Did ‘Judas' really exist?

The Gospel of Mark was the earliest of the canonical gospels written that are included in the Gospel. This Gospel is not ‘an historical account', nor is it ‘an accurate biography', but rather it is a literary work, written using the ancient style known as ‘chiasmus'. This is the same literary technique that was used in the composition of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, which was the document that probably inspired the author of the Gospel of Mark. In chiasmus, real life controversies are addressed using fictional parables which are carefully arranged in structures such that part of the meaning of the text is hidden in the structure. You get the full meaning of the text by also examining the structure.

One example of a simple chiasmus in the Gospel of Mark follows the pattern ABCDEA, where the parables in element ‘A' are the outer brackets of the chiasmus, and echo a certain theme, while the elements within the structure are placed next to each other and comment upon each other in this way. The story of the attack on the temple is arranged in the following pattern. A fig tree is cursed, because it produced no fruit (A). The money changers in the temple were attacked (B). The sellers of sacrificial pigeons were attacked (C). The temple is condemned as a den of thieves (D). The priests plot the crucifixion (E). The fig tree is then shown to be withered and dead (A). The fig tree is element ‘A', which forms the outer brackets of the chiasmus. It is symbolic of the Temple system, which, like the fig tree was a form of sterile religion because ‘it produced no fruit.' The image of money and sacrificial birds are placed side by side in the structure, and the obvious interpretation here is that the only reason for sacrifices of animals in that temple was to make money selling animals to religious pilgrims. This theme is then echoed when in element D the temple is explicitly condemned as a den of thieves.

The author of Mark's Gospel places parables next to each other to make his points. For example we have the chiasmus attacking the food laws found in Leviticus as forgeries and ‘human traditions', which echoes the themes found in the Jewish prophets, such as Jeremiah who stated that the animal sacrifices described in those same documents were forgeries, and Isaiah who said that such documents contained ‘human traditions and human commandments memorized off by heart, and then repeated by rote repetition.' In the very center of the chiasmus we find placed side by side an attack on the food laws as invalid and irrational, and beside this we find the allusion to the Jewish prophets (where it states, ‘you nullify the prophets for the sake of your human traditions').

The author of the Gospel of Mark was fond of hyperbolic exaggeration to make his points. The outer brackets of the food law chiasmus consist of hyperbolic parables on the theme of human blindness and stupidity. (Note that the proper name of ‘Jesus' is actually ‘Joshua', ‘Jesus' being the English translation of the Greek translation of the original name, which was Joshua, pronounced approximately as ‘Yeshua' in the original language, which then becomes something like ‘Jee-soo' in Greek and then becomes ‘Jesus' in English. I will be using the proper name, which is not Jesus, but rather Joshua). Joshua proposes to make lunch for thousands of people, but the disciples point out that they only have one loaf of bread and one fish. While his disciples watched him, Joshua took that one loaf of bread and that fish and made enough fish sandwiches to feed five or six thousand people, and then sent out the disciples to gather up the leftovers which took many baskets to carry it all. This parable is repeated twice, forming the outer brackets of the chiasmus structure, and in both cases we are told that the disciples were so stupid they did not realize that you could not make six thousand fish sandwiches from on loaf of bread and one fish. This is hyperbolic exaggeration in the most extreme form, in that the point of the chiasmus is that people were so stupid that even though the prophets, such as Jeremiah, condemned those laws found in the Bible as forgeries, and even though Joshua also condemned them, they were so stupid they never caught on, being dim witted disciples. The point here is that they were so stupid that even if some were to make six thousand fish sandwiches from one loaf of bread and one can of tuna, well they wouldn't figure that one out either, because they were just that stupid.

What we can see here is that there was no ‘miracle of the loaves'. This did not happen. The history in the Gospel of Mark is found in the controversies, since this is a gospel written to address controversies, doing so using chiasmus structures and fictional parables. It is a literary work, not a history or a biography. Joshua never did make six thousand fish sandwiches, twice in a row, nor would anyone be stupid enough to watch him do that and be so dense that they did not understand the point. The author of Mark's Gospel was being sarcastic with religious people who had the prophets, who told them those laws were forgeries, and yet they remained fundamentalist literalists. He was mocking them, saying, ‘gee, I wonder if you would catch on if someone make six thousand fish sandwiches from one loaf of bread and a can of tuna, while you were watching him do it. No. Probably not, because you are just that hard hearted and dim witted.'

