The Vilification of Judas Iscariot

[Learner]

Judas didn't cause the death of Jesus, he took part in it, many were involved.

And yet Judas Iscariot is vilified. The point of this thread.

Rhea, ok, I am seeing now, that perhaps it's 'wasn't always necessary' for me to respond and try to counter 'every' thread concerning scripture etc. (not that I could anyway). The OP, or 'the point of the thread' as you mention; inviting people to give their thoughts on the matter regarding Judas, without back and forth debate, needs space.

I'll bow out here. Cheers for the chat.

 

[Rhea]

Judas didn't cause the death of Jesus, he took part in it, many were involved.

And yet Judas Iscariot is vilified. The point of this thread.

Rhea, ok, I am seeing now, that perhaps it's 'wasn't always necessary' for me to respond and try to counter 'every' thread concerning scripture etc. (not that I could anyway). The OP, or 'the point of the thread' as you mention; inviting people to give their thoughts on the matter regarding Judas, without back and forth debate, needs space.

I'll bow out here. Cheers for the chat.

What in the Martyr Syndrome Heck does this mean?


Back and forth debate is always the point. I posted a huge long response and you pull this one statement out of it and complain that I’m picking on you? Did you not like my questions? Do you only want positive uplifting responses? We have a “support” forum where that is the point.

 

[Swammerdami]

Aside… I am wondering why Jesus didn’t just turn himself in. Why did he think his story plot needed him to be betrayed in order to bring substitutional punishment that yields global forgiveness?

There is one possibility that hasn't been mentioned. I'm reluctant to show it -- I'm afraid it's so utterly far-fetched that it will be laughed at, but I feel it should be mentioned if only for completeness.

Hoping to minimize the scorn that will be heaped on me, I'll enclose this ridiculous scenario in Spoiler tags.

Spoiler

It is not inconceivable that the Gospels have the story of Judas Iscariot's betrayal because . . .

Spoiler

The historic Judas Iscariot did in fact betray the historic Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[James Brown]

Every hero needs a villain.

Wondering....there were other Gospels written that describe the crucifixion. They weren't included in the New Testament because they weren't considered valid by the Powers-That-Be™. So I'm wondering if Judas plays a role in them as well.

Edit: Wow, I just read that in the  Gospel_of_Barnabas that Jesus pulled a switcheroo and that it was Judas himself who was crucified.

 

[Politesse]

Edit: Wow, I just read that in the  Gospel_of_Barnabas that Jesus pulled a switcheroo and that it was Judas himself who was crucified.

Many medieval Muslims believed the same thing, though the idea has fallen sharply out of favor in modern times. The Holy Qur'an mentions the switcheroo but not the betrayal nor does it name the sacrificial lamb, so most now prefer an alternative that does not involve a prophet's disciple doing evil.

 

[TomC]

Edit: Wow, I just read that in the  Gospel_of_Barnabas that Jesus pulled a switcheroo and that it was Judas himself who was crucified.

Many medieval Muslims believed the same thing, though the idea has fallen sharply out of favor in modern times. The Holy Qur'an mentions the switcheroo but not the betrayal nor does it name the sacrificial lamb, so most now prefer an alternative that does not involve a prophet's disciple doing evil.

Makes a ton more sense(is vastly more plausible to me) than the standard Christian tradition of a fully dead corpse coming back to life.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Aside… I am wondering why Jesus didn’t just turn himself in. Why did he think his story plot needed him to be betrayed in order to bring substitutional punishment that yields global forgiveness?

There is one possibility that hasn't been mentioned. I'm reluctant to show it -- I'm afraid it's so utterly far-fetched that it will be laughed at, but I feel it should be mentioned if only for completeness.

Hoping to minimize the scorn that will be heaped on me, I'll enclose this ridiculous scenario in Spoiler tags.

Spoiler

It is not inconceivable that the Gospels have the story of Judas Iscariot's betrayal because . . .

Spoiler

The historic Judas Iscariot did in fact betray the historic Jesus of Nazareth.

ls

Hey.
Instead of talking about the mathematical possibilities we start a thread about "Speculation on why the stories in the Gospels came to be canonized?"

Not how likely they are to be true. Rather, why did they get told and why did they wind up in the canon.

