The story of Judas

     The differences that exist in the gospel stories indicate that, contrary to the early traditions started by the authorities in the churches, the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses (or the apostles to which the church hierarchy wished to attribute them). Rather stories such as that of Judas, the traitor, demonstrate that the gospels were written at a later date and were peppered through with what we call today ‘urban legends'.

     The first mention of the Judas tradition, in abbreviated form, is found in the gospel of Mark. This gospel is not an historical document, but rather is a collection of polemical parables which have been carefully arranged in an editing structure which is a familiar feature of earlier manuscripts in the Jewish tradition (a chiasmus usually consists of a sequence of parables arranged in a step like structure with a central focus - for example A1, B1, Center, B2, A2). In an aside in the gospel, the author makes the point that ‘he taught nothing without using a parable,' which is a type of word picture, and the careful structural arrangement of the parables in the gospel of Mark indicate that nothing is taught in this book without using carefully arranged parables. A true ‘biography' or a literal historical document is not written using the technique of chiasm, neither does real life fall so neatly into such a structured literary form, and this suggests that the parables in the gospel of Mark were just that, teaching parables, as the careful arrangement suggests, and were only historical not in the literal sense but in the sense that the issues (for example the Sabbath) were real sources of controversy in the early church. The bread breaking parables form the outer brackets for the central locus of a chiastic arrangement dealing with both ‘nullification of prophets' juxtaposed with a polemic on ‘clean and unclean foods' and then the structure is summarized with a brief recapitulation on board a boat, dealing with the subject of ‘bread' (‘beware the yeast of the scribes and pharisees'). Storm parables will be found repeated in proximity to chiastic structures dealing with themes of controversy and anger. Such a careful polemical arrangement is strong evidence that repeated ‘bread breaking' parables and repeated ‘storm parables' (including the image of ‘calming storms' and ‘walking on stormy waters') were never intended to be interpreted as history, but were, from the start polemical parables designed for the specific purpose of dealing with controversial themes using ‘only parables' as the gospel itself suggests is the only way to teach anything.

     With this being said it is quite plausible that ‘Judas' in the gospel of Mark was originally another polemical device and never intended to represent an actual living person, but rather was symbolic. Since the gospel of Mark is so strongly anti-Torah and contains strong polemical attacks on the Jewish religious authorities, Judas, the traitor, could have been symbolic of the treachery of Jewish leaders who are shown, in fine polemical form, associating with a traitor (the meaning of the polemic then is obvious). Judas reappears in two conflicting pseudo- histories in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and this suggests both that these two documents were of a later date, and that the story of Judas continued to grow, as we know that urban legends do, and that the legend appears in two divergent forms is evidence both for two isolated communities and the passage of time, resulting in the creation of divergent urban legends (much as today, an urban legend can appear in slightly different forms on the east coast and the west coast, and be held to be literally true in whatever form it has evolved into over the passage of time in isolated communities.)

     The conflicting ‘history' presented in the gospels are the best evidence that these documents were written decades later than the events they purport to describe (no disciple wrote them and no disciple remained alive to correct the obviously mythological and legendary elements that became accepted as history within these disparate communities. They were sorting through rumors, and, as continues to happen today, they also believed that certain legends were fact, and seemed to believe that Mark's carefully arranged parables were in fact ‘history' and a kind of ‘biography' as the increasing amounts of fantastic mythology in these documents gives indication.)

     The earliest documents of the church would consist of the actual letters of Paul (the composing of pseudepigraphical works using the name of a famous teacher, but actually written by a school of followers of the teacher was common practice in ancient times, and it is obvious that the documents of the church contain examples of this form as well, letters said to be written by Paul but actually written at a later date by schools which claimed to be expounding the doctrines of Paul.)

     We are given two contradictory versions of the urban legend of the life and death of Judas in the gospel accounts. In Matthew were are told that,

"When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he (Yeshua) was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." Matthew 27:3

     There is a curious error in the above passage, in that the ‘prophecy' which was supposedly was fulfilled in this event actually is found in Zechariah, not Jeremiah.

     The gospel of Luke contradicts the book of Galatians, and Mark and Matthew on a number of points, and these differences in historical detail were acknowledged by Luke in the very opening chapters of his polemic (his book is addressed, in polemical form, to ‘Theophilus', which means ‘lover of God'). Luke claims that while many others have attempted to write the history of these events, they produced accounts which were inaccurate and disorderly, and he claims that it seemed good to him to set the record straight. He produces an entirely different account of what supposedly happened to Judas, in the process obviously reproducing the particular version of the urban legend that had developed in his own community. According to this tale the apostles watched as Christ flew up into heaven,

"and (an angel) said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away; and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and ‘His office let another take.'"

     So according to Matthew Judas threw down the blood money, went away and hung himself. The pharisees then bought a field with the blood money, and so they called it Field of Blood. Luke, well aware of the differences in his account, and claiming to set the record straight, tells us that Judas took the money and bought the field himself, enjoying the fruits of his ill gotten gain, and then one day, in what was obviously an act of divine retribution, he tripped and his guts spilled out and he died. Thus they called the place Field of Blood. This was of course the fulfillment of prophecy in the Psalms. These differences leave us never to really know what happened to Judas, if such a person ever existed, after all, making his first appearance in Mark's collection of polemical parables. What we have here are urban legends which developed in separated communities.

     The best evidence that we have that Judas never actually existed, but was another purely fictional polemical device which originated in the Gospel of Mark is found in considering what is written in the earliest documents the church possesses, the letters of Paul. You can consider this matter by reading the page on urban legends on myths surrounding the crucifixion and the passion narratives. What you will discover is that Paul knew nothing about Judas, and, unlike the later authors of the gospels, he lived during the time of the apostles, and thus would have been the one to know. His testimony also indicates that the stories surrounding the crucifixion and the aftermath were also peppered through with various urban legends, as his testimony of what he knew of this matter conflicts with what you find in the gospel accounts. (When combined with the obvious urban legends surrounding Judas described above, this is quite helpful in dating the gospels to a time at the earliest decades later than the events they are attempting to describe.)

Related pages:

Urban legends and myths in the crucifixion and passion narratives

John the Baptist and the baptism of Christ

A commentary on Mark's gospel