Judas Iscariot

in prehistoric island, or what made Alexander truly great. With a subscription to History Hit, you can explore our ancient past alongside the world's leading historians and archaeologists. You'll also unlock hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a brand new release every single week covering everything from the ancient world to World War II.

Just visit historyhit.com/subscribe. Just a quick message from me before we start this episode on Judas Iscarriot. I just want to warn you that the episode does contain descriptions of graphic violence and suicide, which some listeners may find disturbing. He's the original villain of Christianity, the betrayer who handed Jesus over in the

garden of Gethsemane for trial and ultimately for crucifixion.

Judas Iscarriot.

“We all know the name, but what do the gospel accounts actually say about him, and about his story?”

Well, in this episode, we're going to delve into those very questions. We'll explore key topics of debate, the name Judas Iscarriot itself, the betrayal, the 30 coins of silver, the two very different accounts of his demise, and more. Welcome to the ancients, I'm Tristan Hughes your host, and this is the story of Judas Iscarriot. Our guest is Dr Paul Middleton, professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the

University of Chester. Paul, it is such a pleasure to have you on the podcast today. Where's Debe here? And to talk about none other than the Judas Iscarriot, it's one of the biggest, in popular opinions days, one of the biggest traders of all time, the OG trader in the story of Christianity.

Yeah, that's right. To be a Judas is to be a particularly bad character to turn on your football team or something at that figure, it's come to this archetypal villain, particularly known for his trajectory. And he must be a fascinating figure to study Paul with the sources we have available. And of course, given the importance of his position in the Christianity narrative.

“Yeah, I mean, it's really important to note that Judas has always referenced as one of the”

12, through his one of Jesus' 12 disciples, his West Jesus in the Gospel stories throughout his ministry. And then, really, at the end, he goes to the chief priest and suddenly he agrees to be

traitors and it's never really quite clear what is motivations where and that's actually

been one of the enigma's through history and you're many retellings of Judas try to give him a reason for doing that. You start to see it in John's Gospel where his motivation is great, but that's later than the kind of original idea. Really, we're certainly going to explore that in our chat today, one of the things will certainly

be the motivation and the 30 pieces of silver and so on. But I feel we do need to start with the story of Judas that we have in the Gospel.

“So, is Judas mentioned in all four of the canonical gospels?”

Yes, yes. So, he's mentioned in the list of disciples that we have in the gospels, it's important just

note that the list of disciples isn't quite stable, there's always 12 but there's slight variations.

He's with Jesus through the ministry and then he's mentioned specifically when it comes to the betrayal, one of the Jesus' disciples Judas's scattered went to the chief priest sent agrees to betray Jesus, they promised to give him money and then you have the famous story in the garden of the 70. It is slightly different in the gospels and it's the value of Kidron and John, it's not

his ceremony, but in Matthew and Mark, you get the description of the kiss. So, Judas has agreed previously with the chief priest and the temple guards that he will point Jesus out by kissing him and of course, that again becomes a symbol of treachery that he betrays Jesus for the sane of friendship. Jesus is enraested and then the story is diverged because in Mark, you don't actually hear

anything more about Judas, of course, the disciples go on to run away, Peter, of course, the nice Jesus and at the end there is an empty tomb and there's a young man says to the woman who discovered the tomb, go and tell Peter and the disciples and it's not actually clear that that doesn't include Judas but the message doesn't get through anyway, so doesn't really matter there.

In Matthew, you get a bit more of their Judas realizes that he is sent, he's betrayed, innocent

he returns the money that he's already been given in Matthew, does a slight detail,

“Judas gets the money up front and then of course he goes out and hangs himself in”

Luke's Gospel, it's a bit different in the acts of the Apostle, the second edition,

what's less known is Judas doesn't actually hang himself, he dies in another way, he just trips over in a field and his guts, it's bill out, but we can talk about that a bit, and in John, it's not mentioned at all, so actually, although it's a fairly straightforward story, Judas betrays Jesus for money and hangs himself, well actually there are variations in all of the Gospel, so it's only in Matthew that Judas actually gets the 30 pieces

of silver, it's only in Matthew that Judas hangs himself, so actually the traditions are a little different in each of the gospels, and that is something that I'd love us to explore now as we kind of go, if we go now through his story, we was chapter by chapter, and then

“highlight the variations in his story from Gospel account to Gospel account, so do they”

all start, it sounds where you're saying to all the gospels start by highlighting who the 12 disciples are, that number's often given of 12, and so we are introduced to Judas before we get events for like the last supper and the garden to get the ceremony and so on.

Yes, he's just mentioned by name, he's always last in the list of disciples, and usually

it says the one who would betray him, look, it says the one who would become a traitor, in John's Gospel a couple of times, you do get a notice that the devil had always put it into Judas's heart, and look and John, the devil has involved not in Matthew and Mark, there's much more of an interplay between Jesus and Judas at the last supper, but basically we don't really hear much about Judas apart from the fact he's one of the 12 in the list of disciples,

and then Mark, which is the earlier Gospel, he's at the last supper, but he has gone to the Jesus, he's gone to the chief priests earlier, and they've agreed to give him money, and then he

was out to the, they're all in the garden, and the soldiers come into our Jesus come, Judas,

get his Jesus and Jesus is arrested. And if we do the last supper bit now, so do we have an all of the accounts that Judas has already decided to betray Jesus before that last supper takes place, how is Judas portrayed in this famous depiction of all of that? They're more breaking bread together at this table in the various accounts. Yeah, so Jesus knows that someone is going to betray him,