Wanna Party?
Tom

 

[Swammerdami]

Is it a popular view here that the canonical Gospels themselves were heavily censored before being adopted as "canon"?

Aside… I am wondering why Jesus didn’t just turn himself in. Why did he think his story plot needed him to be betrayed in order to bring substitutional punishment that yields global forgiveness?

There is one possibility that hasn't been mentioned. I'm reluctant to show it -- I'm afraid it's so utterly far-fetched that it will be laughed at, but I feel it should be mentioned if only for completeness.

Hoping to minimize the scorn that will be heaped on me, I'll enclose this ridiculous scenario in Spoiler tags.

Spoiler

It is not inconceivable that the Gospels have the story of Judas Iscariot's betrayal because . . .

Spoiler

The historic Judas Iscariot did in fact betray the historic Jesus of Nazareth.

Hey.
Instead of talking about the mathematical possibilities we start a thread about "Speculation on why the stories in the Gospels came to be canonized?"

Not how likely they are to be true. Rather, why did they get told and why did they wind up in the canon.

Wanna Party?
Tom

I admit it: You lost me. Can you try again, without the sarcasm?

Your focus on Gospels in the "canon" suggests that you wonder why Gospels without the Judas story are omitted from "canon." Two of the earliest non-canonical Gospels are those attributed to Peter and to Marcian. Both of them contain the Judas story. Indeed the Gospel of Peter mentions a detail that the synoptic Gospels overlook: Judas Iscariot's father's name was Simon.

If we assume that stories were included in "canon" only if they served some didactic or religious purpose, then I have a number of "Why?" questions. Just for starters, what about the "prophet without honour" story?


. . . Also: Your choice of phrase "mathematical possibilities" suggests you agree that the possibility I showed in Spoiler is far-fetched. Am I missing something there?

 

[Rhea]

Aside… I am wondering why Jesus didn’t just turn himself in. Why did he think his story plot needed him to be betrayed in order to bring substitutional punishment that yields global forgiveness?

There is one possibility that hasn't been mentioned. I'm reluctant to show it -- I'm afraid it's so utterly far-fetched that it will be laughed at, but I feel it should be mentioned if only for completeness.

Hoping to minimize the scorn that will be heaped on me, I'll enclose this ridiculous scenario in Spoiler tags.

Spoiler

It is not inconceivable that the Gospels have the story of Judas Iscariot's betrayal because . . .

Spoiler

The historic Judas Iscariot did in fact betray the historic Jesus of Nazareth.

All true, but doesn’t answer why that betrayal is vilified if it was
1. Necessary
2. Pre-ordained
3. Coerced by the god pushing Judas to do it
4. The thing that made the whole sacrifice work

That’s the part of the OP that I think is a great question, and that some folks are discussing and some are not.

Jesus SAID he’d be betrayed, he SAID he was dying for them all and their eternal futures, and then when it HAPPENED, all the people villified the thing Jesus - who told them he was one and the same word as god, who they believed did every thing - did to achieve his prophesied outcome.

That, I think, is a very good question.

I mean, did they all suddenly doubt Jesus’ ability to prophesy correctly? Would they rather have had Jesus be shown fallable and bad at prophesy? Was THAT the desired outcome and why they vilified Judas for disrupting it?

 

[Swammerdami]

Many philosophers, e.g. some Calvinists, believe that EVERYTHING is predestined. And yet nevertheless we can speak or think about good and evil. Sinners go to Hell even though their sins were pre-ordained. This was discussed in another thread. Recently I linked to a discussion of Leibniz' theodicy.

This "paradoxical" view of predestination may be hard to understand. But if valid, it affects all of human experience. Thus there is nothing special about Judas' betrayal, or about the associated "paradox" discussed in this thread.

 

[Politesse]

I don't see why it would be paradoxical within the scope of Calvinist thinking, at least not the original Calvinists. They were never great embracers of the saccahrine.

 

[pood]

Many philosophers, e.g. some Calvinists, believe that EVERYTHING is predestined. And yet nevertheless we can speak or think about good and evil. Sinners go to Hell even though their sins were pre-ordained. This was discussed in another thread. Recently I linked to a discussion of Leibniz' theodicy.

