How Did Judas Betray Jesus?

[Deborah]

But what did Judas conspire about? That's the Q?

Wasn't it simply to put him in the hands of the Romans? Surely Judas knew of the desire to stop his teachings. I suspect that even though many were aware of Jesus and his teaching and influence, not that many actually saw him and knew what he looked like. Since it was not his time he probably continually slipped through their hands (hence the kiss and hug to indicate which one was Jesus in the Garden). Judas, whether motivated just by greed and perhaps envy, or by a zealot's desire to see the warrior Messiah, saw an opportunity to do what only someone close to the Savior could and went to those in charge and told them he would lead them to Jesus. Perhaps he had an ambition to win favor with the Romans and advance his position. Whatever the reason, I do think they needed an insider to get them close enough to seize him.

[Uncle Dale]

Wasn't it simply to put him in the hands of the Romans? Surely Judas knew of the desire to stop his teachings. I suspect that even though many were aware of Jesus and his teaching and influence, not that many actually saw him and knew what he looked like. Since it was not his time he probably continually slipped through their hands (hence the kiss and hug to indicate which one was Jesus in the Garden). Judas, whether motivated just by greed and perhaps envy, or by a zealot's desire to see the warrior Messiah, saw an opportunity to do what only someone close to the Savior could and went to those in charge and told them he would lead them to Jesus. Perhaps he had an ambition to win favor with the Romans and advance his position. Whatever the reason, I do think they needed an insider to get them close enough to seize him.

Although the final destination for Jesus was a Roman holding cell and crucifixion, I'm not sure that the

Jewish authorities (Sanhedrin or Temple Establishment) wanted to see him executed. It is entirely possible

that what they most wanted, was to see him discredited and abandoned by any troublesome followers.

If that was the case, then it may have been necessary for Judas to enter into a "conspiracy" with the

underlings of the High Priest. If they had suspected that Judas was simply trying to give Jesus some

advantage in the situation, the authorities might have backed off and looked for other means. But if they

truly thought that Judas' purpose was to conspire with them, in order to obtain money -- then that might

have suited their ultimate purposes. Whether or not Jesus was eventually turned over to the Romans,

the Jewish authorities could then point to the fact that Jesus own un-deluded disciple(s) had betrayed him.

But, if it was Judas' intention to "fool" the authorities into thinking he was "only in it for the money," then

perhaps there was a conspiracy within a conspiracy --- with Jesus at least aware of what was going on

and making no overt move to stop it all.

Or ----------> did he give Judas a second chance, or even a third chance? We'll probably never know,

because the preserved history does not provide that level of detail.

UD

[The Nehor]

Well,

You are welcome to think Jesus as "Christ", without the sacrifice of Judas.

It is self evident, so simple.

And the problem is.......

I would like additional knowledge on the Judas story but the truth is it is just not there. We can speculate but that is just that...speculation.

Let's take the following sentences given by Bob, a friend of George and Susan (dug up from a 2000 year old dig):

Susan ate George's cake because she wanted it. She then felt guilty about it and skipped town.

The simplistic explanation is that Susan ate George's cake because she wanted the cake as Bob said. Then out of feelings of guilt she fled the scene.

Your explanation is that the text can't be right and taking what is written at face-value is juvenile and simplistic. Despite not knowing any of the 3 parties you conclude that Bob is a liar and would not record the truth. This is especially ironic as Bob spent the next 40 days hanging out with George with George telling him all about the meaning of the events surrounding the cake eating and many more important things. However it is obvious that Bob was out of the loop and that George and Susan conspired together and Susan was the only one that 'got' George and ate the cake out of loyalty to him. Why she skipped town is glossed over.

I'm all for things being more complex than they first appear. Almost everything is. I am not a huge fan of rewriting the whole story so the Three Little Pigs were the real villain and the wolf a misunderstood carnivore just because that version is more 'complex' despite it disagreeing with everything we know. There is undoubtedly more to Judas but recasting him as the complete opposite of everything we have on him is writing fiction.

[Uncle Dale]

There is undoubtedly more to Judas but recasting him as the complete opposite of everything we

have on him is writing fiction.

Which is why all scriptural texts must be approached with an interpretive strategy. One part of the

method might be to gather and closely read all variant manuscripts in the original language. Another

part of the method might be to read the relevant texts within the context of much (or all) the rest

of the biblical canon.

Another method is to attempt to isolate out the "least redacted" early traditions and use them as a

standard, by which to assess the remainder of the "suspected, greatly redacted" text. In such an

application of scholarship, the most theologically primitive, or disjointed, or embarrassing passages

might be judged to be "more original" than other parts of the text.

