The Place of Judas Iscariot in Christology

Anthony Cane

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9780754652847
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351884174
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Exploring the significance of Judas Iscariot for Christian theology and the difficult issues surrounding Judas, Anthony Cane shows that focusing on the tension between providential and tragic interpretations of Judas in the New Testament and in subsequent writing about Judas, is the key to understanding his significance. Building on the work of Karl Barth and Donald MacKinnon, Cane's argument sheds light not simply on the way Judas is understood, but on the way Jesus and the whole economy of salvation are understood. This book also highlights implications for the way in which issues relating to anti-Semitism and evil and suffering are most effectively explored.

Chapter 1
Judas in the New Testament

The handing over of Jesus in the Passion remains a mystery…¹

Hans Urs von Balthasar

There is an irony to any examination of the biblical material concerning Judas, in that it requires attention both to the earliest Christian texts and some of the most recent, namely the work of biblical commentators. This chapter, therefore, is necessarily both a discussion of New Testament texts and the exegetical material that is a prerequisite for beginning such a discussion. It has been undertaken during a period when the academic discipline of biblical studies has been reforming and reassessing its practices, and a plethora of competing and contrasting interpretative methods and approaches are available.² It is no part of this chapter to make judgements on, for example, the merits of form or redaction criticism (which dominated exegesis for much of the previous century) in relation to ‘newer’ phenomena such as literary and social-scientific approaches. The impetus to this particular exegetical chapter is provided by the theological issues and themes identified in my introduction, and insight into these will be accepted from whichever quarter it comes.

Immediately a decision has to be made. Would it be better to examine each Gospel discretely, so respecting their particular narrative and theological emphases, or to assess parallel and related texts ‘side by side’? For the purposes of this book the latter option has been taken. The Gospels will not be discussed separately; rather similar material from each gospel will be compared. Care will be taken, however, to attend to differences in treatment in the light of the overall trajectory of each gospel. Raymond Brown helpfully describes such an approach as combining both horizontal and vertical study of the gospels.³ He points out that such an approach can bring to light nuances of approach and insights that might be missed if one gospel was examined individually before moving on to the next.

The intention here is to offer a close reading of the New Testament references to Judas, bringing to bear ‘a good deal of self criticism to filter out later associations’.⁴ Interpretations and translations that arise from the weight of centuries of Christian tradition about Judas rather than the texts themselves (or from exaggerating aspects of the texts) will be resisted. If this sounds like an unnecessary statement, on the basis that biblical commentators and exegetes already clearly operate within a tradition of close attention to the text, what follows in this chapter will show that there is some justification for making it. One striking example will suffice at this point. It is widely recognized that the Greek verb παραδίδωμι means ‘to deliver up’ or ‘hand over’, yet it is almost invariably translated as ‘to betray’. Young’s Concordance⁵ lists many of the New Testament references to παραδίδωμι under ‘betray’, even though there is another Greek word which does have that meaning but which is rarely used in the New Testament – προδίδωμι.⁶ This issue will receive further attention later in this chapter.

The aims of the chapter are twofold, therefore. First, to offer as thorough an exegesis of the New Testament texts concerning Judas as is possible within the parameters of this book. Second, to discern the theological issues and difficulties emerging from such exegesis. In pursuit of these aims, the intention will be to avoid building on arguments in the biblical commentators that are not self-critical enough in being influenced by later associations, either about Judas’ ‘character’, or about textual matters (such as the meaning of ‘Iscariot’, shortly to be discussed). This will clearly be a difficult task, as the line between judicious and injudicious interpretation can be hard to draw when the weight of the tradition is as it is.

Rowan Williams has commented that any attempt to understand Arius and his followers ‘so far as possible in their own terms, is beset with difficulties’.⁷ Some of the difficulties he has in mind concern precisely the weight of received opinion and later associations mentioned in the previous paragraph. Arius, like Judas, has been demonized and then (by way of overcompensation) cast as theological hero. Williams judges the project of avoiding such polarities in order to better understand Arius in his own terms worthwhile, as the Arian problematic is formative of what came to be considered orthodoxy. Analagously I consider the attempt to understand the problematic place of Judas Iscariot in Christology is worth making, particularly as (as I have argued in the introduction) speculation in the direction of ‘comfortable falsehoods’ is perhaps the commonest and most tempting way of resolving, rather than facing, difficulties and ambiguities in individual texts and the overall treatment of the role of Judas in the gospels. A truthful engagement with the central narrative of the Christian faith, moreover, surely requires that such difficulties and ambiguities are faced rather than glossed over or avoided.

1.1 ‘One of the Twelve’

The first mention of Judas Iscariot in the synoptic gospels occurs in relation to Jesus’ nomination of ‘the twelve’. The list varies, but in each case begins with Peter and ends with Judas. It is made plain that the call comes from Christ and him alone, as in Mark 3.13–14:

And [Jesus] went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. ¹⁴And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him… .

Christ ‘makes’ or ‘appoints’ the twelve, which most commentators see as implying the creation of a ‘new Israel’, for the nation of Israel had originally been composed of twelve different tribes named after the sons of Jacob (Genesis 35.22–26). Mark and Luke, but not Matthew, refer to the twelve as ‘apostles’, which is the occasion for a number of commentators⁸ to discuss whether or not this term could truly to said to have originated with Jesus as opposed to the early Church. Others debate similarly about the many references to ‘the twelve’.

