Judas and the Great Betrayal

If you follow my blog, you’ll know I’ve written previously on the subject of Judas, but like a lot of issues in Christianity, it is one worth revisiting from time to time.

In this essay, I want to look specifically at a question many people may not have given much consideration to: Did Judas actually betray Jesus?

Though some scholars, such as J.S. Spong and Hyam Maccoby, have suggested that Judas himself is a fictional creation, most scholars accept that Judas was a real figure of history. He seems certainly to have been one of Jesus’ followers, though there is very little we can say about him as a person. What we do know is that Christian history tells us that Judas was the betrayer of Jesus. Are these stories reliable?

For many Christians, the answer to this question would seem obvious. Of course Judas betrayed Jesus. It is one of the most familiar stories from the Gospel tradition. We find the stories in multiple accounts, some of which are independent of one another.

These independent sources are one of the keys scholars look for when determining the historical reliability of a story from history. If two authors give us the same story, but one of those authors used the other author for his information, then we have only one independent account. If, however, two authors give us the same story, and they are writing independently of one another, then this increases the probability, in the estimation of historians, that the story is reliable.

In the case of the betrayal, we do have these independent accounts – the two primary ones being Mark and John (Matthew and Luke both used Mark as source material). We may have other independent accounts as well, including the 2nd century Gospel of Judas (this text has only been available to scholars for a few years, but the preliminary research indicates that the writer probably did not know the Gospels of the New Testament).

As such, there seems to be good historical reasons for supposing that the betrayal story is true. There is a problem, however. And it’s a big one.

Put quite simply, our earliest sources reveal no knowledge of the stories about the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, one of his inner circle.

This is a big problem because in addition to multiple independent sources, scholars like to have early sources. The earlier the better. While we have multiple independent sources for the Judas stories, they are not our earliest sources. Our earliest sources, on the other hand, make no mention of Judas, and imply instead no knowledge of anything like a betrayal by anyone, much less one of the Twelve.

Just what are these sources? The first is the hypothetical source scholars call Q. The Q Gospel is the common material between Luke and Matthew that is not found in Mark. Scholars are in virtual unanimous agreement that Luke and Matthew both used Mark as a primary source. However, there is a lot of material found in both Luke and Matthew that is not found in Mark. Where did this material come from? This is what scholars believe is the Q gospel – a text no longer in existence, but available in the 1st century to Matthew and Luke, which contained very little narrative framework, but was instead primarily a list of sayings attributed to Jesus, many of them apocalyptically oriented.

There are some scholars who doubt Q’s existence, but in my experience, the majority of major textual scholars accept it as real.

In any case, the Q Gospel is by its very nature earlier than the Gospels – at least earlier than Matthew and Luke. It is impossible to say, of course, whether it predates Mark, but most Q experts believe it was composed sometime in the 50’s or 60’s C.E., prior to Mark or the other Gospels.

As such, it is an early source for Christian material, and it is noteworthy that it includes nothing about Judas Iscariot or any betrayal of Jesus. Now, this in and of itself is not so strange. The text is mostly just a list of sayings attributed to Jesus, with very little narrative. It could be that the Q writer knew of the Judas story, but simply did not find it germane to his literary purposes in compiling a list of Jesus’ sayings.

More important than this problem of omission, however, is the fact that one saying attributed to Jesus in the Q Gospel implies that not only did the author of Q know nothing about the betrayal of Judas, but neither did Jesus.

Our later Gospels, of course, tell us that Jesus had foreknowledge that he was going to be betrayed. Consider, however, this saying from Q. In it, Jesus is speaking to his disciples in private:

Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

What’s so world-shattering about this statement? Quite simply, Jesus apparently has no knowledge, at least at this point, that Judas is going to betray him. He predicts that when he comes into power in God’s kingdom, his twelve disciples – all twelve disciples – will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This group, by necessity, must include Judas Iscariot.

Not only does this passage contradict later Gospel depictions of Jesus having foreknowledge of Judas’ treachery, but it also implies that the writer who wrote these sayings down also didn’t know anything about Judas’ treachery, otherwise we can assume he would have redacted it appropriately.

The second early source at issue here are the letters of Paul. Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian texts in existence, written during the 50’s C.E., or about twenty to thirty years after Jesus’ death. In them, Paul never mentions anything – not one solitary word – about Judas Iscariot or his betrayal of Jesus. He implies no knowledge of any such act.

Like the omission in Q, some may write this off as unimportant – Paul’s purposes in his letters were to address specific problems in his congregations, so it stands to reason that he may never have had reason to bring up Judas Iscariot. Indeed, Paul mentions virtually nothing about the life of Jesus at all in his letters. So this fact of omission about Judas may not tell us much.

But, again like the saying in Q, Paul does say something that implies he had no knowledge of Judas’ betrayal. It comes in a famous passage in 1 Corinthians where Paul is talking about the people the risen Christ appeared to. He states that Jesus appeared “to Peter, and then to the Twelve.” Of course, we know from our Gospel accounts that Jesus appeared only to the eleven remaining disciples, because Judas was gone by then. And Paul couldn’t have been referring to Judas’ replacement, Matthias, who was voted on by the remaining disciples as depicted in the book of Acts, because that event occurs after Jesus’ ascension into heaven. As far as Paul was aware, the Twelve were still intact after Jesus’ death.