“and I think the Gospel writers are very keen to point out that Jesus is in control, so Jesus knows”

what's going to happen. Now in John's version, you do get much more of an interplay here, so the disciple, Jesus loves his living on his chest, and he's asking, ask him who it is, and Jesus says, it's the one who I dip this bread in, and he sweeps the bread into the cup, and hands it to Judas. Judas then eats, and then John says, and Satan entered him. Now, that seems to me, although this is a bit controversial, but one of the interesting things

in the Gospel tradition is Jesus's known as an exorcist, he cast out demons in Matthew Mark and Luke, it's pretty firm in the tradition, but he doesn't do that in John. I think it's far too messy, your Jesus is already quite elevated, very close to God, very Godlike in John. And I think when Jesus hands Judas the bread, Jesus is effectively putting the devil into Judas, so for John, Jesus is a good troll of the events, and he even manipulates the devil to carry out

Judas' act of betrayal, and interestingly enough, there's a continuity error in Matthew Mark and Luke in that they don't say anything about Judas going anywhere, before he appears in the garden, but John fixes that and says, and Judas went out, he left, and it was night, so John is kind of highlighting that kind of sinister darkness, and that is infected Judas. So John is a trace of Jesus' very much in control, and John is the only one that actually

gives a motivation, Judas is doing it because he's the treasureer, and he's greedy, he John says that he gets to take money out of the common purse, really bad character. So John solves there the problem, but why did Judas do it? Because it's pretty odd, does no real motive in the other gospels, but in John, you've got this idea that Judas is greedy and Satan infected. And do we get any of the other gospels that mentioned,

kind of Satan directly at that time as well, saying that Satan was in Judas at that time?

goes to the chief priest, Luke says that Satan entered into the heart of Judas. Now I think John

“knows that story, I think John knows the other gospels, so rather than just have Satan kind of”

randomly enter into Judas of his own the mission, I think John really wants Jesus to be completely

in control, so he kind of manipulates Satan. But yeah, look as the first one to say that Satan is

somehow responsible. Judas becomes almost as hapless character at the whim of these cosmic forces. And so we get to kind of the climax of the story that the betrayal itself in the gardener get the ceremony and are all of the accounts quite similar in what happens there, Paul? Yes and no, so Matthew is quite similar to Mark. Judas appears with the resting party and as I say, the other the gospels haven't said is gone anyway, but and then he, it's noted that he'd already made an arrangement.

The arrangement isn't narrated, it's just put in as a side. And in Matthew and in Mark, Judas kisses Jesus, you know, Jesus says something like, you know, are you betraying this kind of man with a kiss? But you know, it's this is an act of friendship, of respect that you would expect between a teacher and a few people, but it becomes this sign of of betrayal and then Jesus is arrested. Now look, it's quite similar right up to the point where he, where you would expect the kiss,

but there is a small detail here. Judas goes to kiss Jesus, but the kiss isn't actually narrated

“now it might be implied, but I think because Satan is in Judas, look, thinks it would be actually”

inappropriate for Judas to touch Jesus here and the two kind of cosmic powers, you know, can't be separated. Judas is now an infected character and after this has no part in the story, and so look very pointedly, calls the disciples afterwards when they go to the resurrected Jesus, he talked about their 11. Now Matthew does that too, but of course Matthew has killed Judas off

and through hanging, Luke will do that later in his second volume, he'll narrate Judas's there.

So Judas goes to kiss Jesus and look, but he doesn't actually do it, and I think that's deliberate. John's story is actually completely different, so it's not good ceremony. John emits the prayer, so when Jesus is praying and gives him any in Matthew Mark and look about the cup to pass him by, you know, if it's God's will and that he makes spare to the crucifixion. John just doesn't have that, he actually be cycles to words earlier on and says, "You know,

what shall I say? Father saved me from this hour. No, because that's the reason I've come into this this world." So John, I think, knows that story, but he simply rejects it, but Jesus takes the disciples, pass the Kidron valley, and that's where Judas brings an unfeasibly large number of soldiers. No, although John is sort of one problem I went to Judas leave, he causes another problem, because in the other gospels it seems to be the case that Judas needs to point Jesus out,

which is a bit strange anyway, because Jesus has been acting in public, so it seems odd that it would recognize him and you would need someone at a point of mouth. John has Jesus take them

to the garden, but then Jesus basically decoses himself. He says, "You know, who you're looking for?"

They all say Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus says, "That's me, I'm He." So you're actually not getting any reason for Judas to be there, because he's not needed to, so the reason for Judas being there on the other gospels just disappears. And then when Jesus says, "I am He, which some people think here refers to the divine name when from the burning bush, when God says to Moses, I am, I am who I am, I am He, all the soldiers fall down in the

“garden, and before that's how quite happens in the presence of God, your people fall to them,”

to the ground, and then they get up and Jesus says, "You're going far," and Jesus says, "Jesus, Nazareth," and he says, "That told you." So basically, you can come and arrest me, but let the disciples go, and there's another change that John makes in the other gospels that disciples all run away, where as in John, Jesus has secured the disciples' release. So they don't run away, they leave. But then, you wonder, "Well, why was Judas needed there on the first place?"