This "paradoxical" view of predestination may be hard to understand. But if valid, it affects all of human experience. Thus there is nothing special about Judas' betrayal, or about the associated "paradox" discussed in this thread.

How can we speak of good or evil if everyone is predestined to do, what they do? The secular version of this is whether determinism precludes free will, and if it does, the idea that no one is morally responsible for their acts — praising someone for a good deed, or blaming that person for a bad deed, is pointless. This is not to say we can’t hold a person responsible for his or her act, just not morally responsible.

 

[TomC]

Your focus on Gospels in the "canon" suggests that you wonder why Gospels without the Judas story are omitted from "canon."

No. It's the opposite.
Why were the stories about Judas included in the Canon, when those stories make Christian fundamental beliefs incoherent.

If Judas's behavior was a lynchpin in God's plan for Salvation, why is he vilified for doing it? According to the Canon, he did wrong. According to Christian theology he was crucial to The Divine Plan for Salvation. The dichotomy makes the Canon and Christian theology incoherent.
That's what this thread is about. The incoherence of Christian theology when compared to Christian scriptures.
Tom

 

[DBT]

Perhaps the god of the bible is being unintentionally portrayed as contradictory and irrational.

 

[Swammerdami]

Would it be rude to write "Sigh"?

I'm not sure what, if anything, we are disputing, so I've separated my reply into tiny paragraphs. I hope that anyone who responds to this will do it point-by-point. We're "talking past each other"; a point-by-point reply will give me a chance to follow.

I was still in grade school the first time I heard someone say "I believe in determinism, but I do NOT live my life as though I did."

Quantum physics doesn't provide an "out." Einstein was right! Whether "God" exists or not, I don't think He plays dice! I believe in determinism and tend to led my life as though I DO!" (Given this, it's rather a surprise that I haven't ended up dead, imprisoned, drug-addicted or locked up in a funny farm!)

Determinism was a key idea of philosophy even BEFORE mankind had the notion of omnipotent, omniscient God. The Greek Stoics 2300 years ago believed in determinism.

The Greek Stoics focused on moral virtue. What?? How can strict determinism be compatible with any notion of Good vs Bad? The Stoics were not stupid. They discuss this very "paradox" in their writings. Wikipedia has an article on this ancient quandary:  Compatibilism

The "paradox" of compatibilism is not a rarely-encountered phenomenon so unusual we go back 2000 years to find an example in the Gospels. Instead this compatibilism paradox surrounds us every day; we are constantly immersed in it. A year ago or so someone started a thread on the topic, right here at IIDB.

Given all this, I do have to wonder what this thread is about. AFAICT, y'all are celebrating Gospel stupidity. How could they introduce the paradox without inserting a long lecture on  Compatibilism ?

Much of the Gospel texts were originally written in a Semitic language, not Greek. I've outlined the evidence for this before. No, the issue is not resolved via bilingualism. The Gospel of Luke contains flaws that show its author to have made errors in translating from Aramaic. The relevance is shown in the next paragraph.

The Aramaic-speaking fishermen(?) who recorded stories about the Nazarene were not well educated. Rather than carefully contriving a presentation that would shed light on the paradoxes of  Compatibilism, I think it's just as likely they never noticed the "paradox" at all!

Wondering....there were other Gospels written that describe the crucifixion. They weren't included in the New Testament because they weren't considered valid by the Powers-That-Be™. So I'm wondering if Judas plays a role in them as well.

I addressed this a few posts ago. The Gospel of Peter discusses Judas' betrayal. The Gospel of Marcian discusses Judas' betrayal. Setting aside the Gospel of Thomas for obvious reasons, are these not the two non-canonical Gospels which are largely preserved and have the best claims to early date?

In an earlier thread, one Infidel seemed to regard the Toledot Yeshu as a more accurate look at the Nazarene's life than can be found in the Gospels!! :::insert emoticon of someone laughing so hard he starts barfing::: The Toledot Yeshu not only mentions Judas Iscariot, but turns him into some sort of supernatural hero, or space alien.