The Gospel of Mark is replete with fantastic images of impossible events, since the author is fond of such hyperbole. So we can say that there was no ‘miracle of walking on the water.' This was another one of those exaggerations which were part of a chiasmus. There was no ‘transfiguration on the mountain'. It is ignorance about the literary form known as chiasmus that causes literalists to attempt to take such ridiculous stories literally, which then introduces cognitive dissonance, that form of mental contradiction and conflict of the mind which then leads to intolerant bigotry, as the emotions are provoked to that classic Christian intolerance for dissent, which then becomes the famous Christian dogmatism, which is birthed when Christians first attempted to believe that fictional parables were ‘history', this mistake being related to their ignorance of the classic literary technique employed in ancient times known as ‘chiasmus'.

Another good example of the hyperbole found in the Gospel of Mark is the story of the demon possessed man. There was this man driven crazy by demons, who then became so super strong he was like superman, and he took over an entire province, driving out everyone who lived there. No one could travel through that territory because of the fierceness of that demon possessed man. They were forced to go the long way around once he had single handedly conquered that whole territory. The people tried catching him and locking him up in the heaviest of chains, but it was no use, because he just snapped those chains like they were made of thread, and then beat the living daylights out of everyone and chased them off. In desperation the people called for help to the Roman military forces, who then send in legions of Roman soldiers, who were promptly given a good beating and sent packing by the super powers of the demon possessed man, who was so strong that even armies could not dislodge him from the territory. Once military forces had failed, everyone gave up on that territory, knowing that there was nothing to be done, and that from now on only that super powered demon possessed man would be found living there. However Joshua went fearlessly into that territory, and confronted the demon possessed man and asked him how many demons there were inside of him, and the answer came that there were legions of demons, which then explain his super powered strength. These legions of demons were then ordered to go into a herd of pigs, which then promptly stampeded and went plunging over the top of a cliff.

This obviously fictional story could not possibly be taken seriously even by the most dogmatic fundamentalist literalist. When in history has one mentally disturbed person ever defeated whole armies or snapped the heaviest chains or ruled over a whole territory and drive out whole towns single handed. This is one chiasmus I do not claim to be able to interpret, although there is an obvious allusion to the limits of the power of the Roman empire and its vaunted military forces, which somehow is important in the interpretation of this particular chiasmus. What is most interesting about this chiasmus is that it once again shows the fondness for those hyperbolic images the author employs throughout the document (such fantastic images as the transfiguration on the mountain, the walking on water, the calming the storm, the story of the loaf and the fish and the six thousand sandwiches, and so on). None of the hyperbolic images found in the chiasmus in the Gospel of Mark are any more historical than this most exaggerated of his parables, the story of the super powered demon possessed man.

I felt it was necessary to briefly review the subject of the literary style employed in the Gospel of Mark, to make the point that only the controversies addressed in the Gospel are historical, while the parables used to address those controversies are fictional, having been invented as elements in the structures known as chiasmus. One result of this literary style is the creation of what I will call the ‘sock puppet Jesus'. Someone might say, ‘remember the time the Jesus figure said this or that.' The correct response would be to reply that only the teaching parables ever came from the mouth of Joshua, and can be found in other sources as well, such as the Gospel of Thomas, which consists only of the parables and no narrative, which is one way to appreciate those parables without having them embedded in a surrounding narrative, which then imposes a context upon those parables which I have found often distorts their meaning. As for the rest of the things that ‘Jesus said', as people seem to think, he never said those things. That was the sock puppet Jesus, who was a sock puppet being worked by that ventriloquist known as Mark, who as he invented parables for his chiasmus, also put words into the mouth of that sock puppet, which was one of the consequences of using that literary style. This is why it is so important to emphasize that the literary style was chiasmus, and that the author was fond of hyperbole, so that should people say, ‘and then Jesus said', one can point out that ‘no, Jesus, did not say....Mark said...that was the sock puppet Jesus you were quoting.'