Because he doesn't need to part the note, because Jesus basically discloses himself. Because again, although all the gospelwators are really keen to point out that Jesus is in control for Luke and for John in particular, Jesus is kind of the heavenly visitor that really consents for everything to happen, so he orchestrates his own arrest. But John has used the tradition of Judas bringing the soldiers with them, but Judas just stands at our own, like a spare part,

He's not named again. But I'm really grateful for going through those sections one by one in detail, because I felt it was important to highlight at the beginning how the overarching story of Judas' the betrayer is there in all of four, but how there are interesting differences in the various gospels, and we can delve into them, we'll get to their death in a moment as well, then we'll brutal version that you have surviving in the gospel of Luke. But just so we can also

get our sense around the timing. So Mark does the earliest gospel, and then is it Matthew, Luke, then John, is that what we think? Yeah, so it's very difficult to date the gospel. So more than the scholars agree that, say, "Well, fuck, Charles, scholars agree Mark is the earliest, and he does some fringe views out there, but Mark's the earliest gospel, probably after the fall of Jerusalem, is there some references, Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem, which

and as the Great Jewish revolts against Rome, that's 70 AD, yep. That's a religious revolts. So

“it's most thing, most of all, either just before or just after or a little after. I think it's”

probably a few years after the fall of Jerusalem. Then Matthew and Luke very clearly use Mark as a source. So Mark needs time to circulate and so Matthew and Luke are both using Mark and some other sources as well. And then John is probably sometime later. Scholars are divided over the extent to which John knows the other gospels, I'm pretty sure he knows Mark and Luke at least. But that's a change of scholarship. Some people think that John is an independent tradition, but I think

there's enough verbal panels. In fact, I'm the Jewish story in particular. The last suppersine really develops on some of the themes there with Jesus says, one dipping his bread with me. In other words, one eating with me is going to be betraying me. John kind of takes that up and actually has that drama that I'm talking about before and also the reference to Satan. I think, you know, John quite often uses books, embellishments of the stories. So John is probably last.

But you know, you'll get variations with these these datings, but looking Matthew are definitely using Mark and John is probably using at least Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke and John are the ones that really include that Satan, that demonic possession of Judas, which is really, really interesting.

“And I think that lines up with we've already mentioned how in the Gospel of Matthew,”

it's the suicide of Judas after he's betrayed Jesus. But of course, we must also mention this other more gruesome death that is mentioned in Luke. It's not suicide. This is like divine punishment, isn't it? Absolutely. So this is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, which is the

second volume of Luke's work. You know, he's written at Racer Gospel, which tells the story of

Jesus, then he writes another volume, which is the story of the development of the church. And this tradition that Jesus has 12 disciples is really important for Luke because for Luke, these apostles become the bedrock of the church. So Luke seeks to replace Judas in the Son of the first chapter. Yes, Peter stand up and then Peter basically recounts how Judas died, which is to say, we've got a gap and then the castlets and they get matiasis, the new disciple.

But he describes that Judas had bought a field with the money and he, you know, one day he just basically, the apostles field is called an e-trips over. He falls over. He falls headlong. It's not

obvious how it happened and is Dutch, basically, spill out in it's called the field of blood.

You know, interestingly, the field of blood is ultimately entered in Matthew when the

“that's what the chief priests do with the money that Judas has returned. It's called the field of blood”

to this day and yet. Again, it's this idea of kind of trickery. But this is a proper end for a villain according to Luke because Luke actually has a couple of other divine killings. Oh, no, really. Wow. So those are a couple of disciples and an Isons of Fire up who are members of the church and everybody is basically put their money into common pots, but they hold some back and then lie about it. And interestingly, Peter confronts

an Anis and says, you're Satan is entered your heart. So it kind of parallel here and an Isons

basically drops down dead. So it's a, it's a divine slaying and then you get a really kind of,

it's almost hammered horror stuff. So Fire up his wife comes up and Peter says, something allowed lines of, you know, do you hear the footsteps that those are the footsteps of the people that buddy of your husband and he drops dead as well. So, but it's what's really interesting is the appropriate punishment for somebody who's Satan has entered is this divine destruction. Also get a herred gripper as well, who's claims divine honours from self and is eaten by warms.

did have a pretty gruesome end, but again, Luke seems to suggest that this is a divine slaying.

“So I think it's most natural to read, although it's not explicit, you're just falling headlong”

and his bowels bursting out as again a divine killing. You do get some attempt to reconcile the two stories. As an, oh, yes, yes, as early as Augustin. So you've got to imagine this. So Judas hangs himself in Matthew, but you've got to get him onto the field and his git bowels bust now. So you know, how do you do it? Well, the rope snaps and he falls into the field and his bowels, it got show. No, I think, you know, that's pretty comical because actually, in Matthew, Judas has returned the money

and it's the chief piece that by the field with that money rather than put it back in the

temple treasury. Whereas an axe, he's bought the field with that money. So it got two different

stories. I think for Luke, you're hanging is, you know, it's my grandmother would see, hang it's too good for them, you know, it's just a, it's such a villain. But this then brings

“this really interesting question about how we should be interpreted the suicide of Judas in”

Matthew. It's quite clearly in Luke in the acts of their apostles. This is an unambiguously bad death as God has caused this, God has executed him. Hanging, of course, is, and largely because of Judas, it has been the kind of unforgivable sin in Christian history. And it'll really, very recently, suicides were to be buried and consecrated ground. And there is all sorts of rituals about how

they should be buried and facing downwards and, and so on, and all the body that crossroads.