In my first post in this thread, I introduced an hypothesis which might explain why all the Gospels mention Judas' betrayal, despite that it forces us to review  Compatibilism. Whimsically I enclosed the hypothesis inside a double-Spoiler. There was no response to that hypothesis. I'm honestly not sure whether this is because the hypothesis was considered too preposterous to bother with, or simply that the Double-Spoiler protected it from view. Here is that hypothesis unSpoilered:

I think it most probable that all the Gospels mention Judas' betrayal because ... wait for it ... the historic Jesus of Nazareth was in fact betrayed by an historic Judas Iscariot.

Many philosophers, e.g. some Calvinists, believe that EVERYTHING is predestined. And yet nevertheless we can speak or think about good and evil. Sinners go to Hell even though their sins were pre-ordained. This was discussed in another thread. Recently I linked to a discussion of Leibniz' theodicy.

This "paradoxical" view of predestination may be hard to understand. But if valid, it affects all of human experience. Thus there is nothing special about Judas' betrayal, or about the associated "paradox" discussed in this thread.

How can we speak of good or evil if everyone is predestined to do, what they do? The secular version of this is whether determinism precludes free will, and if it does, the idea that no one is morally responsible for their acts — praising someone for a good deed, or blaming that person for a bad deed, is pointless. This is not to say we can’t hold a person responsible for his or her act, just not morally responsible.

So we're in agreement 100%?? I didn't come here to defend Compatibilism, Calvinism, or anything else ... except common sense. Revive the old thread defending Compatibilism if you wish. That would probably be more interesting than this thread.

Your focus on Gospels in the "canon" suggests that you wonder why Gospels without the Judas story are omitted from "canon."

No. It's the opposite.
Why were the stories about Judas included in the Canon, when those stories make Christian fundamental beliefs incoherent.

I'm not sure that omitting Gospels (if any) without the Judas story is really the "opposite" of including Gospels with the Judas story. But either way, do my remarks above make any sense?

 

[pood]

.

I was still in grade school the first time I heard someone say "I believe in determinism, but I do NOT live my life as though I did."

Not being a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, I believe that nevertheless I can offer a plausible reason to condemn Judas: because he betrayed Jesus. Full stop.

It doesn’t matter whether the betrayal was necessary for the crucifixion and resurrection; indeed, it could never have been necessary, for there are many other plausible ways in which Jesus could have been nailed, so to say, by the authorities.

But even if it had been somehow crucial to the events that unfolded, it remains the fact that it was a betrayal, and we generally condemn those who betray others unless … to a good purpose. Such as his rats ratting out the Don, as in Donald Trump. Some of his people now seem to be turning on him to save their own skin.

But I don’t think that applies to Judas. People ”betraying” Trump to save their own skin are acting in their own self-interest, to be sure, but also by their own lights they are perhaps plausibly bringing about a greater good, i.e., putting Trump in prison.

Judas may not have believed that Christ was divine and he may not have believed that his betrayal was crucial to the crucifixion and resurrection. He just betrayed Jesus in exchange for some money. Betraying anyone in this fashion, and for no prospect of a greater good, is to be condemned.

But, we are told that what Judas did was part of God’s greater plan. So why condemn Judas for doing what God intended in the first place?

I asked about Calvinistic predestination because I really don’t know exactly what the Calvinistic doctrine on this is. Why do they believe in predestination, and what, exactly, do they mean by that?

Then Swammerdami brings up compatibilist free will, and mentions one of the threads here on the subject. I think he’s possibly referring to one or two threads that I was heavily involved in, along with DBT, Jarhyn, and Marvin Edwards, who unfortunately seems to have left the house.

I endorse compatibilist free will. On this account, free will is, well, compatible with determinism.

However, I would say that free will is NOT compatible with predeterminism, or predestination, depending on how those things are defined. Determinism, and predeterminism, are not the same things.

Returning to Judas, we can ask: Did God know in advance that Judas would betray Jesus, thus setting into motion God’s plan for the crucifixion and resurrection? Or, did God predetermine that Judas should betray Jesus? That is, was Judas a puppet of God, carrying out a pre-scripted role, like an actor in a play?

If the latter, it would be absurd to vilify Judas, or to condemn him in any way. If God made him do, what he did, then the responsibility for the betrayal lies with God and not Judas.

