Judas Iscariot, betrayal and idolatry

Research Doctorate - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)In recent times, some commentators from within mainstream Christianity such as Karl Barth, Hans-Josef Klauck and William Klassen have attempted unsuccessfully to defend or exonerate Judas Iscariot. This thesis will assess the evidence for Judas’ betrayal of Jesus. It has three main original contributions to knowledge. Firstly, a thorough analysis of paradidwmi the verb used for Judas’ act of handing over Jesus, will show that it is consistent with betrayal, it is overwhelmingly a divine act and it is normally coercive. Similarly, Matt’s use of hetairos is a master-stroke, continuing the pattern from the LXX and Josephus, where a previously close friend betrays. These two terms alone suffice to establish Judas’ guilt. Secondly, Judas is not only a traitor as he uniquely encapsulates the three main rivals to God – human, demonic and material. Like other human rivals to God, he is powerless, linked with evil and directly judged by God. Satan enabling Judas to betray Jesus (Luke 22: 3; John 13: 2) shows Judas’ betrayal in the worst light but there is a deeper parallel. Both are named rebels, allowed to remain in God’s presence until irrevocably cast out. The third rival is money: ‘You cannot serve both God and money.’ (Matt 6: 24; Luke 16: 13). Judas was paid to perform the divine like function of handing someone over to death. Although human, he displayed the essential features of an idol. Mark’s stark portrayal of Judas’ guilt is only enhanced by Matthew and Luke. If Mark 3 casts Judas as an outsider, Luke 6 calls him prodotns. If Mark 14 links Judas with the chief priests in plotting against Jesus, Matt 23 inserts three parousia parables to show presumed disciples of Jesus being exposed in increasingly severe terms. Finally, Judas’ disrespectful ‘Rabbi’ to Jesus in Gethsemane (Mark 14: 45), when he knew Jesus was so much more reflects the oral element of blasphemy in 1st CE Judaism. Abrogating to himself the divine privilege of handing over may fairly be called blasphemy by action. In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence to show that Judas is a traitor and a blasphemer who has all the essential literary features of an idol. The electronic form of this thesis uses BSTHebrew and SPIonic. Quotations in English are taken from the NIV, unless otherwise indicated. SBL abbreviations are used