And, you know, because again, it's this, this, this, this, this fight you're taking your life something belongs to God. No, many people, again, from Augustin onwards, have interpreted the death of this hanging of Judas as again, adding and compounding to sin. Because it's assumed that there was this horde of suicide in the ancient world in Jewish and Christian tradition. Well, that's a tradition, it just wasn't there. There was no antipathy to what suicide

in Judaism. It's actually, it's pretty neutral. Some characters, half a dozen suicides in the, in the Hebrew Bible, most famously, of course, Samson, which, of course, is a positive self-killing. In fact, not only to the killer itself, he kills, you know, 3,000, and Philistines as well. So it's a kind of suicide, killing. The others are, you know, fairly shitty characters, but the, the manner of the death doesn't really

add to that negative assessment of the characters. And then there's a, there's one that's quite close to the, the Judaism disease death. And I have to tell, there is a servant of David who kind of betrays David and he, very business like, was out and hangs himself. He had a very similar language to Matthew, which he was very economical with the language, just went out and hanged himself. So King David, who is believed to live maybe like 900 years earlier from the Bible,

you know, kind of, Solomon, Saul, and so on. But in his case, he is portrayed by someone but that person that goes. A 3rd of hell, and he goes out and when he realizes what he's done, he goes out and hangs himself. And then he's buried with his father. So it's a fairly business like suicide. So there's, there's no negative, and the rabbis are divided over his fate. Some say he has a place in the, and it happens. So there's no portrayal of suicide as something

“necessarily negative. And I've argued previously that I think we could interpret”

Judas' death in Matthew as a noble death. And a noble death is a good equilibrium tradition. Again, suicide is, is okay. Self-kelling is okay. Underset conditions. One is to resolve in sort of shame, and another is when commanded by a god. And then there's other things like on the battlefield and so on. Cassius and Brutus in the Civil War was against Mark Antony and Octavian and so on. They commit suicide after losing a battle. Yes, there's all sorts of

stories where it's a way of restoring Waustona. Or indeed killing yourself as an offering to the gods so that your army might win or when you're commanded by the emperor of the gods. Now I think Judas' death in Matthew comes under two of those categories to restore Waustona and commanded by a god. Judas has done something incredibly shameful and so he goes out to kill himself. But he also inflicts upon himself the actual penalty laid down by God for betraying innocent blood that you

get in the vitticus numbers and jitter on him. And interestingly, he goes to the chief priests and says to them, "I've betrayed innocent blood." And they should have imposed that penalty at least in theory. But they say, "What's that to us see to yourself?" And so he does. He does what is commanded in the music war. He inflicts some upon himself that capital punishment. That's a controversial

viewed with the same order as it later became in Christian tradition largely because of Judas' death.

We can actually interpret it more positively. And Matthew's not that interested in Judas' death. He's interested in the money because he just mentions Judas goes back to the chief priests and back the money and then he hangs himself. But then Matthew was sent to incredibly detail about this money. The chief priest recognized that it's not that it's blood's money. So it's not appropriate to put it back in the temple so they buy the field. And then what's really interesting is they get

the hands back on Jesus again. So knowing that Jesus is innocent because Judas has told them, pilots told them, they still want them to be crucified. So Matthew is really putting the blame effective at taking the blame on his Judas and putting it very firmly on the chief priests. So

“that's I think the function of Judas' death in Matthew, rather than it being seen as a”

punishment on Judas. Whereas in Luke, the death of Judas is definitely retribution, the vain retribution for Judas' actions. And this is really interesting hearing what you're saying there Paul, because almost the two middle gospels, if we think, when they're written chronologically, like you have the two that talk about the end of Judas. One of them already Luke goes heavy on the satanic possession.

There's no remorse, there's no repentance and the divine punishment. And yet, with the other gospel with Matthew, you get a very different portrayal of the end of Judas as someone who agree, as you say, there is debate around it, but I think you've put your arguments across very well for suicide at the time and the beliefs around it. But actually, and the refusing, that you wanted to hand back the 30 pieces and so on, that this is a Judas where actually

is this someone who did fully repent, you know, from what he did in the past and you know, I guess the question is more out, like where he ended up, maybe in certain beliefs and thinking.

“Yeah, and what you say is really important, Judas does repent. It says he repents,”

there's some people say over the words that's used, it's not same words, it's normally associated with repentance. But actually, Jesus tells a parable of two sons to go and work in the convenient one says he will, but then doesn't, the other says he won't, but then later repents. And it's the same word, Melatessa might. The parable is meant to represent the fact that people disagree God to start with and then repent and change their mind and do God's will. It's the same

word that's used of Judas. So, you know, it's quite clear that the vocabulary here is the same that's used of repenting. So, it may be God, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this. That's quite the same. No, Paul, you've done a lot of work around this. So, we are going to explore a few more themes from the story as time goes on, including the 30 piece of silver, the name Judas is scarier,

and hopefully we'll also get to the garden to get the seminary as well. But it's good to talk

about the work around, you know, the death of Judas first, because as it mentioned, you've done

“lots of work around it. But before we go into those other key themes from his story, that now that we've”

kind of really delved into the details of the various gospel accounts for Judas, I must also ask about his name, his story, in other ancient accounts, because we've done episodes in the past where we've talked about the apocryphal gospels and other types of literature that didn't make it into the finished version of the Bible, almost. And do we see Judas' name pop up in those pieces of literature, too? Yes, so people wrestle with this kind of idea, again, of why Judas

betrayed Jesus, and then what we gave him. And interestingly, the texts that seem to talk about and being a villain and like Luke, keep him alive for a little longer, and it becomes this

wretched figure. So, Papius, a kind of second-century church figure, has two different stories about

