Judas Iscariot

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:31 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:15 pm
John2 wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:27 am
In any event, Ben's thread is giving me the impression that the citation of Papias by Apollinaris is complicated and I need to give it some more thought.
Very much so. From that same thread:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:53 am
I am going to put the issue of the death of Judas on hold for now while I reevaluate the attestation for the passage in Papias. There are some scholarly writings on the subject which I would like to consult. The whole issue hangs both on reconstructing what Apollinaris said and then on reconstructing how much of that came from Papias. I knew that the Apollinaris quotes one finds in lists of the Papias fragments were reconstructions, but until I actually tracked a few of them down I was not fully aware of just how complicated the sources are which go into those reconstructions.
I am still there.
Yeah, let's set that one aside then.
May the four winds blow you safely home.

Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:42 pm

I can't help but "feel" like Iscariot has something to do with the sicarii regardless of the timing issue, since they would have been relevant for Mark (and perhaps for his readers too) c.70 CE (and maybe Mark wasn't even aware that there was a timing problem. We only know that there is because of Josephus).

The reason for my "feeling" is the contrast of Judas with Jesus. Judas brings people "with swords and clubs" then Jesus mentions the "swords and clubs" and denies leading a rebellion.

Mk. 14:43:
Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
Mk. 14:48:
"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?"

And aren't the sicarii named after a "sword"? As their Wikipedia page puts it, "The Sicarii carried sicae, or small daggers, concealed in their cloaks. At public gatherings, they pulled out these daggers to attack Romans and Hebrew Roman sympathizers alike, blending into the crowd after the deed to escape detection."

And now that I look at that, it's curious that Judas brings a "crowd" with him. So here we have -in my view- a Fourth Philosopher turning on another Fourth Philosopher (which they were known to do), taking a bribe (which the sicarii were known to do to get what they wanted), and bringing a crowd armed with swords to arrest Jesus (who denies leading a rebellion).

Let's look at the elements.

1. The name Iscariot

The New World Encyclopedia (for example) says (and feel free to make any corrections since I don't know Latin, Greek or Aramaic):
What Iscariot signifies is unclear, except for its Greek suffix, which is the equivalent in English to "-ite" or "-ian." There are two major theories on the meaning of this name, each of which must satisfy certain expectations in order to be credible ...

In the second main etymology, "Iscariot" is considered to be a transformation by metathesis of the Latin sicarius, or "dagger-man." The Sicarii were a cadre of assassins among Jewish rebels intent on driving the Romans out of Judea. It is possible then, that this Latin name might have been transformed by Aramaic into a form more closely resembling "Iscariot." But many historians maintain that the sicarii only arose in the 40's or 50's of the first century, so Judas could not have been a member While Judas may or may not have actually been a sicariote, the term may have been used for him pejoratively. Therefore, if Judas is largely synonymous with Judean and if Iscariot means Sicarius, then Judas Iscariot would mean Judean Assassin. However, one factor arguing against "Iscariot" deriving from Judas' betrayal of Jesus is the reference in John 6:71 to Judas as son of Simon the Iscariot. In light of this, Iscariot appears to be a family name, or at least something that could be applied also to his father.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... s_Iscariot
I can overlook John 6:71 (for now) for being relatively late (though I'm becoming more intrigued by John's association with Asia), and I can overlook the sicarii arising "in the 40s or 50s" (there's that again) since I view Mark as being written c. 70 CE when sicarii were current (and maybe Mark didn't know exactly when they arose like we do), and I suppose I could live with the idea that "Judas Iscariot" means "Judean Assassin" (and/or perhaps it's a nod to Judas the Galilean, which I suppose would amount to meaning more or less the same thing) instead of it being a swipe against Jews in general (which I don't buy anymore).

So that means the only real problem now (for me) is the idea that "this Latin name might have been transformed by Aramaic into a form more closely resembling Iscariot" (since I don't know Latin, Greek, or Aramaic), but to my eyes they at least look similar (but I'm open to hearing arguments against it).

2. Swords

3. Crowds

4. Rebellion

5. Betrayal/turning on others

6. Bribes

It all just ... makes me think there could be something to it, that Mark is making the point that Jesus was not like more radical Fourth Philosophers. He could be doing that and using 2 Samuel.
Last edited by John2 on Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May the four winds blow you safely home.

Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:38 pm

Regarding the tangential subject of the translation of the word "Hebrew" in the NT as "Aramaic," I've found some interesting articles about it by E. A. Knapp.
Upon closer inspection of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, however, every supposed reference to “Aramaic” above actually has some form of the word Εβραιστι which unequivocally means “Hebrew.” Not Συριστι “Aramaic,” which we find in other places in the Bible such as Dan 2:4 (in the Greek OT). In fact, the word Συριστι never appears in the New Testament. The Aramaic language by name simply is not mentioned. This is a case where our translators tried to “help us out” because they were swept along in the wave of conventional wisdom which for many years took for granted that Hebrew couldn’t possibly have been a living language at the time of Jesus.

In fairness to the translators, many were probably confused by the New Testament’s repeated mentions of “Hebrew” which didn’t seem compatible with passages like Jesus’ words on the cross (“Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani” – “My G-d my G-d, why have you forsaken me?”) which are in Aramaic. We will come back to this instance and others like it in the second installment of this series. Undoubtedly adding to the confusion of the translators was the appearance of place names with Aramaic forms such as “Golgotha” which John calls Εβραιστι, Hebrew. At first glance this might lead one to think that Εβραιστι is being loosely used to refer to Aramaic rather than actual Hebrew, even though this assumption is counterintuitive. What is actually going on in the case of place names like “Golgotha” is that these terms have undergone the same absorption into Hebrew that place names like San Diego have in English. As a linguist recently explained, “as names, John has every right to call them Hebrew, just like I can write about the English name San Diego (from Santiago, Sant Yago, aka. Giacommo, James, from Sant Yakobos, from Ya`aqov).”

The simple truth is that the New Testament authors repeatedly and specifically mention people speaking Hebrew because people really were speaking Hebrew. Most or all of the New Testament authors cited also knew Aramaic, and they most certainly knew the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. The least we can do is take them at their word when they say people were using Hebrew. Josephus, a Jewish contemporary of the New Testament authors who also wrote in Greek, uses the words for both “Hebrew” (Εβραιστι) and “Aramaic” (Συριστι) in his writings and distinguishes between them with casual precision, so we know that Hebrew and Aramaic were both extant and distinct from one another.

https://www.torahclass.com/archived-art ... by-eaknapp
Re: Mk. 15:34-36 and Mt. 27:46-49:
This passage is revealing for several reasons, but first notice the English translations, some of which, like the translation above try to “do us a favor” and unwittingly do us a bit of a disservice. In English, Yeshua seems to be presented as speaking the same words, but in the Greek texts Matthew and Mark have very different words written - transliterations of the words Yeshua spoke. (A transliteration is when someone hears or reads something in one language and writes it just as it sounds in another language, like when English speakers write “Moshe” for the Hebrew “משה ”). The English transliteration “Eloi Eloi” (Ελωι Ελωι) is an accurate transliteration for Mark’s Greek text, while in Matthew the English transliteration should be “Eli Eli” (Ηλει ηλει) since this is what Matthew’s Greek text actually says. This is provocative because Mark’s version is clearly suggesting that Yeshua spoke Aramaic while Matthew’s version is definitely Hebrew.

As previously mentioned, many scholars have assumed that Aramaic was the language of Yeshua and that Aramaic must be the fundamental language underlying our gospel texts. In keeping with this assumption many translators trying to harmonize the gospels have made a habit of “correcting” Matthew to match Mark when they translated these words. Since Mark’s version presents Yeshua speaking Aramaic they presume it must be the true version.

If Matthew’s first two words of the quote are Hebrew and Mark’s are Aramaic then the obvious question is what language are the remaining two words, “lama sabachthani” (λεμα σαβαχθανι)? In an interesting coincidence these words are used in both Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew (the Hebrew used at the time of Yeshua). Thus the remainder of the sentence doesn’t give us a clue which language is being used. So what is actually going on here? Which version is correct and which language did Yeshua speak on the cross? ...

... scholars have observed that Mark uses a brand of thaumaturgical language – miracle-working language — in several places, for dramatic effect. To phrase it differently, Mark used a technique that is familiar to us from literature of his time. He presented Yeshua as speaking Aramaic when performing miracles because, to the ear of the Greek audience there was a common perception that Aramaic was “mystical.” Mark is hardly the only ancient author to have used this method. Another example of this is in Mark 5:41 where he presents Yeshua saying “Talitha Koum” (Ταλιθα κουμ), “Talitha, get up.” This incident is recorded only in Mark, for whom this technique was unique among the gospel writers. In Mark 7:34 there is a third episode, exclusive to Mark, where Yeshua heals the blind and deaf man by saying “ephphatha” (Εφφαθα, “be opened”) although this example is disputed because some scholars suggest that this word may in fact be Hebrew. A modern descendant of this type if miracle-working language is the word “abracadabra,” whose origin is probably Aramaic, translating to “I create as I speak” and which modern magicians still use when they perform wonders.

