashioning it into a story of a fictional jesus on earth, written anonymously to protect themselves, and set back in history 50 years so there would be no witnesses to be fact-checked! And yahweh, whom the jews assumed had been killed or run off by the Romans, the jews believed yahweh's existence was tied to the temple! So these rabbis were trying to reignite a new judaism under the SON of Yahweh, one free of the temple mostly so these high priests could get their phony baloney jobs back, they had enjoyed extereme wealth and luxury and power in the jerusalem temple, and wanted it back!!
In spreading the several gospels, the several tries to do so, each later named the 4 gospels, they inadvertantly created christianity, which when examined in just another jewish cult! But it was based solely on the ever better and more well-written stories of jesus on earth, in the 4 anonymous gospels, even set back in time 50 years so no witnesses of the events could be fact-checked, since people only lived to about 50 in that time!! But which story was all fiction!!
Christianity was tiny for a long time. Only in the third century when Constantine's mother grew enamored of it did the Emperor start diverting money to it from pagan coffers, only then did it even start to grow. But after Constantine's death his mothers christian friends had Theodocius become emperor and he declared christianity the only legal religion! He sent his cavalry to enforce this and they went around killing pagans and stealing and burning the farms of pagans, and enslaving their wives and children and selling the girls as sex slaves!! The people hurriedly taught their kids the christian catechism just so that they did not die or be raped!!! This christianity finally grew like crazy only at the point of swords and spears and cavalry burning and torturing people in middle of the night!!! It was NOT in the beginning that it was popular or persuasive!!! Europe was christianized by extreme violence!! So were all things done back then!! "Nobles" saw the people as nought but their property!
So you see, kids, it was ALL nothing but made-up shit, just as was every single story in the jewish torah/old testament!!!
I agree with the idea that Judas was trying to kick-start the return of the kingdom of god. It never made sense to me that he did it only for money. Thank you, Bart and Megan. 👍👍👍
Agreed. Judas didn’t want money.
* I would add that there was a divine aspect to what Judas believed. Jesus, John the Baptist, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls; truly thought that God was going to intervene in the world & support Judaism & defeat the enemies of Israel.
* When Jesus was alive, he & his apostles were certain of this victory.
- Judas spoke to the priests because he thought they would follow Jesus. Then he believed that the Angels would appear to help Israel be victorious.
* But the plans of Judas all went wrong.
The apostles ran from the soldiers & hid from the Temple priests.
The priests rejected Jesus as the king Messiah.
God didn’t save him.
The Angels did not appear to lead Israel to victory with Jesus as its king.
* The torture of Jesus and the crucifixion was a terrible shock to Judas.
- The whole situation was a nightmare.
And from that Judas took his own life.
How do you know the motivations of someone who lived 2000 years ago and we oly know about from a few mentions in texts written decades after by people who hated him?
@@alvedonaren ; texts motivated by hate can be dismissed especially when the hate is irrational as is the case with Judas. The motivation of historical figures, who lived thousands of years ago, gets to the core of the study of ancient history which takes into account; the culture, the situation and the most likely explanation for why someone did what they did.
@@bb1111116 I'm not sure I would call the hate against Judas irrational (assuming tat he really did betray his mentor). Your thesis just assumes way too much stuff, like that Judas still believed that Jesus was the actual Messiah rather than losing faith in him, which would be an obvious possibility if he really did turn Jesus over to the pharisees.
@@alvedonaren; you previously wrote about *“a few mentions in texts written decades after by people who hated him”*
I wrote; *“texts motivated by hate can be dismissed”*
@alvedonaren ; in your last comment you wrote; *”assuming that he really did betray his mentor)”*
* My reply; I do not assume that Judas betrayed Jesus. This betrayal idea comes from the “hate” language in the New Testament (which you mentioned) and can be dismissed.
- The text says that Jesus thought he was the king Messiah.
- To be the king Messiah of Israel, Jesus would need to be accepted by the priests and scribes.
- Judas speaking to the priests was because they were supposed to follow Jesus as king Messiah.
Judas was helping the process along.
- It was not a betrayal.
I used to think Jesus dying for the sins of mankind was sad. Now as I am deconstructing, it is even more sad to me that the historical Jesus preached a message that gave people hope, and then was suddenly killed for it.
Its interesting that the tenple liturgies actually included a dying "annointed king" and then it happened in real life. Imagine being a disciple and making that comparison
Absolutely incredible episode, can't wait to see the next episode!
Has anyone else ever questioned the stated timing of the events from the time Jesus is arrested and executed?
He got arrested late Thursday night, is taken (on foot) before the Roman Governor, sent (on foot) to see the King, Herod, sent back (on foot) to the Roman Governor was scourged, offered up to a crowd that appeared out of nowhere, then went (on foot) through the city carrying the cross just as two other people just happen to also being crucified?
And he died before sunset Friday early enough to be laid to rest before the sabbath so his grave can be found empty the morning after the sabbath?
@sailorbychoice 1
The Bible does not say that Jesus was arrested on Thursday night.
Why then are you basing your argument on misinformation??
No where in the bible does it show that Jesus died on any Friday.
He was likely arrested Wednesday night, tried informally (because at night, when the Sanhedrin could not legally meet) by Ciaphas, then more formerly by Pilate early Thursday morning, crucified, and died before sunset Thursday, the beginning of the first day of Passover - also a Sabbath - which was on Friday in AD 30 and therefore immediately preceded the regular weekly Sabbath. One of the gospels (in its original Greek) describes Mary arriving at the tomb around dawn on Sunday after the Sabbaths, plural. Some translations may obfusticate this.
Herod, visiting Jerusalem for Passover, would almost certainly have been staying in the guest suite of the (his) Palace which was Pilate's HQ; Jesus would have merely been taken across the Palace courtyard and back, not a lengthy trip.