Judas. But in both his, he lives a measurable life, he's incredibly fast. So it's a very early example of kind of fat shaming, but you know, it's a leaking all over the place, and he's like "cutured" spells "cuturedly" and one version he's run over by a wagon and again explodes everywhere. The wagon is kind of kept in another version, but he's so big that he can't actually pass through somewhere when a wagon can't pass. And again, he is a measurable death. And it's

again the idea of his Dutch filling out is so bad, the stench is so bad that even years afterwards is said that people can't pass by this place when he died without holding their noses. So again, what's really interesting about this is that in Christian tradition, the

from Luke onwards, these ideas of Judas being so bad that they actually keep him alive

“to make his life an absolute misery. And I think the readers are meant to enjoy the suffering”

of Judas, so it's worse to be the kept alive and it comes to this kind of measurable end. Maybe most interesting is of course the discovery of the Gospel of Judas in the 1970s. Yes, Paul, take it away. What is the Gospel of Judas? Well, the Gospel of Judas is a text that was actually, we kind of knew it existed, because it's referred to by an early Christian writing,

but it was always discovered in the 1970s in Egypt. And there was a lot of speculation about

its contents. And even when we knew what it said, there was this idea that it was a kind of redemptive take on Judas that Judas was this kind of hero. Well, it doesn't actually say that at all. Judas still goes out and betrays Jesus, but it's a text where you are loosely called "nostic" texts. I mean, there's problems with that kind of language, but generally this characterization of "nostic" is when secret knowledge is revealed. Now, the disciples are sitting around and

Judas is with them and they're trying to pray, and Jesus comes up, and Jesus isn't very nice in the Gospel of Judas. He laughs at them, and they get a bit of a pity about this. You're why you're laughing at it, but anyway, Jesus laughs quite a lot in this Gospel, but he basically takes

“Judas aside at some point and gives them a lot of secret teaching. But, you know, he calls Judas the”

13th demon. So he's still not very nice about Judas. He's not very nice about any of the disciples, actually. So Judas is not really a hero in the Gospel of Judas, but he's the one to whom Jesus kind of reveals secret knowledge, and he Judas talks about a vision of the other disciples chasing them and giving them halftime so on, and that equals out and betrays them. But it's an interesting text. It's not quite the heroic idea of Judas that we get in later kind of fictional novels,

and again, like the last temptation of Christ, you know, the book and then the film,

where Judas and Jesus basically are in Goats. This is another telling of the Judas story,

again, try to make sense of his motivation. And of course, the massive problem is if Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, then Jesus wouldn't have been crucified and salvation wouldn't have happened. And that's captured quite nicely by a light in in Jesus Christ Superstar to raise his lyrics where Jesus and Judas are having this demonstration in the garden. And Judas says, you know, what if I just stayed here and ruined your ambition, you know, which kind of captures this

kind of incongruity that the heart of, because the Judas story really brings up quite interesting theological questions about free will and salvation. But partly because we don't really get a satisfactory picture of Judas in the Goatsbos. And that's one of the problems, which these later retelling both ancient Goatsbos and modern visions of reconstructions are grasping up. Well, we've done a few episodes in the past where we've explored kind of the world of developing

Christianity in the first few centuries AD before you get to kind of the these church fathers coming together, the place like the council of Lyceo, or many of these other councils. And slowly trying to figure out, you know, what is what is the right and what is heresy, almost and how before that you have communities across what was the Roman Empire, everywhere from London to Alexandria. And how they would have had different beliefs. They would have been reading different texts

that they would have been thinking with the right one. So you almost had this idea of Christianity is at that time. And it's fascinating to think, you know, if you have these later texts, these Apocryphor, that mentioned Judas in different portrayals of Judas, some were some better. You know, how these different Christian communities would have viewed him and his story, would sell them, taking it more like Matthew, you know, redeemed at the end, or would others

have gone down the fall of the whole of the other way of Luke and so on, or him getting

incredibly fast and smelly and putrid and never repenting. It's really interesting to think how

the portrayal of Judas could have diffued through these different early Christian communities.

“Yeah, well, I think the fact that you've got this story of betrayal, which is a bad thing.”

I mean, that very quickly leads to the Judas being regardless of villain. And that's actually where this self-kelling tradition comes from. You get it pretty much crystalized and Augustine, and you get a couple of hints earlier on, but not too many. But yeah, so I think Judas's think virtually all Christians are basically seeing them as a villain in familiar situations. If I'm right about the portrayal and the gospel of Matthew, then that's maybe the high point.

I think it's probably downhill from there, maybe the gospel of Judas accepted, but you know, he's still the gospel ends, at least the version that we have when he goes out to portrayal them. So we don't actually, we don't see what happens. I suppose you've got that just interesting hint

So we don't know whether Mark intended Judas to be included.

I mean, it does say that, you know, you walk to the person that betrays Jesus better, that Milestone be hung around his neck and throw him in the sea. But yeah, the interesting thing is John just loses interest in Judas. Again, you just get a mention of the Jesus appearing to some disciples, but yeah, it doesn't seem particularly bothered about Judas.