Returning to our discussion of Yeshua’s words on the cross, what did Yeshua really say? Matthew’s and Mark’s transliterated words “My G-d my G-d, why have you forsaken me” mean the same thing, but Matthew’s transliteration presents Yeshua speaking Hebrew, while Mark’s clearly reflects Aramaic speech. So which was it originally? Many scholars, in addressing this issue, have observed that Matthew’s gospel has a strongly Hebraic style. Matthew endeavors to make his book as much like an Old Testament/Tanach book as possible. They have suggested that Matthew changed “Eloi” (“my G-d”) to “Eli” in order to make it Hebrew, and in order to make it match with Psalm 22:1 which Yeshua is quoting. This interesting suggestion runs into two problems.

First, the second half of the sentence “lama sabachthani” (why have you forsaken me), which Matthew and Mark agree on, has a different word from the one which appears in Psalm 22. Where the Psalm has “azavthani” the gospels record Yeshua saying “sabachthani,” which is a word used in both Aramaic and in Mishnaic Hebrew. Logically Matthew wouldn’t have changed “Eloi” to “Eli” to make it match the words of Psalm 22 and then not change “sabachthani” to “azavthani” as well, in order to make the quotation of the Psalm match precisely. It is almost completely unrecognized and unappreciated that Yeshua’s use of “sabachthani” in place of “azavthani” is actually a well known rabbinic technique. Rabbis used this technique of replacing a word with a synonym to point the discerning reader to a midrash (rabbinic interpretation/teaching) about another related verse. This is a topic for another time.

Secondly, “Eloi,” “my G-d,” is easily recognized as Aramaic because of its last two letters, the suffix, which is an Aramaic form meaning “my.” The root of the word “Eloi” is “El,” meaning “G-d” in Hebrew. The word “El” does not occur in Aramaic except on at least one “magic bowl” like the ones to the right found by archeologists. These were bowls which had “magical” incantations on them.

These two problems argue against the suggestion that Matthew changed his text to Hebrew. Likewise these facts, coupled with our knowledge of Markan style and thaumaturgical (miracle working) language, suggest that Mark in fact presented Yeshua as speaking in Aramaic for his own stylistic purposes. He did so rather than recording what Yeshua literally said verbatim as Matthew did. It should be noted that Mark did not, however, change the meaning or import of Yeshua’s words in any way. This conclusion runs counter to the assumption of many past scholars, so we would do well to strengthen our case.

In order to strengthen our case we must turn to the verses which follow Yeshua’s cry from the cross, bringing us to our strongest evidence, which is surprisingly obvious. In both Matthew and Mark’s versions some of the bystanders suggest that Yeshua is calling out to Elijah, whose name in Hebrew is “Eliya” (or “Eliyahu”). The conventional nickname or shortened form of Elijah is “Eli,” which means “my G-d,” and is precisely what Matthew has in this passage. In contrast, Mark’s “Eloi” with a long “o” sound (as the Greek of Mark clearly indicates by writing it with an omega, not a shorter omicron*) is distinctly different in sound from “Eli,” the name of Elijah. This difference in sound is even more distinct in the original languages. Thus the original version of what Yeshua said is Matthew’s “Eli,” which must have been spoken in Hebrew in order for the bystanders to mistakenly think he was calling out to Elijah.

https://www.torahclass.com/archived-art ... by-eaknapp

Re: Mt. 28:1:
Matthew 28:1 has been a puzzle, particularly for Greek scholars, for a long time. A more literal translation from the Greek would be “Late [of] Sabbath in the lightening [dawning] of the first of the Sabbath…,” which seems like an extremely strange statement. As it stands this sentence actually makes no sense. As it turns out this bizarre phrasing is actually a very literal translation of a phrase in Mishnaic Hebrew: במוצאי שבת, אור לאחד/לראשון בשבת . The confusion seems to have arisen because of the idiomatic expression "אור ל-" which means “light of” and seems to have been misunderstood by later copyists or Greek writers who assumed that this “light” must refer to sunrise. Actually this idiomatic phrase refers to the rising of the moon, indicating the end of the Sabbath and the start of the new week. Thus the visit of the women to the tomb in Matthew 28:1 took place on Saturday evening, immediately following the Sabbath. This is not reflected in our Bible translations and is almost universally unrecognized among Bible scholars and laypeople alike.

https://www.torahclass.com/archived-art ... by-eaknapp
May the four winds blow you safely home.

Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:05 pm

Back to Judas Iscariot, I'm becoming inclined to think that he is entirely fictional (based on 2 Samuel) and is intended to contrast Jesus with more radical Fourth Philosophers like the sicarii. Jesus could have still had an actual disciple named Judas (if not Iscariot), and perhaps Mark selected him to betray Jesus because of his name (the same name as the archetypal radical Fourth Philosopher Judas the Galilean), but I reckon there's no way to know much else about him (though I'm curious to see what, if anything, there may be).
May the four winds blow you safely home.

Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:28 pm

I see in Lk. 6:13-16 (and Acts 1:13) that there are two disciples named Judas.
When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
Not sure what to make of it, just noting it. And the Greek doesn't say "son of," only "Judas (of) James," which seems similar to Jude 1:1:
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James ...
And of course Mk. 6:3 says:
Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon?
And John 14:22 says:
Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said ...
May the four winds blow you safely home.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6112
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:34 pm

Yes, that whole nexus of James and Jude/Judas is very thorny.

Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Ethan » Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:28 am

Christians invented a fictional group of Jews called 'Assassins' (SIcarius) in the 1st Century that killed Messiahs
or perhaps the name came from σίκερα/שכר "Drunk, Intoxicated' , hence 'Judas the Alcoholic', so perhaps
he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing.

User avatar
Posts: 2644
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by DCHindley » Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:17 am

I was Googling "Jesus/Judas/Simon/Zealot/Sicarii" (in various combinations) and found a condescending reference to Reza Aslan's book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth in Bart Ehrman's blog.

The list of "picayune" errors is cut off at #2 (to see more I'd need to be a member, something I just do not do) but it seems that he and some of the commentators think Aslan's just a stupid amateur who has no business poking his nose where it does not belong.

The reason he has no business is, I get the distinct feeling, because Aslan has a largely Islamic POV (as may be common in their secular academic circles, something which they definitely do have, even in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Egypt). It may not be as nuanced as Western POV about the historical circumstances of Jesus' life. Islam definitely believed he existed, but as a man, one that was inspired as a prophet. But like many religions, including Judaism and Christianity, they also believe that they have corrupted their traditions over time. So, because of this bias, they do not care as much about preserving the exact meaning of Christian source texts as we might. He is simply making a plausible case.

Are some of his little details wrong (presence of Legions in Judea, etc.)? Sure, but so what? Scholar's get details wrong all the time, as any deep look at the sources cited by modern scholars will readily attest. We just have to deal with it like we do our own near and dear scholars. <boo hoo!> The whole Islamaphobia thing seems to be widespread in Western oriented societies, but I think that it is rubbish. They have a whole lot of their own baggage, but so do we.

John2, Have you tried looking at some of the articles in Smith & Wace Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature and Sects (4 vols, 1877-1887)? Sometimes those articles on terns like Sicarii and Iscariot dredge up a lot of interesting factoids about interrelations between Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic terms.


User avatar
Posts: 5840
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:23 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:54 pm
Please accept this alternative for consideration. "Judas" => the General "Cestius". Start with somewhere around ...
I have just been reading about Cestius and I wonder if an argument could be made that the converse of aspects of Josephus' narrative about Cestius could be part of the foundation for the narrative about Jesus of Nazareth.

In another post, in which you also proposed ''that 'Judas' is Cestius'', you went on to note this -
Charles Wilson wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 9:18 am

... Josephus has Cestius leaving Jerusalem when he could have stayed another day and ended the Jewish Insurrection.
Based on Josephus, War, Bk 2, Chap 19, Section 7, -

... Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.

Just prior, Josephus' War, Bk 2, Chap. 19, had -

4. ... Cestius, observ[ed] that the disturbances that were begun among the Jews afforded him a proper opportunity to attack them, [so had taken] his whole army along with him, and put the Jews to flight, and pursued them to Jerusalem. He [had] pitched his camp upon the elevation called Scopus, [or watch-tower,] which was distant seven furlongs from the city; yet did not he assault them in three days' time, out of expectation that those within might perhaps yield a little; and in the mean time he sent out a great many of his soldiers into neighboring villages, to seize upon their corn.

