Is the story of Judas completely absurd?

[epeos76]

Judas's sacrifice was quite amazing. Evidently, he had no choice, as it was all known previously, by the lord, as if it was a part in a play. That Judas was so ill affected by it as to take his own life, makes me wonder whose sins he died for?

Thank you, Borges

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is the story of Judas completely absurd?

No. Betrayal is not uncommon among humans. A narrative of a betrayal, regardless of its perfect or imperfect fidelity to "what actually happened," is not absurd.

DR

 

[GreNME]

Think about it – the way Judas betrayed Jesus was to kiss him to identify him. What no one has ever asked is why if Jesus was such a threat, such a big deal, such a prominent person, such a charismatic man with the aura (literally!) of God himself, it was necessary for someone to have to point him out. The whole thing’s preposterous, isn’t it? It doesn’t make any sense. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey through a chosen gate, as was prophesied for the Messiah, and was greeted by thousand of ecstatic people waving palms – yet we’re supposed to believe that no one in authority could recognise him, and Judas had to do the dirty work for them. But we all know the authorities had spies and secret police everywhere. They would never have needed Judas. Even if, impossibly, they couldn’t recognise Jesus, they would simply have arrested everyone that they found in the Garden of Gethsemane and sorted it out later. The truth is that Judas didn’t do anything wrong. He was just there to help the story along.

The whole Judas thing was just invented by ye olde thriller writer. But it's ludicrous on every level. If someone rode into your town today, on a donkey, calling himself the Messiah and being greeted by thousands, don't you think he'd be the most conspicuous guy in town?

The idea of what the messiah would be at that point in Jewish history was supposed to be someone who would be a king and drive out the Roman occupiers. These ideas are alluded to in the taunting that is described later (the whole "King of the Jews" thing, most notably). The Moshiach was to be a military leader of royal heritage (which, BTW, is why Jesus' lineage is claimed to be Davidic). One of the descriptions of the Judas character describes him as someone mistakenly attempting to prematurely force the hand of Jesus into taking this mantle on.

None of this, by the way, is unbelievable in its narrative form in the context of Jewish culture at the time. The magic and miracles parts, sure, but the nature behind the arrest scene, not so much.

Instead, why not question why the narrative describes Judas as hanging himself from a tree? That is definitely unbelievable as an action by an otherwise (ostensibly) faithful Jew, because death by hanging from a tree is considered unclean and damning to the soul (probably the motive for describing his fate in that manner). If someone is going to question the story of Judas, it's his death that should be questioned as unbelievable (due to its extreme taboo), not his political betrayal (which is common enough throughout history).

 

[JoeEllison]

No. Betrayal is not uncommon among humans. A narrative of a betrayal, regardless of its perfect or imperfect fidelity to "what actually happened," is not absurd.

DR

It can be absurd on other levels, including how closely it conforms to the way real people behave in real situations, and how much or little it contradicts the overall narrative.

 

[ddt]

As for simply arresting everyone, don't you know that there were legal procedures to be dealt with in those days and that the Jews were bound to follow those legal procedures and had to explain themselves to the Romans? Furthermore, why add to the burden and arrest the whole group when the target was Jesus? It was Jesus who was considered the fomenter of discord, the nucleus around which the existence of their nation either dissolve or
continued. The rest were deemed simply as followers who would disband as soon as their leader was removed. Also, Jesus was expected to try to flee which made imediate identification crucial. He was not expected to step forward and identify himself. But that probably doesn't seem possible to you either I dare venture to surmise.

This is a weak point, Radrook. Just think of how many people were arrested at recent WTO or G8 or EU summits, and released the next day. Can you convince me that Roman justice had somehow more stringent procedures? They could have simply arrested the lot of them, and sorted out the next morning out of a line-up of 13 which one was Jesus. Someone must have recognized him.

Or: he wasn't the famed rabbi, known throughout Judea, that the NT wants us to believe he was.

 

[Radrook]

That's a very interesting point which would be absolutely undeniable if it weren't for the foibles of human nature which causes us to behave against our own best interest during times of extreme emotional duress.

 

[Arthur Denton]

I think this really picks out the one weak point in the New Testament.

I think most people can accept raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, curing lepers and so on, as something that might very well happen. But the police using an informant to identify someone - that's a step too far.

Also, bribery, rewards for criminals, that was all invented after Osama Bin Laden was found guilty of the two towers massacre, so I guess they didn't have enough technology to do that at those days, when everyone was rich and Manah would fall from the sky and feed everyone.

