Judas Iscariot - Friend or Betrayer
As one moves through the Gospels in the order of creation (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) the image of Judas Iscariot, the alleged betrayer of Jesus, becomes increasingly negative. In Mark, no motive is given for why Judas went to see the chief priests (Mark 14:10). Although the priests offer Judas money it appears to be an afterthought, the offer coming only after Judas agreed to aid the priests. In Matthew, who used Mark as a source, Judas specifically asks for a reward in return for helping the priests (Matt 24:14-16). In Luke, who also used Mark as a source, we are told that Satan entered into Judas and that led him to go to the priests (Luke 22:3-5). Luke, however, is a little vague about who raised the issue of money, although money enters into the decision to aid the priests. In John, not only does Satan enter into Judas (John 13:27), we are also told that Judas was a thief who stole from the Apostles (John 12:6). However, John makes no specific mention of Judas getting any money from the priests.
For 2,000 years, this was the official story accepted by Christianity. No one ever considered the possibility that Judas could have done what he did in obedience of Christ’s wishes, in order to fulfill scripture.
Despite the march of hostility towards Judas mentioned in the Bible there is some evidence that among the earliest Christians Judas did not have a negative reputation and was not seen as an evil figure.
First, however, we need to look at the nature of the Greek word used by the Gospels to indicate that Judas “betrayed” Jesus. That word is paradidomi. Its primary meaning is “to give or hand over to another.” William Klassen, a New Testament scholar, has argued that there is no evidence that paradidomi ever had the meaning of “betray” or “treachery” in the first century. He also notes the existence in first century literature of Greek words for “betrayal,” prodidomi, prodosia, and prodotes for “traitor” and gives examples. If Klassen is correct, then Judas was initially known as the one who “handed over” Jesus rather than the one who “betrayed” Jesus.
Then, in 1978, a worn-out and badly damaged codex written on papyrus in the Coptic language (early Christian Egyptian language) was found in a tomb on the right bank of Nile River. It turned out to be what has since then become known as the Gospel of Judas. As early as the 2nd century, it was known that such a gospel existed because a reference to it was mentioned by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, in the year 180. But no one knew what that gospel contained.
The text begins by announcing that it is the "secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot three days before he celebrated Passover.
It goes on to describe Judas as Jesus' closest friend, someone who understands Christ's true message and is singled out for special status among Jesus' disciples.
In the key passage Jesus tells Judas, "'you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.'"
Rodolphe Kasser (a clergyman and former professor in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Geneva in Switzerland) offers an interpretation: "Jesus says it is necessary for someone to free him finally from his human body, and he prefers that this liberation be done by a friend rather than by an enemy.
"So he asks Judas, who is his friend, to sell him out, to betray him. It's treason to the general public, but between Jesus and Judas it's not treachery." Judas' reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.
“Here,” according to Bart D. Ehrman (Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), “he is not the evil, corrupt, devil-inspired follower of Jesus who betrayed his master by handing him over to his enemies. He is instead Jesus’ closest intimate and friend, the one who understood Jesus better than anyone else, who turned Jesus over to the authorities because Jesus wanted him to do so. In handing him over, Judas performed the greatest service imaginable. According to this gospel, Jesus wanted to escape this material world that stands opposed to God and return to his heavenly home.”
In this gospel also we find Jesus asking Judas to step aside so that Jesus may teach him the mysteries of the kingdom which were not made known to the other apostles. This was immediately after Judas alone stood to face Jesus and said he knew who Jesus really was.
Regarding Judas’ betrayal of him, Jesus said, “so that the words of Scripture will be fulfilled: The one who eats my bread turned his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9, quoted in John 13:18). Jesus does not mean to state that Judas could not have acted differently, but rather that God remains the author in what is being played out. For if through Judas the Scriptures are being fulfilled, that means that God’s intentions are being carried out. God is causing his words to come about - "so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11).