The most common argument against this point is that when Paul used the phrase “the Twelve,” he was using it as a generic title for Jesus’ inner circle. They were known as “the Twelve,” even though one eventually departed and betrayed Jesus. This, of course, is certainly possible, but it doesn’t seem very probable. The Gospels, after all, do not use any such euphemism. They tell us explicitly that the risen Christ appeared to “the Eleven.” The Twelve were no longer intact. Furthermore, making this assumption requires reading something into the text that is not actually there. It requires reading Paul through the lens of the later Gospels. If one had only Paul’s letters to go on (as his congregations did), one would make the plain, simple, and obvious deduction that the Twelve were still intact after Jesus’ death.

Some of my more savvy readers may be screaming by this point that I have overlooked a salient passage in Paul, where he explicitly talks about Jesus’ betrayal.

The passage in question is from, strangely enough, the same letter where Paul talks about “the Twelve” – 1 Corinthians. This time, Paul is talking about problems the Corinthians are having while celebrating the Lord’s Supper. In one of the very few instances where Paul refers to an event in Jesus’ life, he writes: “The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread…”

This seems to be a reference to a familiar passage from the Gospels – Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples, which occurs on the night Judas betrays him. Clearly Paul is talking about Judas here!

Not so fast.

The word translated in that passage as “betrayed” actually means “handed over,” whether handing over car keys or handing over a perpetrator to the police. Depending on context, of course, it can also mean something like “betrayed.” In the Gospels, for instance, this is the word of choice for describing what Judas did – he handed Jesus over. Since Judas was part of his inner circle, and did it behind his back, this constituted a “betrayal.”

However, without context to imply an act of betrayal, the word simply means “handed over.” In Paul, there is no context given to suggest betrayal. Quite literally, Paul says: “The Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread…”

But couldn’t the context be implied? Perhaps Paul and his readers know how Jesus was handed over, and know who did it, so Judas and his betrayal are simply understood in unwritten context. This is possible, but when one looks at the greater context of how Paul, himself, uses this word most commonly, a more reasonable context comes into play.

Put simply, when Paul talks about Jesus going to the cross and being resurrected, he frequently uses this same word. But when he uses it elsewhere, he uses it in the context of God “handing Jesus over” to be crucified.

Consider, for instance, Romans chapter 8: “He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else?”

Or Galatians chapter 2: “And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

There are roughly ten other similar examples in the writings of Paul, where he uses this word to refer to passing something on, or giving something up, or handing something over. Never does he use the word to imply betrayal. And when he specifically uses the word in regards to Jesus’ death, as in the quotes above, it is always an act of God; God handed Jesus over to death so that we might be saved.

Given that context, it is reasonable to assume that in the passage from 1 Corinthians, when he is talking about the Lord’s Supper, he is saying, in effect, “The Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over [by God unto death], he took bread…” This fits into the context with which Paul exclusively uses this word. It only fits into a betrayal context if you read Paul through the lens of later authors and their stories, and ignore Paul’s own way of using the word.

Even if one wants to argue that Paul was, in fact, referring to Jesus being physically handed over, and not just God “handing Jesus over” to death and resurrection, the phrase still does not explicitly tell us that this “handing over” was an act of Judas or one of Jesus’ inner circle. Perhaps Paul meant that Jesus was “handed over” by the Jewish leaders to the Roman authorities – which is, of course, consistent with the later Gospel accounts. Perhaps he means that some other person known to Jesus “handed him over” to the authorities. A nosy neighbor, perhaps, or the groundskeeper of the garden where Jesus was arrested.

This is all speculation, of course, but the point is that Paul is not explicit. The only context suggests that Paul is speaking metaphorically about an action of God, but even if we assume he was speaking more literally, there is no indication that this “handing over” was an act of betrayal by Judas or anyone else of his inner circle. This is particularly true in light of the fact that Paul’s use of the phrase “the Twelve” implies that he knew of no inner circle betrayal.

There is a possible third early source to consider as well. Most scholars date the Gospel of Thomas to the early 2nd century, but a few scholars, notably J.D. Crossan, have argued that Thomas predates the Gospels of the New Testament, composed around the same time as the letters of Paul and Q.

If we accept this early date for Thomas, it is significant to note that Thomas also includes nothing about a betrayal, and implies no knowledge of any such act. Like the Q Gospel, Thomas is a sayings gospel, providing very little narrative framework. In any case, Judas and the betrayal are never mentioned or implied.

This leaves us, of course, with the problem I mentioned at the beginning. We have multiple independent accounts of the betrayal by Judas, but these are later accounts, and our earliest accounts say nothing about the event, and instead say other things that imply the writers, in fact, had never heard of Judas’ betrayal.

How do we reconcile this? Ultimately, both camps have some explaining to do. If one doubts that Judas betrayed Jesus, then one must explain why our later accounts, some of them independent of one another, agree in their descriptions of Judas betraying Jesus. But if one accepts that Judas did, in fact, betray Jesus, one must explain why our earliest accounts don’t reflect the story, and the writers seem to know nothing about it.