If, on the other had, God merely knew in advance that Judas would betray Jesus, then Judas is fully morally responsible for the betrayal, and should be condemned for it, regardless that it had the consequence of effectuating God’s plan. Betrayal is betrayal, and if as a result something good but unforeseen happens down the line, that fact does not mitigate the moral guilt of the betrayer.

The key idea here is that God’s omniscient foreknowledge of our free acts does not impeach our free will. If God knows everything that I will do throughout my entire life even before I was born, my will to do those things remains free, and I must bear the guilt and consequences for my acts if they are bad acts, while earning praise if my acts are good. I have full moral responsibility, as does Judas, if God only knew in advance what he would do, rather than force him to do those things by predetermining that he would.

It was never within Judas’s power to do, other than what God knew in advance he would do. It was always within his power to do, other than what he actually did. If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, then God would have known in advance that fact about Judas, instead.

 

[TomC]

Judas may not have believed that Christ was divine and he may not have believed that his betrayal was crucial to the crucifixion and resurrection. He just betrayed Jesus in exchange for some money. Betraying anyone in this fashion, and for no prospect of a greater good, is to be condemned.

Here's another interesting bit of speculation.
It's generally assumed that Judas betrayed Jesus because Jesus was important. Suppose it's just the opposite. Jesus wasn't important, but had an annoying level of delusions of grandeur. When Judas got caught doing something anti-Roman he was given a choice. "Crucifixion or Take us to your leader". Judas picked Jesus because He was so unimportant, at least to Judas.
I'm not claiming to know anything like that. But it's far more plausible than Jesus was a miracle working demigod.
Tom

 

[Learner]

Judas didn't cause the death of Jesus, he took part in it, many were involved.

And yet Judas Iscariot is vilified. The point of this thread.

Rhea, ok, I am seeing now, that perhaps it's 'wasn't always necessary' for me to respond and try to counter 'every' thread concerning scripture etc. (not that I could anyway). The OP, or 'the point of the thread' as you mention; inviting people to give their thoughts on the matter regarding Judas, without back and forth debate, needs space.

I'll bow out here. Cheers for the chat.

What in the Martyr Syndrome Heck does this mean? Back and forth debate is always the point.

Pardon me for that.
(I don't know what made think this thread was anything other than what you say in the above. Probably lack of sleep)

I posted a huge long response and you pull this one statement out of it and complain that I’m picking on you?

I must have felt it would be quick and easier on the eyelids.

Did you not like my questions?

I'll have to read them again.

Do you only want positive uplifting responses? We have a “support” forum where that is the point.

I'll think about it.

 

[Thomas II]

Every hero needs a villain.

Wondering....there were other Gospels written that describe the crucifixion. They weren't included in the New Testament because they weren't considered valid by the Powers-That-Be™. So I'm wondering if Judas plays a role in them as well.

Edit: Wow, I just read that in the  Gospel_of_Barnabas that Jesus pulled a switcheroo and that it was Judas himself who was crucified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

"The Gospel of Barnabas is a non-canonical, pseudepigraphical gospel written in the Late Middle Ages and attributed to the early Christian disciple Barnabas, who (in this work) is one of the apostles of Jesus.[1] It is about the same length as the four canonical gospels combined and largely harmonises stories in the canonical gospels with Islamic elements such as the denial of Jesus' crucifixion."

Meh...

 

[TomC]

I'm honestly not sure whether this is because the hypothesis was considered too preposterous to bother with, or simply that the Double-Spoiler protected it from view. Here is that hypothesis unSpoilered:

I think it most probable that all the Gospels mention Judas' betrayal because ... wait for it ... the historic Jesus of Nazareth was in fact betrayed by an historic Judas Iscariot.

Speaking for myself,
I didn't respond because the claim is so unremarkable. Aside from a few people who believe Historical Jesus never existed, everyone agrees that Historical Judas sold out Historical Jesus. To me, the interesting question is "Why?". Not "If".

All these centuries later, I don't really even care why. Something happened back in 1st century Judea. Nobody knows what, much less why. It's entertaining to speculate about, but it's not important.

What's important is that modern christianism is based on several incoherent claims. The Judas thing is just one of the most obvious. There are morally worse ones, but that wasn't the point to the OP.
Tom