... on the fourth day, which was the thirtieth of the month Hyperbereteus [Tisri], when he had put his army in array, he brought it into the city. Now for the people, they were kept under by the seditious; but the seditious themselves were greatly affrighted at the good order of the Romans, and retired from the suburbs, and retreated into the inner part of the city, and into the temple. But when Cestius was come into the city, he set the part called Bezetha, which is called Cenopolis, [or the new city,] on fire; as he did also to the timber market ...

5. In the mean time, many of the principal men of the city were persuaded by Ananus, the son of Jonathan, and invited Cestius into the city, and were about to open the gates for him; but he overlooked this offer, partly out of his anger at the Jews, and partly because he did not thoroughly believe they were in earnest; whence it was that he delayed the matter so long, that the seditious perceived the treachery, and threw Ananus and those of his party down from the wall, and, pelting them with stones, drove them into their houses; but they stood themselves at proper distances in the towers, and threw their darts at those that were getting over the wall.

Thus did the Romans make their attack against the wall for five days, but to no purpose. But on the next day Cestius took a great many of his choicest men, and with them the archers, and attempted to break into the temple at the northern quarter of it; but the Jews beat them off from the cloisters, and repulsed them several times when they were gotten near to the wall, till at length the multitude of the darts cut them off, and made them retire; but the first rank of the Romans rested their shields upon the wall, and so did those that were behind them, and the like did those that were still more backward, and guarded themselves with what they call Testudo, [the back of] a tortoise, upon which the darts that were thrown fell, and slided off without doing them any harm; so the soldiers undermined the wall, without being themselves hurt, and got all things ready for setting fire to the gate of the temple.

6. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately; but the people upon this took courage, and where the wicked part of the city gave ground, thither did they come, in order to set open the gates, and to admit Cestius30 as their benefactor, who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he [Centius] was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.

7. It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world ...

ie. he missed the opportunity to be a saviour for both sides; an opportunity a later story-teller, looking for motivation for a story, might have noticed.

After Cestius had withdrawn from Jerusalem, the Jews followed and attacked, as noted also in War, Bk 2, Chap 19, Section 7, -

... But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his, they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their horsemen and footmen; and now Cestius lay all night at the camp which was at Scopus; and as he went off farther next day, he thereby invited the enemy to follow him, who still fell upon the hindmost, and destroyed them ...

... they got to Gabao, their former camp, and that not without the loss of a great part of their baggage. There it was that Cestius staid two days, and was in great distress to know what he should do in these circumstances; but when on the third day he saw a still much greater number of enemies, and all the parts round about him full of Jews, he understood that his delay was to his own detriment, and that if he staid any longer there, he should have still more enemies upon him.

Interestingly, you also noted in the same post that
Charles Wilson wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 9:18 am
... The 12th Legion is frequently a Player in the Book of Acts.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:26 pm

Thank you very much, MrMacSon, for considering the Thesis.

There is one bit of mischief going on that is of "the dog didn't bark..." variety:

"...and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world ... "

What is left out, the Clue that would cement a very solid case against Cestius?

Matthew 26: 14 - 16, 27: 3 - 5 (RSV):

[14] Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests
[15] and said, "What will you give me if I deliver him to you?" And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.
[16] And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.
[3] When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
[4] saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself."
[5] And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

Cestius was offered a Bribe. If he stays, the War does not take place. Verse 4 is where your Thesis gains traction (to me...) and it is powerful. The "chief priests and elders" are not worried about the death of Romans.

So, "...it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he [Centius] was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day."

Cestius can be a savior to no one. He leaves, not following Roman Legion Protocol, and gets destroyed at Beth Horon by not securing the high places. Darts rain down on the 12th Legion and the baggage, not protected properly, is torn away from Legion and destroyed. Cestius sacrifices several hundred soldiers in order to make it back alive. The seditionists begin their organization and the Destruction of the Temple becomes certain.

Acts 3: 2 - 7 (RSV):

[2] And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at that gate of the temple which is called Beautiful to ask alms of those who entered the temple.
[3] Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms.
[4] And Peter directed his gaze at him, with John, and said, "Look at us."
[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."
[7] And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.

Thanx again, Mr. Mac

Post Reply