“Well, let's move on to some key themes, and I must, Paul, we must now talk about the name”

Judas, it's Carriot, because we've had our good friend, Professor Don Taylor, on the podcast in the past, and I know she's done work around this as well. There's lots of interesting debates and talk about the whole name Judas is Carriot. Now, now let's go through the

the surname first of all, it's Carriot. What do we think this means? Well, we don't know.

So that's making your head when I was like question, which is kind of new that was coming. Yeah, so I'm working with her. We're going to do this just now, and this is the, you know, I'm good to have to take a stand on this. It might just simply be the place it was wrong. It's Carriot, the man from Carriot. Well, we know Carriot is a place to be as well. Maybe, maybe not. I'm just like, it's a city really, but maybe the more interesting kind of

speculation is whether it's a reference to the Carriots, the kind of Jewish terrorists, the guerrillas that were going around just before the Jewish war. So the Sicari were, the caris just the dagger. The dagger men, they were going around basically assassinating

“important figures that they thought were collaborators with Rome, so many of high priest met the”

end, because you'll attitudes the Romans very amongst the Jews. I mean, the Romans did largely let the Jews practice their monotheistic faith, because it was our regardless of the ancient and ancestral ethnic practice. So the Romans kind of respected us, anti-Jewish feelings amongst Greeks and Romans, because some of the odd things they did. But you know, they were largely the Romans were largely, you know, live and let live to stomach stent, go over and romanticise it. But

to the aristocracy in particular, it was an interesting to get on, but there, you have this other idea that you're any king, any authority other than God is just an affront, and so these

dagger men, the Sicari were basically going around the basically kind of extreme hysteresis,

monitoring bulk and causing havoc, and you're eventually this leads to the Jewish revolt against the Romans in six to six, and ultimately the destruction of the temple. So it may well be that the judices are a member there, or at least a member does are a figure there, or that this is an invented character. Again, as a warning against early Christianity obviously started as a Jewish movement. So it may have been a movement that was particularly against the revolt, or trying to again,

identify themselves in opposition to that. So it could be that, and that really then relates to the first name as well, Judas. Well, I mean, Judas is just basically the name Judah. It's the name Judah, so Jesus and a brother called Judas or Judah, and the book of Judah, but the letter of Judah in the New Testament, which was traditionally believed to be by Jesus' brother. It's exactly the same name, and there's been obviously some speculation that Judas's scatty was actually

Jesus's brother, Judas well, I don't think that's likely, but it then becomes that kind of brotherly rival story. So it's an incredibly common name, and it becomes a kind of cipher for Judaism itself, Jew, effectively, it's where they come from, effectively. So you've got the Jew that was a kind of radical terrorist, you know, maybe some people have speculated how your market is scholar, particular, that Judas's scatty was an invented character in order to demonize Judaism as the

church developed. No, I think the stories too early for that kind of, it's in Mark, so I don't think that kind of a stilety between what became Christianity and Judaism strong enough to work. But, you know, there might be some kind of particular opposition to the Jewish war, the Jewish revolt, or there could have just been a gay culture to scatty. Yes, it's the big debate isn't it, but I mean, just personally from what you've said so far, I mean the fact that he's mentioned

in all the four gospels, you know, in all this time because I mean surely there must have been a historical figure of Judas, or is this, well, it's answered a debate, I guess. Well,

“I suppose if you remember that Matthew and Luke definitely enjoy and probably are using Mark,”

so Judas isn't really an independent tradition who'd all just be from Mark, so the question is, did Mark invent the name, or whenever Mark got the information from, was that an invention?

the gospels doesn't necessarily make it historical because what we need is kind of independent sources and, unfortunately, we just, we don't really have that. And it seems to me that there is really nothing in Matthew, Luke, or John about Judas that can't come from development, or, you know, you can explain why they would have used kind of free composition or, you know, developed that source, you don't really need to postulate and another independent source for any part of the Jewish

story, you can see how Matthew can join, develop what they have in Mark, so, so Lord wouldn't say that the fact that's not for gospels is proof of a historical Judas, I'm not convinced by the explanations for Judas being an invented character, an invented villain, yes, but not an invented

“character. That's a nice difference and I think we'll delve into that a bit as we go on. I mean,”

there are a couple of things I was once to ask about going from the story, if we've moved on from

the name is Scariot, although I did always have in my notes, is there a potential aromake?

Link with the word is Scariot and like this idea of constrictor. I mean, this is the thing, when you've got an aim like this and you've got a character like this, there's always this concern to try and explain it and see whether it links to the story to put you to get this kind of thing where characters are named after by what they do, I mean, that's really common Hebrew tradition in Hebrew storytelling, but it's a bit forced to zoom to me as to be honest, I think it's probably

the guy's name. We've certainly covered that now, but I just wanted to raise it because it was also there. I like to move on to the next theme in my notes, which I have here, which is going back to the 30 pieces of silver pool. I mean, it might not seem like a lot of money today, but do we get a real sense that that was like a small fortune back then? Well, it's the place of a slave traditionally,