Jerusalem on the Thursday would have been getting _very_ crowded by people arriving for the imminent Passover, so there would have been no lack of onlookers, particularly as the likely spot for such a presentation (if it happened) was the steps (recently excavated) on the outer side of the city wall by Pilate's residence and overlooking one of the routes to the city. How many of these onlookers could have actually understood what was going on is debatable, and in any case the Saducees were entirely capable of organising a claque.
From there, Jesus would likely have been taken directly to the crucifixion site, on the hillside across the Kidron Valley from the city (and therefore in full view): the area already had many tombs. The whole 'Via Dolorosa' procession through the City would have been geographically unnecessary, and a risky provocation. Its claimed route has been varied several times over the centuries, and it culminates in a very unlikely location within the city walls, not outside.
The other two victims are referred to as 'lestai', translated as 'thieves' but the term then used by the Romans for Jewish guerilla insurgents fighting the Romans' occupation. There were probably regular executions of captured lestai, and these two might even have been associated with the near riot in the Temple precincts Jesus had instigated earlier in that week - the actual Jewish uprising of AD 66 began in similar circumstances.
His body would have had to be left from Thursday dusk to Saturday dusk in the 'emergency tomb' that the rich Sanhedrin member (and Jesus supporter) Joseph of Arimathea had commandeered. Mary of Magdala, with or without female companions, would not have dared to visit a tomb in an extra-city graveyard and execution site at night, but a party of men organised by Joseph could have done so in order to move the body to a permanent tomb, almost certainly the one 2 miles away in Tapriot that we all now know about. There would likely not have been an opportunity for Joseph to keep all of Jesus' closest followers (scattered and in hiding) fully apprised, hence the women's initial confusion a few hours later.
It's worse than that, Jim! John's date is different than that of the synoptics.
@@terryhunt2659 the Sabbath is ALWAYS on the same day Saturday, so the AD30 date is irrelevant. The confusion lies that in Jewish reckoning the Sabbath ( Saturday) starts when it gets dark the previous day (Friday). The bible makes this clear many times.
Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13-14; 56:1-8; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4, 11; Luke 4:16; Mark 2:27-28; Matthew 12:10-12; Hebrews 4:1-11; Genesis 1:5, 13-14; Nehemiah 13:19.
It would take me weeks to do all that. Time works differently in the Bible.
(Richard here) A thought crossed my mind today that given Thomas (the Twin) was in Jerusalem at that time, and perhaps even with Jesus in the dark that night, the kiss by Judas was simply to differentiate the two in order to avoid an embarrassing mistake in the arrest.
When I was a child and asked my father about this obvious conflict between scriptures. His explanation was that Judas BLOATED while he was hanging, which is why his body burst when the rope broke. I even felt weird about that answer when I was 9 years old.
I always ask people about the 30 pieces of silver. Did Judas give it back to the temple or did Judas keep them and buy a field. Nine times out of ten people immediately jump to how he died because they is the apologetic that is infamous. They hardly ever will stay on the topic of the actual money, they don’t have a rewritten excuse for it.
Fun answer.
I've never understood why people are confused by The explanation that he was hanging and then fell and his intestines fell out. For as smart as he is it's like bart has no idea how it's even possible. But it actually makes perfect sense when you think about the fact that if you just said somebody was walking and fell and their intestines spilled out. You would think wait, what, I need more information. Either they fell on something or they fell From really high. it explains both If he was hanging and fell
@rickybailey4085 If you say he was hanged AND his guts fell out, you're writing your own book that is different from each other book.
Did Judas return the money, or use it to buy the field?
It doesn’t even matter. It’s an insignificant detail.
Hey Megan those eyeglasses is both beautiful, and fits you nicely. And so goes for the hair color and style!
Bart’s hypothesis makes sense regarding Jesus’ declaration that the twelve were to sit on the thrones ruling the new kingdom. This thought gives meaning to the need of the Eleven disciples in Acts who find it important to choose someone to replace Judas after his death. I often wondered why they did that. But Jesus’ words give the number twelve an importance.
Look for the guy with the ring around his head.
Excellent, magistral. Thanks to both of you.
Absolutely fascinating. Good question and well explained answers. Thank you to both.
If someone told me they were a New testament scholar at a cocktail party I would be thrilled and in awe. (I'm an atheist)
Really looking forward to hearing the two experts on their respective religious texts...I am sure much will be learned.
Super excited for the Bible & Quran course.
I'd be interested to know Bart's thoughts on how Judas' betrayal relates to the preceding account of Jesus being anointed with perfume. In comparing the gospels, it always jumps out to my interpretation as an indication that Judas' betrayal was driven by a perception that Jesus did not practice what he preached. I feel as though this is advanced by the authors having different ways of explaining the story.
In Mark, Judas goes to betray Jesus directly after the perceived waste of a perfume worth a year's salary. When he approaches the chief priests to betray Jesus, it is the priests who offer Judas money rather than him asking for it.
If we see Matthew as building upon Mark, the author adjusts the story presented in Mark by downplaying the price of the perfume (changing from "a year's salary" to "a high price") and having Judas approach the chief priests for the purpose of asking for payment rather than them offering it.
If we see Luke as also building upon Mark, the author instead chooses to remove any implication about the anointment leading to Judas' betrayal by moving the anointment story to a completely different part of the gospel and stating that Judas' actions were purely caused by him being possessed by Satan.
If we see John as building upon all prior gospels, the author of John seems to double down on these changes to the story.
Instead of just downplaying the price of the perfume, the author of John states the anointment occurred during a special celebration and the perfume had been intentionally saved for that exact moment rather than being an extravagance. Furthermore, the author explicitly states that Judas was the only one questioning the use of the perfume, and that he only did so because he was a thief who had planned to sell the perfume and pocket the money himself.