 

[quarky]

I'm no bible scholar, but the gist of the gospel story, as I understand it, was that Jesus was pre-destined for crucifixion by his dad, god. Judas was given the toughest role in that play...as betrayer. His subsequent suicide says that he wasn't fine with it.
In a Faustian way, his sacrifice seems greater.

Similarly, Jesus's disciples mostly met horrendous fates; mostly also crucified and/or stoned to death. Yet the water-walker gets most of the empathy.

In a provacative way, I'd suggest that Judas died for Jesus's sins...the sin of believing in predestination.

 

[geni]

There are different kinds of impossibility - even without the technology the idea of traveling through the air at high speed is not in fact impossible. The other kind of impossibility are things that are impossible in principle because they defy natural law. These two kinds of impossibility are quite distinct. There is nothing about flying across the country in three hours that defies nature. "Miracles" by definition specifically do.

Not really consider:

raising people from the dead is probably posible.

turning water into wine problem isn't very well defined depending on how it is defined it is either posible but very very very tricky or posible but very tricky or tivial and happens all the time.


curing lepers we don't know how to do this yet but should be posible.

 

[geni]

This is a weak point, Radrook. Just think of how many people were arrested at recent WTO or G8 or EU summits, and released the next day. Can you convince me that Roman justice had somehow more stringent procedures? They could have simply arrested the lot of them, and sorted out the next morning out of a line-up of 13 which one was Jesus. Someone must have recognized him.

They could but that gives you a large number of people to arrest and hold and the arrest was more about keeping certian jews happy. Why arrest 12 when you can arrest 1?

Or: he wasn't the famed rabbi, known throughout Judea, that the NT wants us to believe he was.

For a modern comparison would the troops in afganistan recognise Mullah Omar as part of a crowd?

Heh charles the second of england was able to move around without being recognised before photos knowing what people looked like even if they were famious was tricky.

 

[RobRoy]

This is a weak point, Radrook. Just think of how many people were arrested at recent WTO or G8 or EU summits, and released the next day. Can you convince me that Roman justice had somehow more stringent procedures? They could have simply arrested the lot of them, and sorted out the next morning out of a line-up of 13 which one was Jesus. Someone must have recognized him.

Point of contention: Jesus was arrested by Jewish temple guards. Not the Romans.

Or: he wasn't the famed rabbi, known throughout Judea, that the NT wants us to believe he was.

This is the crux of the issue. While they didn't have CNN reporting on Jesus' latest sermons, he was apparently a big enough draw that the people turned out in droves to see him ride in on a donkey (or two, as previously mentioned). He was considered a big enough threat to the current power structure that the Sanhedrin felt he had to be removed, and removed permanantly.

Now, that being said, I'm sure any number of the Sanhedrin knew which curly-brown-haried guy with a beard was Jesus, perhaps could have picked him out of a line-up. But temple guards really don't need to know faces and names. Half of their job is knowing which end of the spear goes into someone's giblets, the other half is sticking the spear in when they're told. It's plausible that they wouldn't know one poor, back-water Nazarene from another, and wouldn't care either. The Judas-kiss, then, would have been a reasonable way to identify the perp to take into custody.

There are bigger inconsistencies in Jesus' demise if you're looking at something to point out.

 

[ddt]

Point of contention: Jesus was arrested by Jewish temple guards. Not the Romans.

Yes, but the Romans were the ultimate authority; Radrook asserted that the Romans set stringent standards on judicial procedure.

This is the crux of the issue. While they didn't have CNN reporting on Jesus' latest sermons, he was apparently a big enough draw that the people turned out in droves to see him ride in on a donkey (or two, as previously mentioned). He was considered a big enough threat to the current power structure that the Sanhedrin felt he had to be removed, and removed permanantly.

That's indeed the picture the NT paints. Some historians contend that there wasn't a real historical figure Jesus as depicted in the NT but that the NT figure was an amalgamation of various stories. That was really only a side-comment of me; the OP operates from the premise that the NT is (largely) historical.

Now, that being said, I'm sure any number of the Sanhedrin knew which curly-brown-haried guy with a beard was Jesus, perhaps could have picked him out of a line-up. But temple guards really don't need to know faces and names. Half of their job is knowing which end of the spear goes into someone's giblets, the other half is sticking the spear in when they're told. It's plausible that they wouldn't know one poor, back-water Nazarene from another, and wouldn't care either. The Judas-kiss, then, would have been a reasonable way to identify the perp to take into custody.