“that's the way I was told. And it's important, although this has become iconic, you know,”

people know what 30 pieces of silver means, it's only in Matthew. In Mark, the chief priest promised to give a money, but it's only in Matthew that they don't promise to give a money, they give a money up front. Now, the reason Matthew has them give the money up front is so that you can then do the story later on of giving the money back. So he, because he wants to have this and seen of putting the blame, transparent the blame from Judas want to the chief priest. Matthew needs to

add this idea that it was paid and then fills an account, how much was he paid? So Matthew invents the 30 pieces of silver, which of course is the kind again, become this, you know, you can say to somebody, if you've got your 30 pieces of silver, and you know, people know what that means, you know, it means you've done something to trade somebody for money or done something bad for money. So, so the 30 pieces of silver is an invention by Matthew, purely so that you can give the

money back. It sounds as literally a function. I mean, that historical context, surely there would have been cases where the authorities were offering a bribe offering rewards to try and get an insider, a trader, if there was a particular religious zealot in their rise, causing trouble. I mean, surely there are, we would have numerous examples of that through ancient history. So this creation of the 30 pieces of silver

would align with that kind of ancient tradition of what almost certainly was happening with other

figures in the Roman Empire. Yes, sure. And then in Mark, they promised to give a money. So we never

find out actually what happened. I mean, I suppose you could create a backstory to discuss to the chief priest against the money and live out the rest of his days somewhere else. I mean, who knows it? But yes, so Matthew adds this detail about the 30 pieces of silver. But it's actually an interesting, I don't know if I buy this, but it's interesting. In the Joseph story, in the Old Testament, Joseph and the Technical and Dreamcourt, and all that sort of stuff,

with again, that may again be part of us here with the Jesus narrative. I mean, you might remember that the brothers all through Joseph in the pet and just leave them to die, and they dip the

“court in the blood and all that sort of stuff to say. The technical and dreamcourt story, okay?”

Yes. And then there are some hairy eschmites compassing by again to quote Tim Rice again. The brother that says, "Let's sell him is Judah." So you know, that's another kind of link with

this story. But it's 20 points. But there's this, I mean, this is always the resistable.

In a much later document called the Testament of the 12 patriarchs, which is basically what it's the deathbed speech that each of the leaders of the 12 tribes is a testament of God. He actually talks about the story, but he says that Judah was actually paid their two

care of a link with a Judah, same name as Judah, of course, and this idea of the artis. So

“I don't know if Matthew had often took it from there, but it's just quite a resistable”

this Testament of patriarchs is about hundreds BCE. So you know, Matthew could have known of it the story, but you know, maybe about just one of those literary coincidences, but I really like that connection. Well, now I'd quickly move on to the garden of Gethsemane, but we won't talk on it for too long because we've already mentioned early on either kind of what happens in the garden in three of the gospels, of course, not in John, isn't it, without with the Kitchon.

But could you give us a sense of the importance of the garden of Gethsemane, some 2000 years ago, because obviously you have the story, but like the archaeological, the historical context of of that garden and why it is such an emphatic place for the climax of this betrayal story of Judas to happen. It's probably the opposite way around the garden of Gethsemane has become,

“I mean, I think it was just probably just a place, and you know, it's an olive roof,”

and because it becomes the place of the betrayal, it probably becomes a place of prominence. So again, those questions about the various histories, well, but yeah, when in the garden, after the last supper, Jesus takes the disciples there and takes a couple of them, I'll be a bit further, and then famously praise that the cup might pass in by. And of course, this leads to some later criticism of Christianity, some Greek Roman modelists, kind of say,

"Well, you'll look at your Jesus who comes cowardly, compared with them, and you'll see socrates who willingly goes to his death." I'm not particularly convinced, they can say many are particularly important place for the story other than that that's where it happens. And of course, the sort of the way which sets up this idea that Judas needs to take, but it's recorded, so it's somewhere that Judas can take the soldiers. I mean, again, that is this kind of historical

question why wasn't Jesus just arrested, but Mark kind of says, "Well, the chief priests were frightened to the people, so they wanted to do it when not during the festival, when there's lots of crowds, but of course, then they end up doing it during the festival just away from the place." So there's some textile problems there as well. Right, okay. So to climax here now, Paul, you mentioned his diversity. So it seems like there is largely

leaning towards Judas as a real figure, but, Paul, he's explained this fascinating argument that actually maybe the betrayal story linked to him was added later, was an invention. Yeah, so this is probably a minority of you, because some people would say, "Well, if you're going to invent a story about Jesus being arrested, you wouldn't invent being one of his close followers." And indeed, that's one of the criticisms you get with some figures, actually, as

Celsius said, Oregon has a dialogue with Celsius, and he says, "Well, you know, I've been much of a leader, and if one of his followers comes against them." But again, if you think about it, well, what are the gospel writers trying to do? They're trying to show that Jesus is in control and that the crucifixion is part of God's plan. So actually, Jesus knowing that one of his followers is going to betray him wouldn't be particularly problematic, seems to me. But as I've mentioned, the story

is really flat. There's no motivation, not just basically suddenly says Judas goes to the chief

priest and agrees to betray him. So obviously, what inspired them to do that, there's just nothing in the story to suggest that Matthew just follows Mark and Luke tries to explain it by satin, as I said, John gives him a motive, but then doesn't know what to do with them. He doesn't need to be necessary. The question then, as well, if we look to earlier traditions, then do we find a story of Judas? So there isn't much of this earlier, so we'll get the letters of Paul,

and some people think that, as well as using Mark, Matthew and Luke had another independent source, which we call Q. This is Q. So it has been said, German for source, really. So this is a saying source, which Matthew and Luke, they've got a lot of overlaps that aren't in Mark. So when we got to Paul, there are two maybe relevant traditions here. Paul recounts the last supper, and a lot of translations say on the night in which Jesus was betrayed and Jesus did great

and give thanks. But the work for betrayed is part of the divide, which just basically means handed

over on a rested, in fact, in ancient Greek. Yes, in Greek. So John the Baptist is the same word after John was, there is some folk that think that this also has some kind of cosmic overtones.