Instead of just having Judas' betrayal be unrelated to the anointment due to a possession by Satan before the last supper, the author of John moves the possession to take place during the last supper at the command of Jesus. Not only was the betrayal purely driven by possession of Satan, but now it was unquestionably an intentional act by Jesus through divine power.
It seems to me that the anointment of Jesus is an event which the gospel authors felt compelled to include, yet they increasingly attempted to suppress any link it had to Judas' betrayal and any questionability of Jesus' actions. I feel as though such authorial actions could make sense in response to contemporary rumors of the anointment being an event where Jesus was betrayed by a follower due to him betraying his own teachings. Refusal to omit the anointment even though it is somewhat awkward for Jesus' message seems to imply that it historically occurred. The progressive downplaying of its outcomes seen to imply that there were some who thought it reflected poorly on Jesus.
I'd be curious to hear the perspective of a scholar on whether or not this theory holds any water. I'm sure there are many aspects beyond my understanding.
I am not a scholar, but what you are saying sounds very interesting. I think we lack some cultural context here. If Jesus had to become King of Israel, it would make sense that there had to be at least one anointment ceremony, and considering the importance of the event, it would make sense that some expenses would have had to be made; but some people would not have viewed it favorably.
Now, considering that judaism was all but unified at that time in history, there would have been many different jewish group with many different beliefs, and in order to be recognized as the King, he would have had to be anointed several times, by different groups. That would have meant even more expenses, and even more critics. It is possible that he was close to achieve his goals when he was arrested.
🤔👍
This is great, ty
This wasn't Rome's first messiah suppression, no tip off was needed. Judas was incensed that Jesus--who had introduced Hellenized philosophy into Torah teaching--was not radical enough. Judas was a traditional believer who thought Jesus cult betrayed the national uprising of the messianic Comng of the New Age.
He did not teach hellenized philosophy, John the Baptist and Jesus were preaching repentance
I eagerly awaited this discussion. I was so glad that Megan asked the question of whether Judas really existed. Perhaps, perhaps not. I think Bart was drawing links between events of the life of Jesus involving Judas that are very hard to substantiate. I really do not believe Barts hypothesis on this matter.
Megan is spot on! This question@21.30 has been plaguing me for long time.For such a public figure like Jesus why Judas is required to identify,follow and arrest !
Once Judea became a Roman province and not a client kingdom the question of sedition comes up. Caesar was the titular ruler of Judea and if the people are proclaiming someone with a title reserved for Judean kings that would be sedition in their eyes.
Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for sedition by non Romans. Roman citizens were beheaded. The labeling of “King of the Jews” attest to that theory.
The 2 robbers on the crosses were probably escaped slaves that became robbers as other punishments were reserved for robbers not as public. Public punishment of slaves was used to keep them in line as slaves weren’t marked as slaves although proposed rules were made but not put into effect.
Unlikely Jesus was well known, maybe had about one hundred followers. The two others on the cross were almost certainly insurrectionists like Jesus, that is what people were crucified for.
Crucification was a method of execution that was reserved for high-profile criminals. According to Josephus, that execution method was used by the kings of Judea in coordination with roman authorities to execute dissidents, critics or subversive individuals. One of the chief institution of Judea that represented the ethnic population was the office of the high priest. Josephus portrays the office of the high priest and Roman governors and legates to be in constant communication with each other, especially after Herod Archelaus was ousted. Josephus' account of jewish history under the romans is replete with intrigues surrounding the office of the high priest, as it was the most prestigious position that could be gained without a fixed hereditary lineage. Priests conspired against other priest to make them fall out of favour in relation to the roman authority. This is what happened with Ananias and Jonathan. Numerous times, the chief priests used this relationship with the Roman governor to remove their enemies or individuals they found problematic. The most common method of execution for Jewish dissidents against the priestly establishment was stoning, but crucifixion was also used when they wanted to make an example out of someone. In return, the high priest would agree to be loyal and supportive of the roman rule. This was one of numerous tacit agreements between these two highly influential offices to maintain and exert their power.
It had been just a few days since he came back to Jerusalem; he wasn't a very famous public figure, not as much as temple officials. He was viewed more as thorn on the side of the Jewish establishment who could rally the support of the crowd in public confrontations due to his edifying and wise words. He never posed a serious threat to their authority, but had repeatedly offended them and denounced their practices (such as allowing money lenders in the temple), and they wanted to prevent public opinion from turning against them- it hadn't by that point, since the public ended up enthusiastically supporting Jesus' crucifixion. Their motivation was most likely due to a sense of indignation against him, and to prevent their popularity from waning further. Now, as for the ease of identification- we know that Jesus wore similar clothes to his disciples, he did not take adornments or flamboyant displays like the jewish priests. Confrontations between Jesus and the jewish leaders was not a regular or daily occurrence, but happened on a specific number of times- most of them were more busy with other religious duties. Putting all these facts together, it can be contended that the priests weren't sure of their ability to single out and spot Jesus amongst his disciples, especially at night time (they didn't want to create a fuss during daytime), thus they recruited the services of one of the close disciples to pick out Jesus for them
I found David Brakke's book on Gnosticism approachable. Been a while since I read it but recall enjoying it.
It seems odd that in Matthew's account, the priests refused to accept blood money, but then used it to buy a field. Didn't they use the money? This, to me, seems problematic. Essentially they took the money in the end.
Oh the authors point is to damme the Saccracese for Jesus' death
I've always questioned the story of the betrayal for several reasons. Given that same amount of money was used in other places in the Old Testment, I questioned if it was more symbolic than actual. Then there was the issue of, if Jesus was omnicient, why would he choose Judas in the first place? And, if he knew what was going to occur, then was he using Judas as a prop?
