Judas Iscariot

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Irish1975 »

John2 wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:24 pm At this point then I'm looking at it this way. Maybe Mark (being, in my view, a follower of a moderate Fourth Philosophic faction) is maligning later and more radical elements of the Fourth Philosophy (who would be fresh on his mind if he was writing c. 70 CE) by portraying the person who betrayed Jesus (whether he is fictional or not) as being associated with "those guys." And maybe even the choice of the name Judas (or the choice of an actual disciple who was named Judas) as the one to betray Jesus is another swipe at "those guys," i.e., the archetypal one, Judas the Galilean. In any event, I don't buy the Judas-being-a-swipe-at-Jews idea anymore since Mark strikes me as being a "Jewish Christian" writing and I buy what Papias says about Mark being a follower of Peter.
This is an excellent point, John2, although as you know I disagree with you about the authorship of gMark.

As I was looking over Antiquities 18.1.1, in response to all of your posts about the fourth philosophy, I noticed how completely Josephus pins the blame for 70 AD and everything before it on Judas the Galilean. This Judas raided the armory in Sepphora in 6 CE, launching a rebellion against the census under Quirinius, and particularly against anyone in Galilee who would pay taxes to Rome. They raided wealthy homes and torched the farms of anyone loyal to Rome, and their message was that Jews/Israelites should have no king but Yahweh.

I have suggested elsewhere that gMark might have been commissioned/sponsored by the Flavian court, to be used as propaganda that would rebut Jewish zealotry with the story of their true messiah, a peaceful and holy tax-payer. If so, it makes perfect sense that the disciple of this messiah from Galilee who betrays him to the chief priests, thus causing the death of the messiah, an event which foredooms the Jewish temple to destruction as symbolized in gMark by the rending of the Temple curtain, would be called Judas. Both Jews and Romans would associate this Judas with Judas the Galilean, the initiator of all their conflict. On this reading, for the original intended audience of gMark, Judas Iscariot would be a symbol not of the Jewish people being wicked (as in Christianity), but rather of the zealous insurgency against Rome launched by Judas the Galilean, and blamed by Josephus (the Flavians' expert on all things Jewish) for all that befalls the Jewish people in the first century.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I do not know whether it clarifies matters, further confuses them, or has no bearing upon them, but Christians were definitely called Galileans by the time of Julian the Apostate and may have been called Galileans earlier than that.

ETA: Also possibly relevant are the testimonies of several church fathers.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

Irish1975 wrote:
I noticed how completely Josephus pins the blame for 70 AD and everything before it on Judas the Galilean.

Well, sure, but just to be nitpicky (and not to single you out), he says that the Fourth Philosophy was founded by two people, Judas and someone named Zadok:
Yet was there one Judas ... taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty ... They also said ... All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men ... occasioned by their thus conspiring together ... Judas and Sadduc ... excited a fourth philosophic sect among us ...



Granted, he goes on to say in Ant. 18.1.6, "But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author," but that doesn't negate what he says before that about Judas founding the Fourth Philosophy with Zadok.

And while it wouldn't affect your argument, what I take from it is that it would explain the how/why behind Fourth Philosophers being in agreement with "Pharisaic notions" (like messianism and the resurrection of the dead) and thus why (in my view) Jesus and Christians are also in agreement with them (by being a faction of the Fourth Philosophy), since Josephus says Zadok was a Pharisee (and cf. Acts 15:5).

I also wonder, since I view it as being a Fourth Philosophic writing, if the pairing of Judas and Zadok (a name with priestly resonance) could have something to do with "the "root of planting" mentioned in the Damascus Document. As Blanton writes regarding this imagery:
The language of "root"/"shoot" combined with the planting imagery is related to biblical passages such as Isa 11, to Jewish texts of the Second Temple period such as Jub 1:16; 21:24; 1 Enoch 10:16, and to other texts that were produced by the sectarian Association, such as 1QS 8:5. Using this imagery the sect is able to establish its pedigree as a group that was founded by an act of divine election, as God chose and nourished the "root" that would later constitute the sect.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rdaTp ... sm&f=false
In this scenario (and I'm not set on it), the founding of the Fourth Philosophy c. 6 CE would be this "root of planting" that sprang "from Israel and Aaron," i.e., the "root" that was planted had two elements, kingly and priestly. As Blanton writes:
The phrase [from Israel and Aaron] resonates with the sect's messianism, whereby they expected two anointed figures to arise, one kingly [from Israel] and one priestly [from Aaron]. However, [it] does not here refer to messianic figures, per se. but to the continuation of the lineages that would eventually give rise to these figures.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rdaTp ... sm&f=false



But I'm in the camp that views that there is only one Messiah in the Damascus Document (with kingly and priestly attributes). As noted here and by Wacholder:
The eschatological expectation concerns a singular messiah of Aaron and Israel throughout the Damascus Document. The consistent twofold reference to Aaron and Israel could signify the priestly and royal aspects projected on the expected messianic figure.

https://books.google.com/books?id=N7ytc ... nt&f=false
Conventional scholarship emends CD's reading ... [of a singular messiah in] (6:1) to a plural ... and understands that it is alluding to two messiahs ... A distinction should be drawn between these clauses containing the word [messiah] in the plural [in other Scrolls] and that of ... (the Messiah from Aaron and Israel) which occurs four times in [the Damascus Document] (CD 12:23-24; 14:19; 19:10-11; 20:1), wherein the term "messiah" is in the singular.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZZ58U ... nt&f=false

So if Judas and Zadok were the "root" that started the sect in the Damascus Document, then they would be kingly and priestly "lineages that would eventually give rise to" this singular Messiah. And while I'm not convinced that the Teacher of Righteousness was Jesus, I don't rule out that possibility (and Jesus certainly was a teacher of righteousness and similar to the Teacher) and I think it's curious that the Teacher is said to have emerged twenty years after this "root" was planted, which would be c. 26 CE and roughly around the time of Jesus (according to the NT).