In my opinion, this second “explanation” is the tougher one. There are, however, a few possibilities. Perhaps the Q hypothesis is completely bogus and Q never existed. Instead, the Q material is simply Luke copying from Matthew. Therefore, we can’t count Q as an early source that does not show any knowledge of Judas’ betrayal.

Furthermore, even if we accept that Q is real, the fact that the betrayal is never mentioned is immaterial. It also never mentions Jesus’ death by crucifixion, but we know that happened. And the quote about the “twelve thrones” may simply reflect that the historical Jesus did not know Judas was going to betray him (even though he is later depicted as having this foreknowledge).

As for Paul, perhaps “the Twelve” was just a euphemism, and when he talks about Jesus being “handed over,” he was, in fact, thinking of Judas, and knew his readers would know what he was talking about.

Even if we accept that Paul knows nothing about Judas, this still does not undermine the stories of the betrayal. Maybe Paul simply hadn’t heard the story. Paul claims in his letters to have gotten his information originally by direct revelation from the risen Christ. He explicitly denies that he heard the story of Jesus from the disciples (see Galatians chapter 1). Perhaps the risen Christ simply didn’t find it necessary to tell Paul about the betrayal.

For me, none of these explanations is very satisfying. The issue with Paul, in particular, is a very tough one. I can simply think of no way to explain why Paul wouldn’t have been intimately familiar with the story of Judas and the betrayal, if in fact it happened. How could he not have known this information? Even if we accept his assertion that he did not first learn the story of Jesus from the disciples, he certainly met the disciples later in life – before he wrote 1 Corinthians. He tells us about these meetings, after all. By the time he was writing that letter, it is simply unthinkable that he would never have heard the Judas story.

Is it possible, some may ask, that Paul and the author of Q (and Thomas, if it is early) were simply trying to suppress the story – that it was an embarrassing moment, one that folks like Paul were not inclined to talk about? This, I suppose, would be the best explanation, if one accepts that the Judas stories of the Gospel tradition are historically reliable. By the Gospel era, it wasn’t such a painful memory because so many years had passed. But during the early years, when Paul and the Q author were writing, Christian evangelists weren’t as likely to talk openly about it.

As for the other side of the debate – those who are skeptical of the betrayal stories – what answer can be given to explain the stories of the Gospel tradition?

This is an easier question to answer, in my opinion. It does not take a graduate degree in world mythology to understand how legends can and do arise. The stories of Judas in the Gospels are simply polemical. Judas is the embodiment of “the Jews,” and thus painted as the betrayer and Christ-killer. Why Judas, and not someone else? Maybe Judas was an easy target. Perhaps he died shortly after Jesus’ own death, and by the time of the Gospels, no one really knew anything about him, thus making him an easy pick for a betrayal legend – particularly given his name. Perhaps Judas had some kind of falling out with the early Christian movement. Perhaps he didn’t like what the other disciples were saying and preaching, and instead preached a different gospel – one at odds with the others. Perhaps he grew disillusioned after Jesus’ death and decided that they had all been deluded by a fancy talker. Maybe he became an enemy of the Christian movement because he thought they were crazy for claiming that Jesus was alive. Any of these things could explain why he would later come to be vilified as the betrayer of Jesus.

In the end, I tend toward skepticism about the betrayal stories. For me, I simply can’t get past the idea of Paul not knowing about the betrayal. He must have heard such stories, if indeed those stories were around, yet his words imply the opposite. Taken together with the lack of knowledge in the Q gospel (which I believe existed), and Thomas (which I also tend to think is earlier than many scholars suppose), it simply seems unlikely to me that the betrayal stories are historically reliable. As I said earlier, I do accept that Judas was a follower of Jesus and a real person of history, but I think the speculations I provided in the previous paragraph probably give a better explanation for why he later came to be vilified in the Gospels of the New Testament.

Judas Iscariot

Perhaps no other name in Western culture has quite the stigma attached to it as that of Judas Iscariot. Most everyone in the West – Christian or otherwise – can identify this character, and his name has even become synonymous with a backstabber or betrayer in modern language.

Judas, of course, has been the subject of much study throughout the years. In churches he is vilified as the man who handed over Jesus to authorities – the man responsible in many ways for the death of the Savior. Like his name, the thirty pieces of silver he was said to have received have become synonymous with betrayal and treachery.

Christian art and literature have encouraged this characterization. In the Inferno, Dante consigns Judas to the deepest level of hell, where he is to be chewed up for all eternity in the mouth of Satan. His companions there are the two men who betrayed and murdered Julius Caesar. The point couldn’t be more clear – there is no sin more damnable than a betrayal of trust.

In paintings, Judas is frequently depicted with gaunt, prominent features, dark skin and hair, and ghoulish expressions. Consider Da Vinci’s famous painting of the Last Supper.

Judas is seated just to Jesus' right, leaning across the table and looking back toward John. He is wearing blue and green. Click on the picture to see it much larger.

Judas Iscariot is the only one with dark skin, hair, and beard, and his face is long and flat, a reptilian face. He is clearly the most “Jewish” of the bunch, and that is surely no accident.

Or take, for instance, the painting of the Last Supper by Philippe de Champaigne, a 17th century French artist.