Gospel versions of the 'Last Supper' have Jesus identifying Judas as a future traitor, and then telling him to go and do what he must. This always sounded to me like an incomplete story the tellers did not understand.
Within (later-developed) Christianity, it has been interpreted by some as meaning Jesus knew he 'had to die to redeem everybody else's sins', so he needed Judas to 'betray' him, perhaps sincerely, or perhaps as a prearranged ploy.
Others theorise that Jesus - influenced by interpretations of the Book of Daniel (a 2nd-century BC forgery, we now know) and similar works as prophesying the coming 'next world', i.e. one with Judea freed from the 'world' of Roman occupation (which had succeeded the 'world' of Greek occupation, which had succeeded Persian occupation, etc.) - expected an army of angels led by the mysterious heavenly 'Son of Man' to appear, save him from the cross, expel the Romans, the corrupt Priesthood and the illegitimate Herodian rulers, and maybe install him as the true 'Messiah', i.e. the legitimate, Davidic, anointed King of Judea or greater Israel.
Another explanation re Judas is grounded in normal , every day human nature: he had a huge secret and shared it with someone he shouldnt have. Not directly with the Authorities, as he was after all a peasant fisherman -who would listen him or allow him access to them.. He,though was the originating cause of the betrayal. Just a thought..
As always the two of you make brains tick over.. Thank you.
It's a typology of Joseph being sold into Egypt. His brothers reject him as the jews rejected Jesus. As Joseph went to Pharaoh and ruled Egypt, Jesus went to Rome and Christianity has ruled the west to this day. As Joseph brought his family to Egypt, so Jesus is supposed to redeem the jews.
How is it possible that there was not a single reference to the Gospel of Judas in this episode? When Dr. Ehrman was speculating about the possible reasons why Judas did what he did there wasn't a reference to the possibility of what is told in the Gospel of Judas as the motives. Very strange.
I wrote a gnostic gospel of Judas, and emailed it to Bart, but he didn't refer to that either. Very strange, and suspect. Dr. Ehrman talks in depth of that document in other classes and videos and question periods, so maybe check one or a dozen of those out. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
@@BrianFedirkoThat’s a ridiculous answer to a serious question. I was wondering the same thing
I was wondering the same thing. He focuses more on the accepted gospels rather than the gnostic gospels the way other scholars like Elaine Pagels. I read The Gospel of Judas a long time ago but don’t remember what it said. Have you read it and if so did it shed any light on the question?
There were no CCTV, cameras, fingerprint databases, id cards or mobile phones back then so ifentifying someone who does not want to be identified by you who tou are not familiar with would be difficult. You would need someone who is familiar with them to bring them to you or you to them. So thats what happened. Even today, if the police want to arrest someone, and know where they live, they would still need a photo of them to make aure they are arresting the right person, or id from their wallet, and would probably be in radio contact with colleagues for backup. There was none of that then, so logistically it seems plausible to me that a traitor would be required as a go between.
I believe these technology was there and more
Hence they flew Jesus back and forth to herod
But if he was a threat and had an entourage in Jerusalem was he that hard to detect?
@@quietjarvis not if you intended to arrest him in front of his followers who would likely intervene to prevent you. The individuals employed by the authorities to carry out the arrest would likely never have even seen Jesus as they would not be interested in his teachings. Even if they went to his home, they would need to be able to distinguish him from his brothers and any other guests. Jesus wasn't on social media or TV like modern celebrities. They would only have a verbal description to go from. So they needed help from someone familiar with him.
Jesus alledgly had thousands of followers and was seen by the Rabbis and everyone many times. This still doesn't make sense
Very interesting thank you
One idea that just came to mind: You don't salute officers in the field, because it might let a sniper know that the officer is an officer, making them a prime target. Maybe the Romans just followed Judas after hearing that he was one of the disciples, and when he got to the group, just noticed the difference in how he treated Jesus as opposed to the rest of the group. Then, because of circumstances, they all decided that Judas must have ratted out Jesus. Then Judas, being blamed for Jesus's death and being rejected by the other disciples just offs himself. The thirty pieces of silver is just a retcon.
Not sure if I buy into this idea myself, but maybe...
Like how the cops identified mafia bosses after The Godfather came out, because other mobsters started kissing the boss on the hand. That might be an apocryphal story, but it’s out there…
Yeah, but that's like saluting the one guy who's talking while an entire crowd stands around listening. It's not hard to identify him without the salute.
What does “retcon” mean?
@@Duiker36 But wasn't Jesus just with his apostles, and weren't they like taking a nap or something?
@@jeffryphillipsburns It's a standard used term in writing film/TV series scripts or story/novel series, meaning to introduce/invent new material which explains or re-interprets (or plain contradicts) something portrayed in an earlier episode so that it becomes more consistent with subsequently written material.
Thank you. I learned a lot from this. As a Theravada Buddhist, I believe in the law of karma/individual responsibility. The salvation doctrine makes no sense to me. But it's great to be able to learn about the thinking behind other religions (especially from an exceptional teacher like Bart).
Might wanna lower the input gain on your mic, Bart. We're getting a little distortion from clipping the signal.
A compressor will keep your signal hot and clean. Just takes a little practice to dial it in 👍🏻
Fascinating discussion! I’m no longer a believer, but still enjoy the history.
without Judas, there is no atonement for sins
without the devil whispering to Judas, there is no atonement for sins
without Pontius Pilate, there is no atonement for sins
Without the Jewish high priest, there was no atonement for sins
Is Pontius Pilate, the Jewish high priest, Judas, and the devil meritorious or sinful?
Without God, there is no sin in the first place. Go figure.
They are the heroes in the Christian mythology.