Another method is attempting to discern diverse theologies among the texts, and then isolating out

the relevant passages, and assessing the remainder of the writings by the theology of one "voice."

Another (highly subjective) method, might be to apply prayer, empathy, and spiritual discernment

to the texts in question.

Some, or all, of these methods, then, can add up to a hermeneutic -- or practical philosophy -- in

trying to understand the original purpose and meaning of at least coherent sections of the story.

My hermeneutic generally consists in applying the lowest possible Christology and the highest

possible "liberation theology" to the narratives. It is a method that will offend and scandalize

some Christians -- but it is where/how I make my most significant discoveries in the Bible. The

results of my studies tell me that although early history was sometimes twisted and turned by

the first writers, that they were sincere people, attempting to communicate their own spiritual

experiences. And, therefore, not much of the Bible is a total revisionist, re-writing of a lost truth.

(Other than the Pauline and Johanine texts, of course...........)

UD

[Deborah]

Although the final destination for Jesus was a Roman holding cell and crucifixion, I'm not sure that the

Jewish authorities (Sanhedrin or Temple Establishment) wanted to see him executed.

Thanks for the reminder that it wasn't the Romans who went into the garden. I rather think though that the ultimate goal was Jesus' death and the Priests knew that they could not accomplish that. It was the next morning when they took him before Pilate. I think they wanted to find a way to trip him up in order to hand him over to the Romans. It is interesting that "a great multitude with swords and staves" came to take him. It appears they may have been fearful, but of what? An uprising of his followers? Or perhaps some of them believed he might indeed have been the rightful king and would take up his throne and usurp their power and had an army hidden somewhere. In any case as you say the record is incomplete. How I look forward to reading the whole account in that great library in Heaven.

It is interesting that Judas may not have anticipated the desire to put Jesus to death. We read in verses 3 & 4 of Matt. 27: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." So was there repentance even for Judas? It is further interesting that the chief priests didn't want to accept the money Judas threw back at them and went out and bought Potter's Field. Did they somehow feel some guilt for the part they had paid?

All very fascinating and so much more to read between the lines.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is fascinating, indeed.

By the way, Dale, I do believe there were many Jews who wanted Jesus dead, joining in the cry "CRUCIFY HIM!"

I wonder what the conspiracy entailed. If the Jews wanted to arrest Jesus why not do it after a miracle, or after a sermon? Did they fear His followers? What information did Judas betray to those who captured Christ? Simply His whereabouts? Or was there more? That cannot be unequivocally shown in the Bible, from what I can tell.

[Uncle Dale]

It is fascinating, indeed.

By the way, Dale, I do believe there were many Jews who wanted Jesus dead, joining in the cry

"CRUCIFY HIM!"

Depends on what you mean by "many." The Jewish people were already greatly dispersed across the

Roman Empire at that time -- there were probably more in Egypt than in Jerusalem that Passover.

When a small crowd assembled before Pilate, to hear his judgement, we know what sort of people

they were --- who would shout that he had no ruler other than the Emperor. The typical pious Jew

would have never joined such a crowd -- and certainly would not have joined in such a chant.

Blasphemy was the worst of sins, in Jewish society ---- for a man to say that he should be worshipped,

instead of God, was to be a living Satan. If some Jews had been convinced that Jesus had been going

about the country, demanding that he be worshipped instead of YHWH, then that would have turned

public opinion against him.

But, I think that those Jews who had actually gone out to see him and hear his preaching, knew that

he was not demanding to be worshipped, nor to replace YHWH as the God of Israel in the Temple.

I wonder what the conspiracy entailed. If the Jews wanted to arrest Jesus why not do it after a miracle,

or after a sermon? Did they fear His followers?

I doubt that his followers were that many, or that heavily armed. The typical Jews probably just ignored

Jesus, unless they came face to face with him and discerned his divine mission. I'd guess that even in

the Sanhedrin he had few overt enemies. He was more like a headache they wanted to go away.

But, at Passover, in crowded Jerusalem, filled with zealous Roman-hating pilgrims, there was a real

danger of his followers (or others on the fringes) starting a riot or an armed rebellion. I think THAT is

what the Jewish leaders feared, more than they feared Jesus as a person.

What information did Judas betray to those who captured Christ? Simply His whereabouts?

Or was there more?

Maybe he said that most of Jesus' followers were gentle people -- that only Peter and a few of the

stout men carried swords -- that Jesus would not put up any resistance -- etc,

That cannot be unequivocally shown in the Bible, from what I can tell.

The gospel writers set down their texts near enough to the passion week events in time, to have

gotten most of their facts straight --- had they wanted to write detailed histories. But that was not

their purpose. They were bearing testimonies, and in the process neglected to write much history.

UD

.