Judas is seated in a prominent position, with his toga riding high, revealing his bare leg in startling and rather disconcerting clarity. And while the other disciples look rather aghast (Jesus has apparently just predicted his betrayal), Judas is staring directly at Jesus, a confrontational expression on his face and in his body language.

In Caravaggio’s famous painting of the betrayal of Jesus, Jesus himself has a clear, almost child-like face, while Judas’ head is remarkably larger and rounder, with a broad ridge of forehead and an extremely thick, prominent nose.



He looks like a true Neanderthal brute.

Judas has become, for Christianity, the consummate antagonist, the embodiment of evil to Jesus’ embodiment of holy.

Despite that, some scholars and theologians in recent years have begun to question the authenticity of the Judas story. A few have even gone so far as to say that Judas was likely an entirely fictitious character. From my own study of the issue, I don’t think this is, by any means, a majority opinion among Biblical scholars, but I do find the arguments to be interesting if not compelling.

Judas does not enter the Christian tradition until the Gospel of Mark – written around 70 C.E., or forty years after the death of Jesus. However, the apostle Paul, writing some 10-20 years earlier, does mention a betrayal surrounding Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:23 – For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed…

This seems, on the surface, to suggest that within 20-25 years of Jesus’ death, there was already a story circulating about Jesus having been betrayed. That might support the idea that the story is, in fact, historically-based and not legendary. The earlier an event is testified to, the more likely it is to be true.

However, there is an issue with Paul’s word use.

The Greek word used by Paul is paradidomi. This word doesn’t actually mean “to betray.” It means to “hand over” or “deliver.” In fact, Paul uses the same word earlier in the very same verse. The phrase translated in that verse as “passed on” is actually a repetition of the same word. More than likely, Paul’s original intent was not to imply betrayal. What the verse is really saying is: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over…”

There is a different word in Greek for “betray,” and interestingly enough, that is almost never the word used in reference to Judas and Jesus – even by the Gospel writers. Judas is always shown to be “handing over” Jesus, not necessarily “betraying” him.

That might be easy to disregard as mere semantics of language. But there may be more significance to it than what is implied at first glance. Consider the following two scenarios:

Joe and Bob are good friends.
Bob insulted Bill.
Bill went looking for Bob to rough him up.
Joe handed Bob over to Bill.

In that scenario, it would be fair to say that Joe, in handing over his friend Bob, betrayed Bob. But consider it another way:

Joe and Bob are good friends.
Bob robbed a bank.
The police came to Joe looking for Bob.
Joe handed Bob over to the police.

Did Joe’s action in that scenario really imply a wonton act of betrayal? Or was Joe simply doing what was right, cooperating with police? Furthermore, perhaps Joe feared for his own safety if he didn’t cooperate with police.

Could the story of Judas be interpreted in a similar fashion? Consider this:

Judas and Jesus are good friends.
Jesus committed the crime of blasphemy.
The authorities came to Judas looking for Jesus.
Judas, fearing for his own safety, handed Jesus over to the authorities.

While blasphemy may not be a criminal offense to our modern sensibilities, it most certainly was a criminal offense to 1st century Jewish sensibilities. Could it be that Judas was simply cooperating with authorities out of a desire to follow the laws of his land and out of fear that he might be brought down with Jesus if he didn’t cooperate?

It’s an interesting question that might be the first “chink in the armor” on traditional ideas about the treachery of Judas. Even the Gospel writers didn’t claim Judas betrayed Jesus – he merely was the one who handed him over. Having said that, of course, by no means am I arguing that the Gospel writers don’t depict Judas in a basically negative light. But could their use of the word “handed over,” as opposed to “betrayed,” indicate an earlier tradition that knew of Judas only as the one forced by circumstances to hand Jesus over to authorities, and not someone who wantonly betrayed the son of God?

Returning again to Paul’s discussion of the Last Supper and Jesus being handed over, it is noteworthy to point out that Paul does not mention anything about Judas, or make any implication that one of Jesus’ inner circle betrayed him. Paul simply notes that Jesus had a final meal with his disciples on the night he was handed over to authorities. As noted earlier, Judas – as a character – does not enter Christian tradition until the Gospel of Mark.

In Mark, Judas is first mentioned in the list of disciples, where the writer notes that Judas was the one who betrayed (again, “handed over”) Jesus. Judas doesn’t appear again until the actual betrayal scene, where he is shown to seek out the authorities on his own to hand Jesus over to them. Mark says that when Judas came to them, the authorities “were delighted.”

Later, Mark asserts that Judas showed up in the place where Jesus was praying. He brought with him an armed crowd sent by the Jewish authorities. Using a prearranged signal, he kisses Jesus and Jesus is arrested. Jesus questions the crowd about why they have arrived with swords and clubs, and he points out that he has been in full view every day, preaching at the Temple.

This, of course, brings up a salient point. What was Judas’ purpose in all this? The authorities didn’t need someone to hand Jesus over to them. He was preaching at the Temple, exposed to the world, every day. Recall for a moment my scenario above about Joe and Bob. Imagine that Bob robs the bank and then camps out on the sidewalk in front of the police station for the following week. Would the police really need to go to Joe to find Bob?