Jesus as God cannot suffer. But if you buy that Jesus had to die on the cross so you could be saved, thank God everyday for Judas and Pilot.
I think that the typical way that is dealt with is that the intent in their actions matter. None of them were aware that they were following God's plan.
Is the statement "one of you shall betray me" a prophecy or an instruction?
Hello Bart can you please do a segment on why you date the gospel of mark to 70AD ? Ide like to hear your reason for doing so, Should be pretty simple since its the somewhat "mainstream line of scholarship". Thanks !
I would love to hear this, too!
@AaronGardner98 IF the mainstream line of reason is based on jesus prediction of the temple then I think that's extremely problematic. From what I'm hearing it sounds like that's the argument.
It should be dated even later. Modern scholars the gospels later than 70.
@JopJio That don't answer anything, I asked him what's the basis for it and your just tossing numbers out there. I've heard it's dated earlier & scholars only date it around 70 based on a "presumption" which is not how we are suppose to do history, That's bad methodology.
I agree, since the earliest shred of Mark we have is dated between late 2nd to early 3rd century. It's Papyrus 137. I''d like to know why 70 years is so generously given also, as it could easily be so much later. . Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
Fantastic duo
It's striking that Luke and Matthew tell discrepant but curiously similar stories about the death of Judas.
Good indirect evidence for the *Q* hypothesis I think.
For those fascinated by the enigma of Judas Borges presents some shockingly heretical theories (to ponder definitely not to take as *Gospel*) in his *Three Versions of Judas*.
One thing that just occurred to me: When Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, he was greeted by an adoring crowd. Yet at his trial (also in Jerusalem), he has NO supporters. Where did they go?
I always had a similar thought. Was he really that reviled by the crowd cheering for barrabas' liberation? Wasn't Jesús being adored a few days prior? I mean it was passover in Jerusalem, so different crowds maybe, and more wine flowing
It has long been suggested that the "crucify him" crowd in Pilate's courtyard was a hand picked crowd.
Or this whole thing with Barabas was a fiction. I believe that Dr Ehrman is in this camp.
@@quietjarvisI always understood this in this way: a crowd, „the mob“, shouts Hosiannah now and Crucify next. They are easily swayed.
If you have ever seen a big religious festival in the Middle East, India, South-East Asia etc, there will by holy men followed by disciplined ranks of followers, often dressed the same or with some distinguishing mark, and all the crowds watching the procession will cheer them on for their great piety. Then will follow a ragtag backwoods hill-preacher with a dozen disciples and a few women and other followers bringing up the rear- and all the crowds watching will cheer them on for their great piety.
I figure most of the onlookers had no idea who he was; they cheered him on because he was part of the parade.
Good question
I've always thought that Judas has an unwarranted reputation as a figure of evil. But it hadn't occurred to me until watching this episode that Judas may have been unaware of the potential consequences of his betrayal. He seems to have been motivated by impatience, frustration, and lack of faith in Jesus' approach. How devastated he must have been to see his well-intentioned plan run so completely out of his control.
In Acts 1:20 verse the verse is written as, 'May ("his,") place be deserted let there be no one to dwell in it,' and that verse apostle Peter mentions is supposedly about the psalm of Psalms 69:25
Apostle Peter said that the scripture of Psalms 69:25 verse was written and prophesied about Judas Iscariot by king David when it (Psalms 69:25) wasn't written about only 1 person
So cheery and merry looking, Megan!
Maybe judas told them that Jesus was going to say, " Come to the capitol...it will be wild!"
Question: why would early gospel writers knowingly contradict the death accounts of Judas? Why not change the account, in either Acts or Matthew, to align with each other.
Doesn’t this indicate the reluctance to edit texts ?
@@Bob94390fair point, but why not edit obvious contradictions, such as this specific example?
Exactly! It shows they knew they weren't writing a "newspaper account" of events. Not until much later did some christians decide that everything had to be word for word true.
@@Namename-so1dj they tried. They even put all 4 gospels into one
For the first time in my life I think I got the right answer, and Bark was wonderful at explaining it. Thank you. I believe he's dead on, very logical and quite believable incredible thinking.
I was tempted to get into Assyriology for the same reason! When I was in college, I got to talk to a prof in the field and see his personal tablets.
i dont think people contemplate biblical events with a what and why. They take it as written literally. Judas was destined from start to betray christ to be crucified for mankind's redemption, hence he betrayed. End of story for a believer.
So you just believe what they tell you to believe? How can you tell when they steer you wrong?
@@bdwon the above was a critique and just shared the thought process of ones who are near me. Im an atheist now.
@@bdwonhe's not speaking about himself he's conjecturing about the tendency of those in the church
I agree but it’s an unfortunate habit.
Rather depend which “people” you mean, I should think.
According to old dictionaries Ish Carioth
Was a town in Judea and Ischia was an Island
Near Naples. The word Carioth was used for
a horse drawn carrier in the Roman Empire
Papias: [60-130 AD. WROTE] "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.“
Acts: "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."
I wonder how much Judas's silver pieces would be worth today if he had invested them in a broad market ETF.
And the “field of bloods” would be worth millions if they sold it today. Judas probably unalived himself bc of regret of his poor financial dicisions
this is all coming at a wonderful time, we can reach spiritual reconciliation when people actually respect religious texts as offering something of value to us without denigrating other texts that people respect, but also recognizing errors/false information/mistakes/etc without misunderstanding.
"without denigrating" other faith? (as if any of them were worthy of respect!) Jesus, in the incomprehensibly vast universe, it the only son of God, the only savior, and the only soul sitting at the right hand of god. So Christians have ragging rights, at least, and might indulge in denigration, too without God judging it as a character flaw.
