Random Scripture Questions

[bluebell]

As I've been listening to the scriptures, random questions occur to me that i'd like to get some thoughts on.  

For example, I was listening to the NT this morning about Judas' betrayal of Jesus and I wondered, why did the high priests need Judas to point out who Jesus was?  Members of the council had had dealings with him in the past and surely they were aware of who he was.   Why did Judas need to physically show them before they could arrest him?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I've been listening to the scriptures, random questions occur to me that i'd like to get some thoughts on.  

For example, I was listening to the NT this morning about Judas' betrayal of Jesus and I wondered, why did the high priests need Judas to point out who Jesus was?  Members of the council had had dealings with him in the past and surely they were aware of who he was.   Why did Judas need to physically show them before they could arrest him?

I don't think he did. I think the narrative of Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek to "show" the high priests who Jesus is, was a storytelling device to show just how awful Judas was. It was an exclamation point on the betrayal and doesn't mean that those events happened as described. Of course that's just my opinion.

However, I think if we look at the scriptures as a literal, historical retelling, there will be all sorts of problems we can't really answer. That's not to say there is nothing historical in scriptures, but I don't believe for a second that the scriptures accurately portray real life events with precision. Did Judas hang himself or did he jump from a cliff? It depends which gospel you choose to believe, and assumes one of them is accurate.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I've been listening to the scriptures, random questions occur to me that i'd like to get some thoughts on.  

For example, I was listening to the NT this morning about Judas' betrayal of Jesus and I wondered, why did the high priests need Judas to point out who Jesus was?  Members of the council had had dealings with him in the past and surely they were aware of who he was.   Why did Judas need to physically show them before they could arrest him?

A few quick thoughts...

It was night.

Didn't Jewish men wear some sort of covering over their heads?  If so this could obscure a persons identity, especially combined with the darkness.

Did the people sent to arrest Jesus know him by sight?

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think he did. I think the narrative of Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek to "show" the high priests who Jesus is, was a storytelling device to show just how awful Judas was.

I don't think that the high priest was at the scene of the arrest.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I've been listening to the scriptures, random questions occur to me that i'd like to get some thoughts on.  

For example, I was listening to the NT this morning about Judas' betrayal of Jesus and I wondered, why did the high priests need Judas to point out who Jesus was?  Members of the council had had dealings with him in the past and surely they were aware of who he was.   Why did Judas need to physically show them before they could arrest him?

It was the Roman soldiers doing the arresting he was showing.  The members who knew himprobably didn't want to get their hands dirty with the grunt work.  It says officials as well as soldiers, but these could be subordinates who didn't know him.

It also says there was nothing striking about his physical appearance, iirc.  Given the cases of mistaken identity these days, it is possible they wanted to ensure a decoy wasn't slipped in on them or were actually concerned about grabbing the wrong guy.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think that the high priest was at the scene of the arrest.

Good point, but it doesn't really matter  

Unless the church claims a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, I don't think we should assume we're reading the Jerusalem Times from the day after Judas betrayed Jesus.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good point, but it doesn't really matter  

Unless the church claims a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, I don't think we should assume we're reading the Jerusalem Times from the day after Judas betrayed Jesus.

 

We shouldn't believe that the story contains all the facts, or that other witnesses couldn't supply more detail.  However, just because it isn't the Jerusalem Times shouldn't preclude us from believing the basic narrative when there is no contradictory evidence available.  

 

[stemelbow]

I'd agree with HappyJack that it's hard to take too many of these details as a literal telling of what took place, since these stories were likely recorded by people not involved many years later. 

But it's possible Judas and those whom he conspired with expected Judas to actually attend at the moment of capturing him to complete the deal.  He also could have wanted to go to make sure he was caught so he'd ensure to get his money. 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We shouldn't believe that the story contains all the facts, or that other witnesses couldn't supply more detail.  However, just because it isn't the Jerusalem Times shouldn't preclude us from believing the basic narrative when there is no contradictory evidence available.  