The name ‘Judas' is a mistranslation, just as the name ‘Jesus' can be considered a mistranslation, and not the proper name. The name ‘Judas' is the English translation of the Greek translation of the original name, which was ‘Judah'. The correct name of ‘Judas' was ‘Judah'. This is important for ‘Judah' was also the name of a country, and it is synonymous with the term ‘Judea'. So then the name of character we call (wrongly) ‘Judas' was the name of a country. Now keep in mind that the Gospel of Mark consists of fictional parables and fictional symbolic inventions arranged in chiasmus to address historical controversies, and right away, when you realize that the name ‘Judah' is the name of a country, you then begin to realize that what we have here is another one of those symbolic inventions of the author of the Gospel of Mark. ‘Judas', as we call him, was never a real person, who actually existed, but rather was a symbolic character, who represented the entire country.

Just to make the point clear, let us suppose that the story was set in America, and then suppose that we are told that Joshua had twelve disciples, and one of them, who was named America, was a traitor. Yes, America, was a traitor, and just by coincidence, America had the same name as the country America. If people understood that when they read the Gospel of Mark they were not reading a history, or a biography, but rather that they were reading a literary work, when they heard the story of the disciple ‘America', who was a traitor, they would immediately understand that this was symbolic, and the meaning was that the nation was the real traitor.

This is exactly the point being made by the author of the Gospel of Mark, and it echoes one of the main themes of his Gospel. Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Joshua never sets foot in Judea, until the very last days of his life, when he enters the country, and within days he is crucified. That is just what a traitor that country really was, he is suggesting, in that within two or three days he was dead. This is the meaning of the parable of ‘Judah', a disciple who was named after the country, and it echoes one of the main themes of the Gospel of Mark, which is that the entire country was a traitor.

The story of the thirty pieces of silver is found in the Gospel of Matthew, which consists of a rewritten version of the Gospel of Mark (starting from chapter six the Gospel of Matthew follows the Gospel of Mark, and such a close literary correspondence is not coincidental). Judas is paid thirty pieces of silver, which is tossed at the feet of the priests. This can be understood to echo the theme of the cleansing of the temple where we find money and sacrifices placed together. You see, the meaning of the chiasmus of ‘Judas', as we call him, is that the reason why the country was a traitor is because of all that money that was being made in the temple selling those sacrificial animals to pilgrims. All that money would be threatened if the temple system was cursed, and so that dreadful country sold Joshua out for a few paltry pieces of silver.

The chiasmus of the cleansing of the temple echoes this theme, wherein we are told that Joshua attacked the money changers and those who sold the animals. Placing these elements together suggested that animal sacrifices were just a money making scam. The point is then driven home when the temple is damned as a ‘den of thieves' rather than a house of prayer. Then in the next parable the priests are plotting the crucifixion because they are going to lose money if people stop buying those animals to sacrifice. Therefore, in the Gospel of Mark, ‘Judas' is portrayed as betraying and killing Joshua for those pieces of silver, for the reason for the crucifixion is given as the attack on the finances of the temple.

Just recently there has been this big controversy about some ‘Gospel of Judas', which purports to tell the story of the crucifixion from the point of view of ‘Judas'. I find this big controversy to be amusing, since once again people are showing ignorance about the literary style of the Gospel of Mark, and assuming that ‘Judah', the disciple named after the country, was a real historical person. It is very improbable that ‘Judas' ever really existed, just as it is far fetched to think that the super powered demon possessed man ever existed. Just the fact that ‘Judah', the traitor, was named after his own country, and that the Gospel of Mark gives us the story of the immediate murder of Joshua the very first time he enters that country, and suggests that it was all about all the money being made in the temple, which is the correct interpretation of that ‘Judas' chiasmus, should be enough to strongly indicate to anyone that there never was a ‘Judas', but rather this fictional character was invented, like so much else in that Gospel, as part of a chiasmus intended to address a very real historical controversy.