@@Bob94390 I am glad we agree
Love you doc😊😊
For the love of god please start posting a timestamp for when the small talk stops
After the royal prosession into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple would the Roman Authorities need to hear that he called himself "Massiah?"
You assume the gospels' accounts are entirely accurate. Maybe those events were embellished over the years and in actuality they were small scale incidents that would have flown under the Roman radar.
@@Jyyhjyyh Even if they were small scale events they would have said to anyone who heard of them that Jesus was claiming to be the "Massiah."
If those events didn't happen on some scale- is that something his followers would have made up later? Those events would be legitimate reasons for crucifixion.
Whereas even with those events his followers tried to make him out to be inocent.
Acts 7:43 verse shows that Stephen took and quoted from the Septuagint of the verse written in Amos 5:25 verse
I was wondering about an explanation of Judas' betrayal more like this: Judas was afraid that Jesus was going to get a lot of people killed, and he betrayed Jesus to save these others. To me, that makes a lot more sense than Bart's guess. Also, that's a reason that might have been shared by the Pharisees.
Sounds like “Jesus Christ Superstar”: “Listen Jesus, do you care for your race/Don’t you see we must stay in our place?/We are occupied/Have you forgotten how put down we are?/I am frightened by the crowd/For we have gotten much too loud/And they’ll crush if we go too far.”
@@jeffryphillipsburns Yep, I was thinking of that.
Remarkable post.
It would be great if there were some timestamps. I know some people like the small talk but I'd prefer to skip it and go straight to the meat.
imagine you are having your former ex-best friend swatted and you decide to join the raid and then tell the cops "i'm gonna go in there and smooch him"
I’ve never understood Christians vilifying Judas. Without the betrayal, Jesus doesn’t get executed. If Jesus is not executed he doesn’t rise from the dead. If Jesus doesn’t rise from the dead there is no point to Christianity. Now tell me again how someone who played a key role in making possible the central event in Christianity deserves a bad rap. Religion really is for people who can’t think their way out of a revolving door.
Fun fact, if they were in the crowd that day, I keep asking them this question but they don't have any answer. Would they
Save Jesus (like a normal human being)
Push him to get to the cross faster
Nailed him themselves in order to get "salvation"
There's no right answer to it actually
All of Psalms 69 and Psalms 69:25 refer to more than 1 person throughout the Psalm 69 ("their," and "them," and "they,") can be seen written
IF it was an invented story, it would likely trace back to 1 Corinthians, where Paul refers to the night Jesus was "betrayed" (or "turned over" ["paredideto"]). Mark may be trying to explain the meaning of that word (which may have meant something entirely different to Paul).
Topic starts at 5:50
8:03 I am truly sorry and I apologize for this disagreeing, but Josephus, who does not mention Nazareth, nevertheless mentions the Kerioth as a Hazor.
35:35 - Couldn't another motive simply be that Judas didn't think the kingdom would really come that night, or that Jesus's plan to trigger it wouldn't work? So, rather than have the Romans discover this Jewish wannabe king and punish the Jews collectively, Judas turned in Jesus as a way to save his fellow Jews from the wrath of the Romans? Kind of like what Jesus Christ Superstar describes in "Heaven on Their Minds"?
I had a Christian “science” book when I was homeschooled and it said Judes died by hanging over a gulch and the branch broke and thats how he got the guts open and yada yada. The book actually said to ask this question to Pastors to test them because a good Pastor would know that
Edit: you addressed it good
On the name: Judas is simply the Hellenised form of Judah. The -s is necessary so that it can be declined like a normal Greek word.
The writer of the book of Acts wrote it in the Greek language is what it was borrowing from the Septuagint and making it look like apostle Peter was speaking about Psalms 69:25 verse when he never did
Hair is on point.
Judas is so often depicted, especially in the arts and literature, as a revolutionary, who broke with Jesus because of the latter's desire to subordinate politics to the coming of the Kingdom of God (whatever that might bring); what Bart seems to be suggest6ing at 25 minutes is that Judas may well have betrayed Jesus inasmuch as he told the religious authorities that Jesus was claiming the Messianic mantle (whether true or not?). In such a case, is Judas not the apolitical supporter of piety over politics? Great show, as always!
Thank you.
I used to think that in the days before modern technology, they needed a known insider to identify him by face. The soldiers who came to arrest him likely had no idea who he was, and needed Judas to identify the right person. That's why Judas told them it's the one he greets.
The theory that Judas was giving inside information about his claim to be the messiah is also plausible and fits in with the questions asked him at trials before the sanhedrin and pilate. Maybe it's a combination of all the factors working together, including the monetary reward as the final incentive to bring Judas to cross the line.
Matthew 26:24: "24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born."
@@JESUS_Saves3747 That doesn't answer the question.
And that throw away line of the 12 ruling the tribes of Israel didnt seem lost on early Christians either. Both the Dialogue of the Savior and the Gospel of Judas contain parts where Judas is directly told that he will govern.
It is interesting that although the two stories of Judas's death conflict, they both share the link with the naming of the Field of Blood, so they must be drawing on a common tradition that developed two separate explanations for the connection
Please do an episode on “the last supper”
Good, thoughtful discussion Thank you.
I thought the narrative given in the Gospel of Judas was the most compelling from a magical standpoint. Someone who was giving up something significant would have to sacrifice the Lamb of God, not himself. But then that doesnt mesh with the confused Yeshua you describe.
Speaking about possible reasons for Jesus’ arrest, does anyone know if there is a video where Dr. Ehrman addresses the hypothetical relationship between Jesus (and his early followers) and the Zealots?
According to Maurice Nicoll, Jesus was being sarcastic when he told his apostles that they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel. He was letting them know that their understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven was incorrect and off the mark.
