The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

by Leolaia 60 Replies latest watchtower bible

Diogenesister

You are just a nut who likes to use big words
Leolaia? Definitely not! One of the most, if not the most scholarly person to ever post of this forum PS.
peacefulpete

I think he was directing that at me but by extension Leolaia. For that matter Crossan, Thompson, Allison, or any other of the many scholars that recognize the intertextual character of the Gospels. Like I said, it's got me baffled.
Jeffro

I don’t think PS was referring to the esteemed Leolaia, who last commented on this thread 15 years ago (and whose absence is a significant loss to this forum). If he was referring to Leolaia’s posts, it certainly isn’t rational, due to Leolaia’s consistently excellent work, and absence. If PS is ‘tired of dealing with armchair exJW scholars’ (and wants to make up things about their motivations or subject knowledge) he’s entirely welcome to leave the forum.
PS has in different threads claimed to be Catholic, Jewish, and non-religious depending on how his views are expected to be received. But his recent remarks included a snide and unwarranted assertion that others supposedly ‘just want the Bible to be wrong’. Therefore whilst he obviously has a high degree of subject knowledge, his recent comments also betray significant personal bias.
careful

P.P.,
Now I see that your P.S. was not "Postscript" after your fist paragraph, but PioneerSchmioneer. Sorry that I missed that!
Yeah, Loelaia is sorely missed. So many of the early group of posters here have gone on.
PioneerSchmioneer

I am a woman, the daughter of a Jewish mother, and a father who was Catholic who became a JW and left.
I was raised as all three. I left the Watchtower after being horribly abused by an elder--and no one came to my aid, and no one believed me. So I am used to being pre-judged by a mob of others who have the wrong opion of me. I am no stranger to that.
My words were directed solely towards Peacefulpete because Pete was talking about the subject of "Judas Iscariot," and how Judas was "invented" by means of "midrash." He did not stick to his guns and failed to make his case.
Peacefulpete could do nothing but "cut and paste" from other sources when discussing midrash--not explain it.
I could explain the process of midrash. Pete could only point to other names and sources--some of which said the exact same things I did if Pete only looked closer--which obviously Pete did not. It was horribly irritating.
In the end, Pete was just going in circles, using words to muddle the argument about "midrash."
I had talked to Peacefulpete on here several times on other threads, and it was the same thing. It is like a circus with Peacefulpete, a cut-and-paste fiasco. I am not talking about anyone else.
Don't cut-and-paste answers at me, Pete, when they have nothing to do with your original argument.
Don't jump around from subject to subject like JWs do in the field service when they can't win a debate.
And don't start making assumptions and spread gossip about someone behind their back when you don't know anything about them. You judge people in the Kingdom Hall for doing that about you when you left. And you do that to people when then want to leave here?! Goodness!
Grow up, Pete. Next time you meet somebody, stick to the subject at hand. Argue only a subject matter you have mastered. And don't try to prove your point by citing an authority. If you can't discuss a subject like midrash from memory, you don't know it. Don't cut and paste a Gentile at me. At least you should have cited a rabbinical authority.
Now, if you don't mind--I think I've deserved a reason to leave. If people jumped to conclusions about you in the same way, I am sure you wouldn't feel welcomed either, would you?
(And no, I am not going to be reading your comments from here onward.)
Jeffro

So I am used to being pre-judged by a mob of others who have the wrong opion of me. I am no stranger to that.
Fallacious appeal to sentiment.
The rest is basically ‘how dare you talk about something if you don’t know it as well as I do’. Supreme arrogance.
peacefulpete

Wow. Sorry to hear of your experience and sorry to have triggered some deep feelings. I have come to a better understanding of the strict definition of words like midrash for Jewish readers. The quotations/citations I provided were to illustrate the use of the word in a larger context. Perhaps an alternative terminology would be more sensitive. All the best to you.
peacefulpete

On top of all that, the tribes of Judah and Issachar are adjacent to each other (i.e. Iudas Issakhar in LXX) in Deuteronomy 27:12, and the following curse occurs a few verses later: "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person" (v. 25).

Perhaps the Number 7 passage that deals with the inaugural sacrifices at the Temple are relevant as well. Notice the first two to bring sacrifices and gifts to the alter were tribes of Judah and Issachar.