I just checked the four gospels; they all mention a crowd coming in, consisting of both temple guards and priests. But, as Radrook said, it was dark and the priests couldn't make him out from the others either. So why not take them all into custody and sort it out back at the Temple where there is enough light to identify Him? A "crowd" of temple guards suggests there were enough to escort all 13, and it would have saved the Sanhedrin 30 silver pieces.

John furthermore mentions that Jesus asks whom they look for; and when they say they're looking for him, he steps forward of his own accord.

So, I'd say the OP has a point here.

There are bigger inconsistencies in Jesus' demise if you're looking at something to point out.

Yeah. For one, that the Romans would let a real insurgent as Barabbas go. That's like the US letting Osama go after they'd captured him.

 

[ddt]

curing lepers we don't know how to do this yet but should be posible.

Names of diseases are notoriously unreliable. From wiki:

Historically, the term Tzaraath from the Hebrew Bible was, erroneously, commonly translated as leprosy, although the symptoms of Tzaraath were not entirely consistent with leprosy and rather referred to a variety of disorders other than Hansen's disease.
[...]
Persons with severe favus and similar fungal diseases (and potentially also with severe psoriasis and other diseases not caused by microorganisms) tended to be classed as having leprosy as late as the 17th century in Europe.
[...]
The use of the word "leprosy" before the mid-19th century, when microscopic examination of skin for medical diagnosis was first developed, can seldom be correlated reliably with Hansen's disease as we understand it today.

 

[moon1969]

Why do you think it was a conspiracy? Are you a conspiracy theorist and what proof do you have to support your theory? Maybe it only was just a story that many people told and not a conspiracy?

 

[RobRoy]

Yes, but the Romans were the ultimate authority; Radrook asserted that the Romans set stringent standards on judicial procedure.

Neither is in contention. I was just making a clarification regarding who actually took Jesus into custody initially . . . according to the Bible.

That's indeed the picture the NT paints. Some historians contend that there wasn't a real historical figure Jesus as depicted in the NT but that the NT figure was an amalgamation of various stories. That was really only a side-comment of me; the OP operates from the premise that the NT is (largely) historical.

Fair enough.

I just checked the four gospels; they all mention a crowd coming in, consisting of both temple guards and priests. But, as Radrook said, it was dark and the priests couldn't make him out from the others either. So why not take them all into custody and sort it out back at the Temple where there is enough light to identify Him? A "crowd" of temple guards suggests there were enough to escort all 13, and it would have saved the Sanhedrin 30 silver pieces.

Technically the Gospels differ on who made up the crowd (though Mark added "teachers"). The synoptics only indicate a crowd. John added the soldiers and officials.

But I'm being pedantic. The short answer is that I don't know the answer to your question. But in saying that, I could pose a similar question: Why didn't Custer take the Gatling guns and the additional batallion?

By which I mean that we can offer reasons/reasoning for what is stated to have happened, but that doesn't make them correct (or incorrect for that matter). The concern here is not what they could have done, but what they are stated to have done, and its perceived plausibility.

Perhaps they feared a riot if all Jesus' inner circle were taken. Perhaps their orders only allowed for the arrest of Jesus. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

At the end of the day, I see nothing in the initial arrest of Jesus, or in the arguments so far offered, that makes the events implausible as described.

Yeah. For one, that the Romans would let a real insurgent as Barabbas go. That's like the US letting Osama go after they'd captured him.

Well, and the entire trial under the Sanhedrin at night while Passover was going on.

 

[Civilized Worm]

my finely-honed critical-thinking abilities

 

[Ashles]

I was referring to how things were perceived during the major part of human history not their
inherent possibility or impossibility. If IU had claimed to have travelled from Europe to The New World in several hours, I would have been considered insane during Columbus's day.
Why? Because it was considered impossible.

It WAS impossible. If you had claimed to do that at that time then you would have been lying.
If you said "Maybe one day we will be able to..." then people would not have been able to say it would never happen.

That's the point - we know what is possible now, and we know what was possible in the past, we don't know what might be possible in the future.

That's why we know the stories of Jesus are just stories (well one of the reasons).
Unless of course anyone can demonstrate any of his miracles today...

 

[fuelair]

Not if he had a loyal entourage who could be assumed to try to cover for him, perhaps even to the point of claiming to be him. It's not like they had a photo.

So, they cross all of them!! No biggie!!

 

[RandFan]

Stop killing Judas!

 

[geni]

So, they cross all of them!! No biggie!!

Actualy it is they've all got families who you are about to really really piss off. Since you can just grab the leader might as well do so.