It is also well known that not all Christians accepted Paul’s claim to being an apostle (including the apostle's themselves) and Paul defends his right to be called an apostle (1 Cor 9). We should also note, as evidenced in his letter to the Galatians in which he criticizes Peter (whom Jesus called Cephas), that Paul has no hesitation in calling out other Apostles for hypocrisy or failings (Gal 2:11-14). So, if Judas were a betrayer of Jesus, one would expect that Paul would have no hesitation in pointing out Judas’s traitorous act, especially in a letter defending his own claim to an apostolic title.
We also have no reference point in Paul’s other writings indicating that he had a negative understanding of Judas’s actions. In fact, it is quite remarkable that Paul actually omits Judas’s name in referencing the action. Why didn’t he say “handed over or betrayed” by Judas? If Judas were so closely associated with betraying Jesus one would expect the name and the act to be casually linked together. The absence of Judas’s name at least raises a question as to whether Paul thought Judas committed a hostile act towards Jesus.
This brings us to Paul’s second passage that possibly evokes the character of Judas. In 1 Cor 15:5 Paul says that Jesus made a post-crucifixion appearance first to Cephas (Peter) and then to “the Twelve”, a reference to the twelve disciples as a group. While Judas isn’t identified by name here, it is obvious that Paul is speaking of the original twelve disciples and not the later group of twelve that, according to the author of Acts, had added Matthias following the death of Judas. None of the Gospels report a post-Crucifixion appearance of Jesus to Judas. In Matthew, Judas dies before the resurrection. Luke specifically excludes Judas from the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus (Luke 24:8, 36).
Paul’s indication of an appearance by Jesus to the “Twelve” contradicts both Mathew and Luke and strongly suggests that Judas had a good reputation after the crucifixion, at least until the time that Paul wrote this letter. But if Paul had a negative image of Judas, and having already referred earlier in the letter to the night Jesus was “handed over,” one would expect him to be especially cautious about any terminology that would present Judas in a positive light. Given the importance Paul places on the sequence of appearances as a justification for his own status as an Apostle, even if he meant “the Twelve” in an intuitional sense, he would be expected to clarify the term by excluding Judas if he thought he had betrayed Jesus.
When combined, all this information together suggests that in the period when the Gospels were being written, rival traditions existed about Judas, a negative image in the communities where the canonical Gospels originated, and a positive image within some other communities such as Paul’s circle. This thesis leaves open the question of why Judas was associated with the Greek word paradidomi (“to hand over”) and why did its meaning among Christians shift from a neutral connotation to a derogatory one.
The Gospel of John indicates that the Jewish authorities feared that the popularity of Jesus would probably lead to a military reaction against the Jewish people (John 11:48).The entrance of Jesus and his entourage into Jerusalem during a crowded holiday festival, possibly in the aftermath of an insurrection led by Barabbas, would have created a volatile situation that could lead to military intervention, riots, and many Jewish deaths. Could it be that the Jewish priests negotiated a three-way deal among Pilate, Jesus and the Jewish authorities and that Judas represented Jesus in the negotiations. The agreement initially held that Jesus would ensure that his followers remain quiet during the holiday by His agreeing to be placed under house arrest with the politically influential Jewish priest Annas and that he would be released after the holiday ended (John 18:13, 19-24 indicates that Jesus was placed under house arrest with Annas). “From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, ‘If you release this man, you are no friend of Cesar's. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against Cesar (John 19:12).’” When Herod heard about this arrangement he was furious. He wanted Jesus dead (Luke 13:31) and forced Pilate to execute Jesus by threatening to bring treason charges against the Governor for allowing an unauthorized person to claim kingship. Pilate relented and, despite Jewish pleas to honor the agreement, had Jesus crucified.
Under this scenario, Judas became known as the one who handed over Jesus, and the description attached to him like an Homeric epithet, initially a neutral term, and then, by the time the Gospels are being written, understood in a negative sarcastic manner.
Judas' reward for allowing himself to become the 'scapegoat'? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.