10 And the rulers brought for the dedication of the altar, in the day in which he anointed it, and the rulers brought their gifts before the altar.
11 And the Lord said to Moses, One chief each day, they shall offer their gifts a chief each day for the dedication of the altar.
12 And he that offered his gift on the first day, was Naasson the son of Aminadab, prince of the tribe of Judah (Judas)....And he brought his gift, one silver charger of a hundred and thirty shekels was its weight, one silver bowl, of seventy shekels according to the holy shekel; both full of fine flour kneaded with oil for a meat-offering....15 One calf of the herd, one ram, one he-lamb of a year old for a whole-burnt-offering;
16 and one kid of the goats for a sin-offering..18 On the second day Nathanael son of Sogar, the prince of the tribe of Issachar, brought .
19 And he brought his gift, one silver charger, its weight a hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels according to the holy shekel; both full of fine flour kneaded with oil for a meat-offering.

The close proximity to the words "silver" and 'thirty shekels might have contributed to this usage.
peacefulpete

I realize the impression I left P.S. was one of obfuscation. And in her impression was I was ignoring her retort. So, though she has left the conversation, I wish to respond to few of her comments.
The mythology of the gospels aside, the rabbi known as Jesus of Nazareth was destined to crucifixion, no matter what as the priesthood of the time had no sympathy for messianic pretenders that publically embrassed them while creating powerful movements consisting of sympathic followers. Rome likewise did not appreciate anyone calling themselves "king"....
This argument pretty much ignores the larger thesis, the questionable historicity of Jesus and events described as occurring to him. The earliest evidence suggests that the "rulers" described as crucifying Jesus were thought of, not as Romans, but cosmic, spirit rulers who in fact do not recognize the Christ at all. And who if they had would not have unwittingly done God's will. Paul, even in the form we have today, retains this idea. The ascension of Isaiah too describes the efforts to disguise the Christ and the duping of these spirit rulers. If anyone wishes this can be discussed further, but for now, this is why I do not find the objection raised by P.S. persuasive.
peacefulpete

I realize the impression I left P.S. was one of obfuscation. And in her impression was I was ignoring her retort. So, though she has left the conversation, I wish to respond to few of her comments.
The mythology of the gospels aside, the rabbi known as Jesus of Nazareth was destined to crucifixion, no matter what as the priesthood of the time had no sympathy for messianic pretenders that publically embrassed them while creating powerful movements consisting of sympathic followers. Rome likewise did not appreciate anyone calling themselves "king"....
This argument pretty much ignores the larger thesis, the questionable historicity of Jesus and events described as occurring to him. The earliest evidence suggests that the "rulers" described as crucifying Jesus were thought of, not as Romans, but cosmic, spirit rulers who in fact do not recognize the Christ at all. And who if they had would not have unwittingly done God's will. Paul, even in the form we have today, retains this idea. The ascension of Isaiah too describes the efforts to disguise the Christ and the duping of these spirit rulers. If anyone wishes this can be discussed further, but for now, this is why I do not find the objection raised by P.S. persuasive.
Another character, like Judas Iscariot, handing him over as a betrayer is an invention? Unlikely. Judas is actually just the name "Jude," which was slightly changed so as not to confuse it with the name of the brother of Jesus who is also named Jude. (John 14:22) There is also the prophet named Judas Barsabbas mentioned in Acts 15:22-33.
Again here we have an argument from the standpoint of historicity as well as not appreciating the layered nature of these traditions. The addition of Jesus' "brothers" has been discussed at length elsewhere, and in short may have been a part of a larger effort to "disprove" the popular docetic arguments of the day. It created a family for Jesus and therefore he was not merely an appearance of a man. Tertullian argues in such a way, he denies the perpetual virginity of Mary for this reason. Considering that Docetic Christianity posed a threat to the burgeoning orthodoxy, it not surprising that we find elements included in the text that would not have been there earlier when the Docetics formulated their Christology. The confusing mess of Jameses illustrates the evolving nature of these traditions. James the Less, James the Greater, James the Just, James "brother of the Lord" (Galatians, as opposed to Apostle with whom tradition later conflates), James the son of Joseph but not Mary (Gospel of James) James the brother of the high priest Jesus of Josephus etc. It is my view that this confusion/conflation of Jameses combined with the Pauline spiritual usage of the words "brother/s of the Lord" enabled this anti-docetic development. Suddenly Jesus of Nazareth has brothers and sisters. It is the same with Jude/Judas/Judah. Here is a character in some texts an Apostle in others a brother, tradition often conflates the two. The names of the Apostles, likely props to equate the new Israel with the 12 tribes, are inconsistent and suggestive of alternate traditions. (2 James, 2 Johns, 2 Judases created by taking the Gospels together) IOW, there weren't 2 Judases in the original list.
Sorry about the duplication, I was distracted and ran out of time.

The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

Share this