This is perhaps the second “chink in the armor” for literal interpretations of the Judas story. It just doesn’t seem to add up. Why was Judas necessary? Could it be that the Judas story was originally designed as a metaphor for something else?

Moving on to the book of Matthew, the writer of this Gospel expands the story of Judas. Adding to Mark’s account, he notes that Judas was offered thirty silver pieces for handing Jesus over.

In Matthew’s last supper scene, Judas is specifically mentioned among the disciples who say “Surely not I?” in response to Jesus’ prediction that he will be handed over by one of the Twelve. Jesus responds by saying, “Yes, it is you.”

The betrayal scene itself is more or less identical in Matthew and Mark. But where Judas disappears from Mark’s account after the betrayal, Matthew includes a scene where Judas, overcome by guilt, throws the thirty silver pieces into the Temple and goes out and hangs himself in shame. Thus, the earliest account of Judas’ suicide comes around 85 C.E., or more than fifty years after Jesus’ death.

In Luke, we have the first instance of Judas actually being called a “betrayer” or “traitor.” Although he uses the phrase “handed over” when talking about Judas’ actions, Luke does explicitly call Judas a traitor on this one occasion. This, in other words, shows that as we move forward chronologically among our sources for stories of Judas, we begin to see Judas painted in an every increasingly negative light.

Luke’s increase in vitriolic language does not stop there. When describing Judas’ discussion with authorities about handing Jesus over, Luke asserts that “Satan entered Judas.” Judas is not just doing something bad; he’s now essentially working on Satan’s orders.

Luke’s Last Supper and arrest scenes don’t differ dramatically from Matthew and Mark. However, where Judas kisses Jesus in the first two Gospels, Luke says that Judas only starts to kiss Jesus, but Jesus effectively stops him with a question: “Are you handing over the Son of Man with a kiss?”

As with Mark, Judas does not appear again in Luke’s Gospel. However, Luke wrote a second volume of work that we know as the book of Acts. Judas’ fate is described in the first chapter of that account.

Luke tells us that Judas bought a field “with the reward he got for his wickedness,” and that he “fell headlong” in the field “and his bowels spilled out,” leading locals to name the place the “Field of Blood.”

In this passage, we again see the increase in vitriol directed at Judas. Where Matthew described Judas being wracked with guilt and remorse, going so far as to exclaim that he had handed over “innocent blood,” Luke asserts that Judas kept the money he gained from his “wickedness” and bought land with it. Where Matthew asserts that Judas committed suicide over his guilt, Luke asserts that he simply died in a rather unfortunate and gory accident – getting what he deserved, in other words.

Furthermore, the “bowels” were understood by ancient Hebrews to be the seat of love, compassion, kindness, and good will. Where evil came from the heart, love and goodness came from the gut. There can be no question that Luke’s description of Judas’ bowels spilling out is a metaphorical way of implying that all that was good, kind, and loving about Judas spilled out into this field of blood.

Moving on to the last Gospel of the New Testament era – the Gospel of John – we find the first reference to Judas when Jesus proclaims that one of his inner circle is a slanderer (in Greek diablos, where we get the word “devil”). John notes that Jesus was talking about Judas.

The next appearance of Judas comes in the one and only scene in the Bible involving Judas that is not related to his betrayal of Jesus. A woman named Mary takes an expensive bottle of perfume and anoints Jesus with it. Judas objects, arguing that the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Lest the reader assume this meant Judas was kind-hearted, John is quick to point out that Judas’ motivation wasn’t altruistic; he asserts that Judas was the “keeper of the money bag” and that he frequently stole from it.

Later, John asserts that Satan entered Judas and prompted him to hand Jesus over. During the Last Supper, Jesus hands a piece of bread to Judas, indicating that Judas is the one who will betray him. John notes again that “Satan entered” Judas when Jesus gave him the bread. Judas then gets up and leaves.

After that, Jesus enters a long teaching discourse, which takes up several chapters of John’s book. None of the previous Gospels include this speech, and none mention Judas leaving the table before the meal was over. That doesn’t seem accidental. Clearly John’s intent was to exclude Judas from this final and all important teaching of Jesus – a teaching that culminates in a long, heartfelt prayer for the disciples.

In the arrest scene, John deviates from the previous Gospels by asserting that Roman soldiers were among those who showed up with Judas. The soldiers arrest Jesus after he more or less gives himself up to them. There is no mention of a kiss or even an attempted kiss. As with Mark, Judas disappears from John’s account after Jesus’ arrest.

When we look at these Gospels accounts of Judas, several things come to light. I have already mentioned how there is a noticeable increase in contempt and hostility toward Judas with each successive Gospel. Luke and John both assert that Judas was working on Satan’s orders, with John making the assertion twice. Luke calls him a traitor. John calls him a thief and depicts him as using charitable concerns as a front for his thievery. Where Matthew paints Judas as remorseful to the point of returning the money and committing suicide, Luke says he bought land with the money, then died in a horribly violent accident, where the source of all his love, compassion, and goodness spilled out of him. John has Judas leave the table of the Last Supper, effectively excluding him from the climactic final teaching discourse and final prayer for the disciples.