“You have to John the Baptist is delivered by God out the way so that Jesus starts his ministry.”

And I think you can get this that same idea. So could just me on the night Jesus was arrested

Paul, Paul doesn't always answer the questions we're wanting to ask. But if you ask, kind of,

who handed Jesus over? Well, in Romans, Paul does say that God handed Jesus over, and actually in deletions he suggests that it was actually even Jesus handed himself over. So Paul's kind of cosmic gospel of Jesus being crucified and resurrected and handed over doesn't actually require a human author. And Paul also uses exactly the same word that was translated to betray to say, "I'm handing on to you, this tradition." So the same word. So there's no reason.

No, that's just as it started. But more significant, Paul talks about the resurrect, that's, and this is, these are both from one Corinthians, probably about in around 54 or 53. In what it contains 15, Paul describes the resurrection of Genesis. I mean, he's keen to show that Paul is, he's just as much of an apostle, because he's seen Jesus. So he says, "Your Jesus was

crucified and body to God's scriptures." So the third day he goes again, according to the scriptures.

And then what's really importantly says, he appeared to Peter to see us and then to the 12. Now, Paul is probably quoting an earlier breach there. So something that probably was back, maybe even into the 40s or just a few years after Jesus was crucified. But he appeared to the 12. Now, that I'm calling an intact 12 tradition. So Paul doesn't seem to know about a disrupted 12. You, as I've mentioned, look and Matthew, go out of the way to call the

assemble disciples the 11. And I suspect that they know this tradition about into the 12 and they're making that point. So Paul seems to, doesn't seem to have any idea of a renegade disabled tradition that is somehow separated from that. There's another tradition and the cuter tradition, which if it's earlier than the gospels, where it's Matthew 19 and

“wherever it is and look. And where Jesus says to the disciples, remember the cuter source is”

probably a saying source. So things that were collected prior to the writing of the gospels. You, the 12 disciples, will be on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. So again, this 12 ness is really important. So that again only works if you have this kind of intact 12. And then in the book of Revelation, which probably had it finished form at the end of the first century. But again, it's probably a complicated textual history. You have the Holy City where the 12 foundations

are the 12 apostles of the lab. Now it's only looked at this interest in making the 12 up again. So again, if this tradition is, is earlier than the, you know, an early tradition within it, you have kind of these three traditions of an intact 12. But they're appearing to the Peter and to the 12 seems to me to be a pretty knockdown case that in the earliest tradition, you don't have a renegade disciple who is separated from the rest. And that would then explain

“why the story of Judas is so flat. Right. And I think Judas enters into the story because”

whole describes the last upper, the crucifixion and the resurrection. Paul has given virtually nothing about the life and teaching of Jesus. So the gospel writers, when they try to put this into a story form, have to somehow get Jesus from the upper room to the cross. So you've got to get my rest at somehow. And so it seems to me, it could have been done in other ways, but it seems to me that Mark or maybe somebody just like the before Mark, at attaches this

betrayal, this handing over to one of Jesus' disciples. No, why Judas? Well, Judas is always

last in the list of apostles. It might be nothing more than that. So I think it's easier to demonstrate that there's an absence of this venegade disciple tradition than maybe explain why it him onto Judas. But I think there's a quite clear lack of knowledge of this, the trail tradition in their the earliest strands. Well, Paul, you've put forward your case there. I mean, I do find it very fascinating to think that Judas could have become the full guy after his demise. And you know,

had all of this attached to him, but as you say, you know, still lots and lots of debate around this. Yes, both like historical figure, one of the 12 disciples, but that big question of could that betrayal have been added later. It's a fascinating area of history that you've committed lots of time to study. Yeah, well, it would be ironic, again, for this iconic, you know, the thing we know about Judas, this this betrayal, the end to the extent where

“it's the archetypal betrayal. The 30 pieces of silver, I think almost certainly invented.”

But the betrayal itself, yeah, I think that this is a tradition which is as early as it's in Mark, but before that, it's not there. And yeah, this kind of archetypal betrayal, again, it could be just

this villain for all time. Well, it's funny how things happened, Paul. I mean, if it wasn't the case,

“then you wouldn't be studying Judas in such detail. We wouldn't be having this podcast conversation”

today. And so much, Paul, this has been absolutely brilliant last, but certainly not least,

you did mention you are writing a book, currently about Judas? Yes, it's called redeeming Judas

“a scariot, the life death and after life of an invented villain, hopefully it'll be a couple of”

years today. Wow, okay, what a title. Paul, it just goes to be, thank you so much for taking

the time to come on the show. Well, there you go. There was Dr Paul Middleton talking all of

“things Judas is scariot. I hope you enjoyed the episode. Thank you so much for listening.”

Now, if you've been enjoying the ancients, please make sure that you're following the show, whether that be your Spotify or whatever you get to your podcast. That really helps us and you be doing us a big favor. If you'd also be kind enough to leave us a rating as well, but we'd really appreciate that. Now don't forget, you can also sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a new release every week. Sign up at historyhit.com/subscrib.

That's all from me. I wish you a very happy Easter holiday weekend, and I will see you in the next episode. [BLANK_AUDIO]