It can only be speculation, but I think the timing and kingly/priestly elements of Judas and Zadok correspond well with the situation in the Damascus Document at least, and there are otherwise some grounds for thinking the Teacher of Righteousness could be Jesus (though in this scenario it wouldn't matter which Fourth Philosopher was the Teacher).

Having said all that, when I get time I want to respond to the second part that Irish1975 wrote above, since we seem to more or less see things eye to eye in some major respects, but we ultimately come to different conclusions regarding who wrote Mark and for what purpose:
I have suggested elsewhere that gMark might have been commissioned/sponsored by the Flavian court, to be used as propaganda that would rebut Jewish zealotry with the story of their true messiah, a peaceful and holy tax-payer. If so, it makes perfect sense that the disciple of this messiah from Galilee who betrays him to the chief priests, thus causing the death of the messiah, an event which foredooms the Jewish temple to destruction as symbolized in gMark by the rending of the Temple curtain, would be called Judas. Both Jews and Romans would associate this Judas with Judas the Galilean, the initiator of all their conflict. On this reading, for the original intended audience of gMark, Judas Iscariot would be a symbol not of the Jewish people being wicked (as in Christianity), but rather of the zealous insurgency against Rome launched by Judas the Galilean, and blamed by Josephus (the Flavians' expert on all things Jewish) for all that befalls the Jewish people in the first century.

You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by John2 »

… gMark might have been commissioned/sponsored by the Flavian court, to be used as propaganda that would rebut Jewish zealotry with the story of their true messiah, a peaceful and holy tax-payer.

This is where I disagree with your conclusion about the meaning of Mark. First, I think it is entirely plausible (and more likely) that Mark opposes (in my view other) Fourth Philosophers because that is what Josephus says Fourth Philosophers did:

This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left ...

I think that if the followers of some other Fourth Philosophic faction had written something after 70 CE that expressed their opposition to other factions your argument could be applied to it as well and for the same reasons be equally "off track." We can at least say in the big picture that opposition to Fourth Philosophic factions doesn't necessarily equal Roman propaganda. It's at least an option that Mark's opposition to Fourth Philosophic factions expressed his "hopes of gain" for his own faction and desire that "none of the adverse party might be left."

And since that is an option, then the question is how do we distinguish Roman propaganda from this Fourth Philosophic strife? You point to Jesus as being "peaceful," but as I've argued elsewhere, the OT figures that Jesus emulates in Mark are said to be eschatological kings over "every people, nation, and language," and in the context of Mark that would include the Romans. And I think Jesus' approach to making this kingdom happen has to do with his emulation of things like the Suffering Servant and Daniel's "cut off" Messiah rather than Roman propaganda, like he says in Mk. 14:21:

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him.


So if the choices are that Jesus (or Mark) had a "suffering first/ruling later" interpretation of the OT or the Romans interpreted the OT this way and used it as propaganda, I would pick the former, because this interpretation ultimately involves Jesus becoming an eschatological king over "every people, nation, and language." And since Jesus is pro-Torah in Mark (in keeping with the OT passages he interprets), I assume his kingdom would be as well.

And I disagree with the idea that Jesus' answer to the tax question is pro-Roman. Jesus associates Caesar with something he has little regard for, i.e., money (cf. Mk. 6:8: "These were his instructions: 'Take nothing for the journey except a staff -no bread, no bag, no money in your belts'"). So in my view Jesus is saying that if Caesar wants his money then let him have it, because what is important is to give "to God what is God's," which means that he thinks that Caesar is unworthy of receiving "what is God's" (and is therefore not divine). In my view, Jesus had turned paying taxes to Caesar into an insult, and that is why the Pharisees and Herodians had "marveled" at his answer.

Why else do you suppose the Pharisees and Herodians had "marveled" at his answer, given that they were pro-Roman? Why did they not instead respond to Jesus like the scribe who asked him what is the most important commandment in 12:32-33?

“Right, Teacher,” the scribe replied. “You have stated correctly that God is One and there is no other but Him, and to love Him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”



And the idea that loving God and your neighbor is "more important" than sacrifices goes back to the OT and does not suggest that sacrifices aren't important, only that they aren't as important as loving God and your neighbor, which is in keeping with normative Judaism. As Jesus expresses it in Mt. 5:23-24:
Therefore if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.


So if the choices are that Jesus had this view because it is in keeping with normative Judaism or that the Romans interpreted the OT this way as propaganda, I would pick the former.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

WAT

Post by billd89 »

Ethan wrote: 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.
FACT: In 1938, the Rockefellers had immigrant German Jewish scholars and a Gay Priest who fought for the Habsburgs devise a 20th C. crypto-Hermetic neo-Alexandrine cult in Baltimore, MD: it has been quite successful, to date. Incidentally, a lying hustler stole all the credit.

Image
* I found this vintage image of Slack! on the Church of the SubGenius website.
Post Reply