Another issue that appears when comparing the Gospel accounts of Judas is the basic disagreement among the four sources on the details.

Mark and Matthew say Judas kissed Jesus, based on a prearranged signal. Luke says Judas only attempted to kiss Jesus, but Jesus stopped him. John says nothing about a kiss, and depicts Jesus as simply handing himself over.

In Mark and Luke, Jesus predicts his betrayal, but does not say who it will be. In Matthew and John, Jesus specifically fingers Judas. In Matthew, he does this simply by stating that Judas is the one. In John, however, he points the finger at Judas by handing him a piece of bread.

In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Judas remains until the end of the meal. In John, he gets up and leaves before the meal is over.

In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Judas is motivated by money. Only Matthew, however, mentions thirty silver pieces. In John, on the other hand, nothing is said about money, and instead Judas’ sole motivation is simple Satan-inspired wickedness.

In Matthew, Judas is full of guilt, returns the money, and commits suicide by hanging. In Luke, Judas – apparently not feeling guilty at all – uses the money to buy land, then has a terrible accident and dies in a gory mess.

These inconsistencies stand out like a sore thumb and practically beg for explanation. Some have suggested that the inconsistencies are to be expected when dealing with human memory. The general thrust of the story – that Judas was the one who handed over Jesus – is agreed upon by all sources. It’s only in the details that inconsistencies occur. Others, however, have suggested that the details of the story frequently changed because it was legendary to start with. With no basis in history to go on, the story was free to morph and diversify at will.

Another issue we see when looking at the accounts of Judas is an increase in detail. In Mark, Judas is introduced in the list of the twelve disciples. He’s not mentioned again until the Last Supper, when it is noted that he agreed to hand over Jesus in exchange for money. Judas leads a crowd to Jesus after the Last Supper, Jesus is arrested, and Judas disappears from the story. Matthew adds in thirty silver pieces, has Jesus specifically call out Judas as his betrayer, and adds in an account of what happened to Judas after the arrest and how he died. Luke brings Satan into the picture in regards to Judas, suggesting that Judas was under Satan’s spell, and gives his own account of Judas’ death. John includes a story about Judas during the ministry of Jesus, noting that Judas was the treasurer for the disciples and a thief to boot, then lengthens the account of Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper in regards to naming Judas as the one who would hand him over.

This general increase in detail seems to support the idea that the story was mostly legendary. Like any legend, the story of Judas was added to and embellished over time, with each successive author adding in his own unique details and exaggerations.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the argument of a legendary genesis of the story of Judas, is the fact that Judas shared a name with the Hebrew people. Anyone who has studied Christian history is aware of the sharp divide between Judaism and Christianity. While Christianity began as a sect within Judaism, it very quickly separated from Judaism all together and became a religion of non-Jews and ex-Jews. As such, Christianity and Judaism, once in a parent/child relationship, became bitter enemies. Anti-Semitism among Christians was already flourishing even during the Gospel era of the late 1st century.

Is it just coincidence that the betrayer of Jesus – the man who handed the son of God over to be crucified, the man who was said to be a minion of Satan himself, the man who was called a thief, the man who was said to have spilled out all his goodness, love, and compassion upon his gruesome death – is it just coincidence that this man’s name was Judas, a name synonymous with Judah, the nation of the Jewish people? In fact, “Judas” is simply our English transliteration of the Greek spelling of the name. Judas’ name was, in fact, “Judah.”

The character of Judas was literally named after the Jewish people – those same people that the Gospels say had rejected Jesus and had yelled “Crucify him!” when Pilate brought him before them. Just as the Jews were said to have rejected their own son in Jesus, Judas – a member of Jesus’ own inner circle – handed him over to his death.

This leads back to the “second chink in the armor” I mentioned above. Judas doesn’t seem to be necessary. The Gospels quote Jesus as being perplexed about his arrest – he notes that he has been freely visible preaching every day in the Temple. The authorities didn’t need Judas. Could it be that Judas is simply a metaphor for the Jewish people – those people who rejected Jesus and were accused of being responsible for his execution?

The congruence of these two facts – the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, and the name of Jesus’ betrayer being the name of the Jewish people – is difficult to ignore. It is, in my opinion, the strongest argument one can give for asserting that the Judas story is a legendary account. When you add it to the evidence I have already provided, it makes for a very compelling argument.

Despite that, I am not yet fully convinced that the Judas story is completely legendary. I noted at the start of this essay that the majority scholarly position does not seem to support the idea that Judas Iscariot was a fictional character. A number of scholars have indeed argued for Judas’ legendary status, but from what I can tell, those people represent a minority in the scholarly academy.

It seems most likely to me that someone named Judas Iscariot probably was a follower of Jesus. Despite the strong evidence of the name link, it is important to remember that “Judah,” as a male name, was very common among 1st century Jews. In fact, no fewer than three of Jesus’ own twelve disciples were given that name in one source or another (Judas Iscariot, Judas James, and Judas Thomas). Furthermore, another “Judas” appears as the writer of the book we call Jude in the New Testament, and a fifth appears as the name of one of Jesus’ brothers. Finally, the book of Acts names three additional men named Judas (Judas the Galilean who led a revolt, Judas the man whose house Paul was taken to after his Damascus Road conversion, and Judas one of the early Christian apostles who was chosen to deliver a letter to Antioch from Jerusalem). “Judas” was, without question, a popular 1st century Jewish name.