In addition to the blood field similarities, it is interesting that in both accounts Judas dies via trauma to the head: hanging, and "falling head first" . . .
In Acts 1:20 verse Apostle Peter says, 'May, ("his,") (meaning Judas's) place be deserted let there be no one to dwell in it,' apostle Peter supposedly said that in Psalm's 69:25 verse it was about Judas Iscariot when it wasnt
I have often wondered what were the 30 shekels of silver worth in comparative value?
Could you live a week?
A month?
Year?
Retire to the suburbs in comfort with servants?
Lol, i as well.. Googled during the episode, concensus seems to be 4 months wages.
@@bdo7915 That doesn't seem much of a bribe.
It's about three months wages for an average labourer at the time.
that story is completely made-up... there's no way a Jew won't bargain with their counterpart, and the Bible has no record of that in the story!!
Unless Judas Iscariot had a tent that was abandoned? Because king David wrote, 'May their place be deserted let there be no one to dwell in their tent's.' That's from Psalms 69:25 verse that was written about more than 1 person.
@15:25 -- the frown of Skepticism
If Judas' Gospel is to be believed, then it would make sense that Jesus would declare that Judas would be on one of the 12 thrones.
The Judas story inadvertently shows how destitute most people were back when they used gold & silver for money. The bribe he accepted was probably worth just a few hundred dollars at today's silver prices; but at the time it looked like winning the lottery.
As an atheist I've always thought that Judas did Jesus a favour by betraying him because Jesus had to die to redeem for our sins. That was the purpose.
Yeah, this is kind of a problem in Christian theology IMO. Either Judas had to do what he did (because Jesus had to die) or he was a bad guy who did bad things. It can't be both.
In many Christian circles there is a strong belief that God has a master plan and everything happens for a reason - his reason of course. So Judas was made to betray Jesus so he could be sacrificed, save the world, etc. But that thinking leads to some difficulties - was Hitler part of God’s plan because he was used to bring about the state of Israel?
For my two cents I’m not sure Jesus was betrayed at all…maybe the Romans just arrested him for causing problems and then executed him…the many narratives developed in the decades that followed…
Deuteronomy 24 16. No one can suffer for the sin of another. This is in both the Christian Bible and the Torah. Yet Christianity doesn't subscribe to their own Book and continue to falsely believe Jesus came to die for their Sins.. ( what ya gonna do....free will)
As atheist, you think "Jesus had to die for our sins?"
@@notanemoprog darkness is the absence of light. To put it into perspective many are deeply embedded in their Earthly beliefs and no other. And are easily triggered by anything contrasting. How can we help heal the world in this way. Triggered by a Beer or a hat or a flag of many colors ....that's living in darkness don't you agree. 😊
I do find the idea that Judas wastrying ot force the issue and get Jesu and the people to start a revolution. Some version of that make so much sense.
Given that there were excited crowds following Jesus and he was fantastically popular, why no revolution?
Did the people look around and say to themselves 'me face a Roman soldier- no way' and fade into the background. Was Jesus as popular was portrayed? Was Judas frustrated by the apparent lack of interest and as Bart suggests - trying to promote interest in the an injustice.
This simple betrayal leads to so many questons. TY Mega and Bart.
I've heard the one about the rope breaking. So far fetched and the text indicates nothing like that
1. Judas's name bearing possible etiology would be sufficient to consider him very possibly a fabrication, but that's not the extent of the argument. Mark is a novella, and Judas is a key plot figure as the betrayer. We see vastly different portrayals of the motives of Judas by people who would have no basis for determining these motives, and would be consistent if the motives had been revealed. We have evidence from Papias of yet a third account of Judas's death, signifying that Mark's lack of comeuppance for Judas had inspired a cottage industry of inventing horrible ways for him to die.
2. The "12 thrones" is attributed to speculative reconstructions of the Q source, but this is only actually said in Matthew. Luke mentions the disciples will sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes, but does not say how many thrones. This is clear in the Greek (Luke 22:30) and every translation into English I can find, if you wanted to make an argument from lack of punctuation. It's also a strange thing to attribute to an historical Jesus, because there weren't 12 tribes available at the time to rule. This would require restoration of the lost tribes first. The passage definitely belies a spiritual event to have taken place, and not mundane conquering by a human ruler. This therefore seems to be especially likely to never come out of Jesus's own mouth. As for Matthew, he has sloppy timelines in how he relayed the pericopes of Mark and Luke all throughout the book, and this flub is entirely within character for him.
3. Considering the charges against Jesus and the conversations between him and his accusers as any sort of evidence to Jesus's beliefs and motives assumes that the stories we have of these encounters in the gospels are in any way correct. But even if we accepted traditional, early, eyewitness authors of the gospels, none of them were present at these trials. Nor do we have any evidence of there being a public record of these proceedings. I am cool with assuming the placard reading "KING OF THE JEWS" attached above Jesus's head on the cross as a detail that is more likely to have occurred than most in the gospels, but that doesn't give us those conversations.
4. Assuming that Judas went to the Sanhedrin with "something they wanted" presumes Jesus was A) on their radar but B) for some reason untouchable without further evidence. The local authorities DID have the power to stone Jesus for religious blasphemy. It's possible Judas was troubled and *alerted* the local constabulary of Jesus's words and actions, who then turned him over to the Romans, but it is both unnecessary and frankly unlikely for Jesus to have been some sort of "problem" for them before then. It's likely just development of foreshadowing of the novella's villains within the book of Mark.
5. Maybe Judas himself was a country bumpkin yokel who didn't realize the implications of his betrayal, but it's absurd to think the jewish authorities weren't painfully aware that Jesus would be crucified for this. Messiahs were a dime a dozen, Rome quashed several uprisings over and around the first century, and the eventual first Roman-Jewish war was fought over messianic claims.