The synoptic writers are not content simply to list Judas’ name, but immediately identify him, and him alone, with an action. Matthew 10.4 and Mark 3.19 both have: ‘…and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him’ while Luke 6.16 has, ‘Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.’ The result of this identification will be that there is no real narrative surprise for the reader in relation to Judas in the way that there might be, say, in relation to the denial of Peter. The implication is that ‘we knew all along’, and in particular that Jesus knew all along – as is explicitly spelt out by John 6.70 (‘Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?’). The further implication is that if the action attributed to Jesus had not been foreseen, this would undermine the gospel in some way. This is a theme that will receive further discussion later.

For those who seek to argue for the historicity of the twelve, Judas is often invoked as evidence. Vincent Taylor, for example, writes that, ‘It is a striking tribute to the historical fidelity of the gospels that the presence of a traitor is so frankly disclosed.’⁹ However, many also consider that the presence of Judas in the list of disciples ‘brought no doubt a timely warning that discipleship did not mean immediate perfection but left open the hard road of temptation..Λ¹⁰ It seems, on these accounts, that the gospel writers may have had good homiletic reasons for including Judas in the list of the twelve; and yet also have been tempted to leave him out. That these arguments work in different directions is unremarked in the commentaries. They illustrate also that exegetes often see references to Judas as requiring justification, which commonly takes the form of an instructional point of some kind.

The issues requiring discussion here are first Judas’ name, particularly the appellation ‘Iscariot’ (which distinguishes him from the ‘Judas son of James’ of Luke 6.16), and then the identifying phrase about ‘betrayal/handing over’ or ‘becoming a traitor’. The former can be achieved relatively briefly, whilst the latter requires more extended treatment.

That my examination of the possible meanings of Judas’ name can be concise is not because of any paucity of critical literature. Much has been written about the possible meaning of ‘Iscariot’ and what it might reveal about the background, reputation, career or motivation of Judas.¹¹ No one theory, however, has achieved widespread acceptance, and consequently little can be deduced about Judas with any certainty. The arguments have tended to focus on the meaning of ‘Iscariot’, with proposals ranging from the appellation indicating that Judas was from Kerioth, or was a bandit, to that it was a nickname meaning ‘liar’ or ‘false one’. The latter, argued in a seminal article by William Torrey, is potentially the most significant as if proven, it would be crucial evidence as to how the gospel writers understood Judas. However Torrey’s argument has failed to win critical approval, on both linguistic and other grounds.¹²

Albert Ehrman, for example, points out that ‘all changes of name or the addition of nicknames in the NT are always explicitly noted’¹³ and therefore argues that Iscariot was Judas’ natural surname. Harald Ingholt argues that even if Torrey’s linguistic argumentation is accepted, ‘one might perhaps have expected another word than saqar [liar] to express the particular sin of Judas.’¹⁴ Brown agrees: ‘…no NT account has Judas lie about Jesus.’¹⁵ For Ingholt the natural reading of the gospels would be that Judas had the surname Iscariot from the start. It was a common name, needing a distinguishing accompaniment. This is why there is a Judas the son of James (Luke 6.16) and a Judas Barsabbas (Acts 15.22) elsewhere in the New Testament.

William Klassen, following a review of the relevant material, is correct to write that ‘Regretfully we conclude that no clear light is shed on the personality of Judas by the word Iscariot. Moreover, the theories that try to explain Iscariot diverge so widely from each other that nothing can be built on them.’¹⁶ The verdict of Gustaf Dalman is similarly apposite: ‘It is a very plausible conjecture that [Iscariot] was already unintelligible to the evangelist.’¹⁷ Whilst the latter may seem like speculation of the kind I am seeking to avoid, Dalman’s main point is that any meaning the gospel writers may have perceived in the suffix is not intelligible to the contemporary reader with any degree of certainty or usefulness.

Very few commentators comment on the name ‘Judas’ itself. Harald Ingholt refers to ‘Judas, “the Jew”’ as a name that is ‘colourless and lacking in individuality’.¹⁸ Hyam Maccoby has argued that Judas was described as ‘traitor’ precisely because his name is that of the Jewish people, though he argues this mainly with reference to particular interpretations of the New Testament material in the subsequent tradition, rather than from the New Testament texts themselves.¹⁹

1.2 Translation matters: παραδίδωμι

J. Morin²⁰ has tried to prove that Mark 3.19 (see above) could mean ‘Judas Iscariot, that means, the one who handed him over.’ Brown points out Mark has written a ‘that means’ clause just two verses before (James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder). This indicates the usual way to write such a clause and that the common translation of 3.19 is correct: ‘Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him’.²¹ Where this conventional translation is inaccurate, however, is that the form of παραδίδωμι used is closer in meaning to the ‘hand over’ of Morin’s suggestion than to ‘betray’.

Here, then, the discussion moves from the first part of Judas’ identification in the synoptic lists (his name) to the second (his action). The standard lexicon for classical Greek by Liddell and Scott defines παραδίδωμι as having the primary meaning of to ‘give, hand over to another, transmit’, to ‘give into another’s hands’ or ‘deliver up, surrender’.²² They note that it sometimes has the connotation of treachery or betrayal, citing instances ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Judas in the New Testament
• 2 Judas and the Tension between Providence and Tragedy
• 3 Judas’ Participation in the Footwashing and Last Supper
• 4 Judas’ Place in the ‘Handing Over’ of the Son
• 5 Judas’ Repentance and Death
• 6 Judas and Christ’s Descent into Hell
• 7 A Christology Facing the Tension between Providence and Tragedy
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Index