So while it is highly intriguing that Jesus’ betrayer was named Judas, I think it’s at least possible that this was coincidental. Furthermore, while I think it is historically reasonable to say that Jesus had a follower named Judas Iscariot, it may very well be that the story of the betrayal itself is either legendary or at least greatly embellished. Perhaps this Judas left the group on bad terms, thus leading to later vilification; perhaps this Judas fell to the wayside and didn’t continue with the movement after Jesus’ death, leading to hard feelings among the remaining followers; or, as I indicated earlier in this essay, perhaps this Judas was somehow involved in Jesus’ arrest, but it was only out of fear or persuasion by authorities, and not because he wanted to wantonly betray his own teacher.

I once wrote a short story about the rise of Christianity (alas, it was never finished) wherein Judas figured prominently in the resurrection and was the first of the disciples to continue with the Jesus movement after Jesus’ execution.

(Judas speaking to a crowd) “[The priests] are enemies of God because they seek to bind the human soul, to simplify God’s fullness into a formula and a system! Jesus, speaking with the authority of God, taught a different message. A message of freedom from bondage – a message where love for one another is the ultimate expression of God’s will.”

I had intended to develop some intriguing account of how Judas had come to be known as the one who handed Jesus over to the authorities, but as I said, the story was never finished.

If my readers will forgive a moment of stark personal reflection that has no legitimate place in an otherwise historically researched essay, I suppose I have long identified strongly with Judas because Judas was the betrayer, the one who turned his back on the movement, the one who was vilified not because he never believed at all, but because he believed and then (apparently) stopped believing. I often feel that way myself. I grew up in a Christian family, attended church every week, was heavily engaged in church activities, went to a Christian college (I even started out majoring in Church Music), and remained active in the Church for many years after entering adulthood. But then changes began to take place and I started questioning a lot of things that I had always more or less taken for granted. I started being accused by friends of turning my back on Christianity; one friend said I was “venomous and scathing” and said I had become too judgmental; others talked down to me for “losing my faith;” one of my online networking profiles was deemed “scary” by a religious fundamentalist; someone even once called me a “heretic.” This all coming despite the fact that I continue to identify myself as a Christian, regard Jesus as a unique conduit to the presence of a real and living God, and consider the lifestyle of Jesus to be vitally important to living a God-filled life.

So I have a kind of soft spot, I think, for Judas. I like to imagine that he got a bad rap – that maybe he doesn’t deserve all the defamation and character assassination that he has gotten over the years from Christian tradition. I like to imagine that it was something else, some difference of opinion, perhaps, that led to his ultimate vilification in emerging Christian circles.

So I’m no doubt biased, but I think Judas Iscariot probably really existed; I’m just not very much convinced that his portrayal in the Gospels is accurate – and that, I’m sure, is a combination of both textual evidence and a little bit of a soft spot for him.

Did Judas Really Betray Jesus?

Many modern biblical scholars and theologians make arguments that the Judas betrayal story in the New Testament was a later addition to the developing Jesus saga, and was not a real event in Jesus's life. To support this assertion, scholars point to several facts.

To start, no one is quite sure what the word "Iscariot" refers to. Normally, the suffix "iot" would have implied that Judas was from a placed called Iscaria. "Iot" is a suffix akin to "ian" or "ite". However, no such ancient town or village is known to have existed.

A more popular suggestion is that "Iscariot" was a reference to the Sicarii, which were a group of assassins in 1st century Judea intent on driving the Romans out of Jewish lands. In her book "Mary Called Magdalene," Margaret George abides by this theory and fictionalizes Judas as a Sicarii who is drawn in among the followers of Jesus.

The problem with this theory is that the Sicarii didn't seem to appear until about 50 C.E., 20 years after the events of Jesus's death. Judas, therefore, couldn't have been a Sicarii, unless the term was applied perjoratively to him later.

It is possible that Judas was a fictional character all together. The 12 apostles included 3 men named Judas...Judas son of James, Judas Iscariot, and Judas Thomas Didymus. Judas Thomas is more commonly known as just Thomas, and Judas the son of James (i.e. St. Jude) is also called Thaddeus, and sometimes Judas the Zealot. This last reference could imply a link with the Iscarii argument - perhaps Judas the Zealot and Judas Iscariot (the Iscarii) were the same person.

In addition to the problems of Judas's identity, there are numerous textural indications that the betrayal story was legendary in nature.

The earliest documents in the New Testament are the letters of Paul. Nowhere in Paul's letters does he ever refer to Jesus's arrest and crucifixion resulting from a betrayal, by Judas or anyone else. He never mentions Judas by name, and he never mentions any sort of betrayal story.

Furthermore, and perhaps even more significantly, Paul specifically refers to an appearance of the resurrected Jesus to "Peter and then to the 12." That's an important line, because, according to the betrayal stories, Judas killed himself after the betrayal, and thus Jesus's appearance were "to the 11" (see Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:9, and Luke 24:33 for references to "the 11). By stating that the resurrected Jesus appeared "to the 12," Paul is making it clear that he was not aware of any betrayal story, or any concept that Judas wasn't still with "the 12" when Jesus was resurrected.