 

True. The basic narrative is that Judas betrayed Jesus. But having Judas with the guards, in the garden to point out who Jesus is before he is arrested gets pretty specific. The question of determining why something happened based on the specifics of who, what, when, how, and where. The specifics about who was and wasn't present, what they did, how they did it is all getting pretty detailed for the purposes of expressing religious principles. The specifics just don't matter and are likely (in my view) not to be precisely accurate anyway)

[Duncan]

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3765&context=byusq

 

Nothing in the Frank Judd article about this event, buckets of woe and gushers of sorrow!

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think he did. I think the narrative of Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek to "show" the high priests who Jesus is, was a storytelling device to show just how awful Judas was. It was an exclamation point on the betrayal and doesn't mean that those events happened as described. Of course that's just my opinion.

However, I think if we look at the scriptures as a literal, historical retelling, there will be all sorts of problems we can't really answer. That's not to say there is nothing historical in scriptures, but I don't believe for a second that the scriptures accurately portray real life events with precision. Did Judas hang himself or did he jump from a cliff? It depends which gospel you choose to believe, and assumes one of them is accurate.

If Judas didn't betray Christ by pointing Him out, then why would anyone need to tell a story showing how awful Judas was?  His betrayal is what makes him awful, isn't it?

Good points though.  Does one of the gospel's have Judas jumping off of a cliff?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It was the Roman soldiers doing the arresting he was showing.  The members who knew himprobably didn't want to get their hands dirty with the grunt work.  It says officials as well as soldiers, but these could be subordinates who didn't know him.

It also says there was nothing striking about his physical appearance, iirc.  Given the cases of mistaken identity these days, it is possible they wanted to ensure a decoy wasn't slipped in on them or were actually concerned about grabbing the wrong guy.

Very true.  I didn't think of that.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think he did. I think the narrative of Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek to "show" the high priests who Jesus is, was a storytelling device to show just how awful Judas was. It was an exclamation point on the betrayal and doesn't mean that those events happened as described. Of course that's just my opinion.

However, I think if we look at the scriptures as a literal, historical retelling, there will be all sorts of problems we can't really answer. That's not to say there is nothing historical in scriptures, but I don't believe for a second that the scriptures accurately portray real life events with precision. Did Judas hang himself or did he jump from a cliff? It depends which gospel you choose to believe, and assumes one of them is accurate.

It's quite possible that Judas is also an invented character. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good point, but it doesn't really matter  

Unless the church claims a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, I don't think we should assume we're reading the Jerusalem Times from the day after Judas betrayed Jesus.

 

If the Jerusalem Times is like modern journalism there would be a lot of pointless whining about the ethics of ear reconnection operations and it would miss the main point.

Edited January 3, 2017 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's quite possible that Judas is also an invented character. 

You think it's a possibility that the 12 apostles never existed?

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's quite possible that Judas is also an invented character. 

If you accept the Book of Mormon and modern revelation, there were indeed 12 apostles.  The Book of Mormon confirms this with Jesus calling 12 apostles in the Americas as well. Modern revelation confirms the order of the quorum of 12 apostles and suggests that they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You think it's a possibility that the 12 apostles never existed?

No, I think the 12 are historical, but Judas may not be.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

If you accept the Book of Mormon and modern revelation, there were indeed 12 apostles.  The Book of Mormon confirms this with Jesus calling 12 apostles in the Americas as well. Modern revelation confirms the order of the quorum of 12 apostles and suggests that they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. 

There were 12 apostles, I'm sure. There may not have been a betrayer. The only NT source who knew the apostles (Paul) seems to be unaware of the existence of Judas.

Revelation will give you theology, but gives you no access to history.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think he did. I think the narrative of Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek to "show" the high priests who Jesus is, was a storytelling device to show just how awful Judas was. It was an exclamation point on the betrayal and doesn't mean that those events happened as described. Of course that's just my opinion.

However, I think if we look at the scriptures as a literal, historical retelling, there will be all sorts of problems we can't really answer. That's not to say there is nothing historical in scriptures, but I don't believe for a second that the scriptures accurately portray real life events with precision. Did Judas hang himself or did he jump from a cliff? It depends which gospel you choose to believe, and assumes one of them is accurate.