Condidering your 4. : after the cleansing of the Temple, it was impossible for the religious authorities not to be aware of Jesus existence. Indeed, the aim of Jesus was probably the abolition of animal sacrifice in the Temple, and it was a dealy threat to both their authority and their money. And are you sure the priests really had the authority to kill someone? When the high priest Hanan ben Hanan put James the Just to death around 30 years later, he was removed from power by the romans because he had acted on his own. Maybe the laws changed in between?
Calling people in antiquity fictional because of their names is foolish. Many such etymologies were proposed for characters in the Homeric epics. Then we deciphered Linear B, and it turns out some names (such as Achilles) were actual, contemporary names.
@@andrelegeant88 "Judas" was indeed an actual, contemporary, and even popular name at the time. Deeming the startling appropriateness of the name to the character portrayed as "sufficient to consider him very possibly a fabrication" in no way implies that sufficient reason think he *necessarily* is a fabrication... this is just a reason to consider it.
I provided an actual argument for why Judas could likely be a fabrication. Do you care to address the argument I made?
Even Ehrman's blog has an entry on the muddy meaning and origin of the "Iscariot" part.If you're a member, you can read it at the entry "What Does the Name Judas “Iscariot” Mean?" from October 28, 2019. Basically, he finds that the most common interpretation of "man from Kerioth" seems unlikely given its distance (about 170km from Capernaum, or 48 hours of actual walking), and there have been a large number of speculative interpretations over the years, mostly etiological. I personally find Kerioth to be as good as any; Mark also cast Simon of Cyrene, a city in modern-day Libya over 1800 kilometers on modern roads from Jerusalem.
The first point contradicts rather than supports your position. Differing accounts of what happened to Judas suggests that the story of Judas' betrayal is extremely old, and not the creation of Mark, because early Christians later wanted to know what happened to him, resulting in different traditions, just as there are different traditions around the fate of other apostles. If Judas were invented, the inventor would have also invented an end for him. Also, to call Mark a novella is anachronistic. The genre didn't exist. Mark is written like a history or journal similar to Caesar or Xenophon. A fictional or artistic account in Greek would only be received as such if in meter. I'm not aware of any other prose account of a fictional person in the style of Mark from the time of Mark.
@@andrelegeant88
The story of Judas *might* have preceded Mark. But 20 years is plenty of time for people to read a story, not like how a villain's storyline went unresolved, and make up their own. The fact that Mark did NOT resolve Judas's storyline is sufficient to explain WHY these stories were invented. So your reasoning is insufficient to declare that it "must" have preceded Mark.
I'm using "novella" as a modern parallel. The story seems closer to a tragedy, but it does not fit the strict format of a tragedy. Classifying ancient Greek literature isn't in my job description, but I'm certainly not going to accept that "if wasn't in meter it must have been true." I'm not convinced it was meant to be accepted as non-fiction, especially with its ironic "they ran and told no one" ending --- even if the reader didn't catch the parallel with the frequent "tell no one what happened here today" passages throughout the book, it should have slowly dawned on the reader that if the women told no one, how was the author writing it down? This was a nod from the author to the reader, a gentle breaking of the fourth wall. (Or perhaps, the author is implying to have been one of the women. That would be awesome if true, though I've not heard that take before.)
And perhaps you are correct that it would only be correctly received as fiction if in the appropriate format. Luke and Matthew seemed to take it seriously enough to add to it. John arguably took it seriously enough to raise objections to it. Later readers added at least three endings to it, because they didn't understand the ending. This is the sort of storytelling we enjoy in modern times, and reminds me a lot of Mark Twain, but perhaps it just didn't fit neatly into genres available at the time and wasn't understood.
Just subscribed to Dr Hashmi's channel. Very interesting.
@@notanemoprog Why's that?
He hung himself over or at the side of a cliff above this field. Detectives, have to consider all possibilities.
Kazantzakis' interpretation of "betrayal" in "The Last Temptation" has a frighteningly plausible and deeply human explanation.
No "betrayal" - no death - no resurrection - no salvation. Therefore, Judas' deed is an indispensable part of the divine plan.
So Jesus wanted himself to be executed publicly so the human sacrifice could occur? And the beating and trial was a necessary part of this human sacrifice event? I'm sure you can imagine situations where Jesus' sacrifice occurs without this whole sequence of events being very different.
@@unkerpaulie Jesus didn't want it at the time, but i'm not sure that there is much room for a sacrifice without death or suffering in the framework of christian theology.
And if he wasn't killed that way (or thought to be killed way) the religion would have had to evolve in a very different way. Maybe it would have stayed jewish?
Hey Cheb, exactly so! I just posted a comment above recommending Kazantzakis's novel.
@@unkerpauliewell I think the idea is that Jesus experience a nadir of suffering is what allows him to understand the human condition fully and why he is willing to sacrifice himself in the first place. It’s all up for interpretation obviously but that’s the interpretation that feels most powerful to me imo
@@unkerpaulie
Of course, as an enlightened person of the 21st century, I can...but.... I was speaking of Kazantzakis' interpretation.
(1) In the tension of human-divine dualism of Jesus he makes a particularly close emphasis on his human side - Jesus felt strongly and agonizing painfully God's call for his mission. Again and again under physical and mental agony he tried to evade this call.
(2) As a pious jew of antiquaty living during vivid apocalyptic culture Jesus saw the absolute necessity of compensating for sins through sacrifice, as God's justice to preserve the order of his creation.
(3) This sacrifice had to be violent - as all sacrifices in antiquaty have been.
(4) Expecting that he would suffer greatly and that his fear and anxiety would overwhelm him, he asked Judas, as his closest confidant, to overcome this all too human side in order to fulfil the divine mission.