Additionally, the details of the betrayal vary wildly among the gospels.

Mark, the first gospel, says Judas decided to betray Jesus. Jesus then predicts, during the Last Supper, that he will be betrayed, but doesn't say by whom. Judas then brings the soldiers to the Garden of Gesthemene and betrays Jesus with a kiss. Judas is never mentioned again by Mark.

In Matthew, the second gospel, written some 10-15 years after Mark, the writer adds in the 30 silver pieces detail. This is the only gospel to mention 30 silver pieces. Additionally, Jesus specifically calls Judas out at the Last Supper and names him as the betrayer. He then later describes Judas as being torn with remorse, giving the money back, and hanging himself. The writer says that the Jews took the money and used it to buy a potter's field, in order to bury foreigners. This, he says, fulfilled a prophecy in Jeremiah that talks about buying a potters field with 30 pieces of silver. Clearly (to my mind, anyway) Matthew added these details on his own, in an effort to argue that Jesus's life fulfilled scripture - which is something he does again and again in his gospel.

Luke, the third gospel, says that "Satan entered" Judas, causing him to betray Jesus. At the Last Supper, Jesus does a lot of talking, but does not predict any betrayal by anyone. When Judas leads the guards to Jesus, he tries to kiss Jesus, but Jesus stops him and asks him if he's betraying him with a kiss. Jesus is then arrested. Judas is never mentioned again in Luke's gospel. However, the same writer wrote Acts, and in Acts, Judas is described as going and purchasing a field, and then falling there headlong. In doing so, his body burst open and his intestines spilled out.

The final gospel, John, also states that the "devil prompted" Judas to betray Jesus. Jesus then predicts his betrayal, and names Judas specifically. In John's version, Jesus then tell Judas to go do what he has to do, and Judas leaves the gathering. Jesus then goes on to give about 4 chapters' worth of teachings, there at the table. After the supper, Judas leads the guards to Jesus, and Jesus surrenders himself without Judas doing anything -- no kiss, no nothing. Judas is not mentioned again by John.

So for details, you have the following:

- All 4 gospels agree that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus (which is about the only thing they agree on).

- 2 gospels say Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. 1 gospel says Judas tried to kiss Jesus, but Jesus stopped him. 1 gospel says Jesus gave himself up willingly, and Judas doesn't even attempt to kiss him.

- 2 gospels say Jesus specifically named Judas as his betrayer at the Last Supper. 1 gospels says Jesus predicted he would be betrayed, but did not name who. 1 gospel says nothing about a prediction by Jesus.

- 3 gospels say Judas betrayed Jesus for money. 1 of those gospels goes on to specify 30 silver pieces. 1 gospel does not say anything at all about money being involved, and instead implies Judas did it because the devil made him.

- 3 gospels imply Judas remained at the Lord's Supper until they all left. 1 gospel says he got up and left after Jesus named him as the betrayer.

- 2 gospels say nothing about what happened to Judas after the betrayal. 1 gospel says Judas was torn with guilt, gave the money back, and committed suicide by hanging himself. The money he gave back was then used by the Jews to buy a potter's field. 1 gospel says nothing about Judas feeling guilty, giving the money back, or committing suicide, but instead implies that Judas used the money to buy a potter's field himself, then had an accident in the field and died a horrible death in which his body burst open.

Some apologists might argue that the varying details prove it is a real story -- eyewitnesses, after all, always have different memories (Lee Strobel argues this point in his book "The Case for Christ"). The problem with this argument is that these same apologists don't question the memories of these writers at all when recording the details of Jesus's teachings, etc. If God inspired the words of the bible - as evangelicals prolciam - then God could have gotten the details about Judas's betrayal right.

The final point scholars make is one that I find very intriguing and interesting. The argument is that Judas's very name suggests mythological and metaphorical origins for the betrayal story.

The names Jude and Judas are etymologically equivalent to the name of the Jewish nation -- Judah, or Judea. Thus, Judas, with a name representing the entire nation of the Jews, was filled with Satan and betrayed and rejected Jesus. Considering the Christian perception that the callous Jews rejected Jesus, how convenient that the betrayer of Jesus was named for the Jewish nation.

To put this point in perspective, imagine if someone in central Missouri began preaching against the oppressiveness of the American political system. He began traveling around the country with a large retinue, teaching that Americans were fat, greedy, self-centered, and spiritually empty. He spoke out against the authority of the American government. Eventually, the government began to take notice of him and decided he needed to be jailed, to stop his damaging movement. They enlisted one of his closest companions to betray him so that they could arrest him. This companion just happened to be named none other than AMERICUS. Who could be more patriotic, loyal, and representative of American values than someone named AMERICUS, and who more appropriate to betray this anti-American leader than someone named AMERICUS?

Thus, Judas's very name seems almost too convenient to assume that the betrayal stories are entirely, if at all, accurate.

As for my personal beliefs, I think Judas was probably a real person, perhaps someone who fell out of favor with the disciples after Jesus's death, and then later became a scapegoat and the subject of betrayal legends. I also wonder if his name was actually Judas, and not something else.