According to the account in John 18, Judas was not accompanied by any of the council members, but only by Jewish police sent to arrest Jesus.  They did need some identifying action by Judas, and the kiss of death is the very action used up until recently by the Sicilian Mafia.  Judas could have used it in that fashion, or to keep up the pretence that he was a faithful apostle.  It need not have been merely a story device.

As to the claim that Judas jumped or fell from a cliff, there is no such account.  What we have are two accounts of his death which can easily be explained as two parts of a sequence.  First the suicide by hanging  in Matt 27:5, and second an event later taking place after his body had gone through decomposition and bloating from bacterial putrefaction -- the body falling from the tree and the horrible, swelling abdomen bursting (Acts 1:18).  Nothing strange in that at all.  There are thousands of such supposed inconsistencies in Scripture, some justified, but others based on lack of knowledge of the ancient world or of science.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

If Judas didn't betray Christ by pointing Him out, then why would anyone need to tell a story showing how awful Judas was?  His betrayal is what makes him awful, isn't it?

Good points though.  Does one of the gospel's have Judas jumping off of a cliff?

In fairness, that is only my interpretation of the account in Acts.

Quote

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

To me this sounds like a fall, not a hanging. Even if, as Robert stated, he was hung first and then fell, the "headlong" part doesn't make much sense. But again, it doesn't really matter very much. The details of history that we have access to are late and by people who didn't witness the events so are a bit unreliable. That was my only point.

 

[snowflake]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

As I've been listening to the scriptures, random questions occur to me that i'd like to get some thoughts on.  

For example, I was listening to the NT this morning about Judas' betrayal of Jesus and I wondered, why did the high priests need Judas to point out who Jesus was?  Members of the council had had dealings with him in the past and surely they were aware of who he was.   Why did Judas need to physically show them before they could arrest him?

Just my thoughts.....

The old testament often prophecies of things that are to come in the future, usually in abstract ways that are not understood until they come to pass.  David writes in psalms 41:9

“Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalm 41:9)

I know this doesn't specifically answer your question but reveals that Jesus was to be betrayed. On the night of his betrayal he states in John 13:18. “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.'” (John 13:18)

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In fairness, that is only my interpretation of the account in Acts.

To me this sounds like a fall, not a hanging. Even if, as Robert stated, he was hung first and then fell, the "headlong" part doesn't make much sense. But again, it doesn't really matter very much. The details of history that we have access to are late and by people who didn't witness the events so are a bit unreliable. That was my only point.

UNLESS...

Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n] notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while. This reading is found in later Syriac, Georgian and Armenian mss., though perhaps as an attempt at textual criticism of the sort we are doing. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.php

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

There were 12 apostles, I'm sure. There may not have been a betrayer. The only NT source who knew the apostles (Paul) seems to be unaware of the existence of Judas.

Revelation will give you theology, but gives you no access to history

I see what you are saying, but just as a matter of clarity, seers can reveal the past (history), as well as the present, and future.  Having said that, I don't think there has been a revelation given about Judas specifically.  

Paul had no association with Judas that we are aware of, and certainly not as an apostle.  I wouldn't expect him to write much if anything about Judas.  

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

UNLESS...

Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n] notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while. This reading is found in later Syriac, Georgian and Armenian mss., though perhaps as an attempt at textual criticism of the sort we are doing. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.php

Interesting.

Bottom line still remains- we don't know exactly how it went down and there are many reasons why we can't rely on the NT accounts to be accurate. Transcription/transation errors, oral history until it is written down by a non-witness after many years. I see no reason to expect historical accuracy in the accounts.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting.

Bottom line still remains- we don't know exactly how it went down and there are many reasons why we can't rely on the NT accounts to be accurate. Transcription/transation errors, oral history until it is written down by a non-witness after many years. I see no reason to expect historical accuracy in the accounts.

Oh, there are far more bottom lines than just that, LOL