Talk:Judas Iscariot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.



Can someone confirm that the following is a strictly "Roman Catholic" theory? "his different father would be explained by the Roman Catholic theory that Jesus' so-called "brothers" were really his cousins" I personally doubt this, and would assume that the Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholics, and other Christian faith traditions that believe Mary was an actual virgin would also hold this (linguistic-oriented) theory, as well.Zerobot 17:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be fair to call it a "predominantly Roman Catholic" theory or something like that, but it is certainly not only a Roman Catholic theory. For Martin Luther, called the father of Protestantism by some, himself said
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
I hope that helps. Mitchell Powell (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Motivation of Judas[edit]

This part is all wrong. It's definitely not encyclopedic material. It asks too many questions and tries to infer too much. I would delete it but I want to see what everyone else thinks first. SkepticMuhs 08:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Iscariot may derive from sicari, or dagger-man , a cadre of Jewish rebels intent on driving the Romans out of Judea. Although Judas's name became synonymous with "betrayer," he may have turned Jesus in to the Romans because he felt Jesus had betrayed the rebel movement. (anon.)

I have a lot of doubts regarding both this etymology and the general perception of Jesus as some rebel leader. The rebellion against Rome (or rather, a civil war in Judaea) started in 66 A.D., more than 30 years after Jesus's supposed death. Moreover, anywhwere that I looked up, the name Iscariot is a corruption of ish qrayot (other transcriptions are possible), "a person from villages" / "a person from Qrayot". From a random Web search, the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to back me up on this. Any suggestions? --Uriyan

Ahalan, Uriyan! Looks like you beat me to it. SLR, what is the source of that etymology. It certainly does not work in the Hebrew/Aramaic and does not account for the initial I. In Hebrew, he has always (to the best of my knowledge) been known as Ish Kerayoth. Now, an article on the Sicarii (there are two i's) would be interesting. Danny

Aramaic, not Hebrew. Why would Hebrew come into it? The "-ote" is a Greek suffix meaning "-ite" or "-ian." If you think "Iscariot' is not identical to "Sicariote" you'd better "axe" a linguist! Where are these "villages" in any contemporary text anway? Why is this etymology made so controversial? that's a reasonable question. Wetman 15:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

BTW, the idea of Jesus as a rebel leader is not a new one. It is a major theme in Asch's book The Nazarene. Danny

Jesus does not have to be a rebel leader, Uriyan and Danny must understand, merely because Judas is labelled a Sicariot after the fact. This is not about Jesus being a rebel leader. This may be no more than name-calling. Wetman 15:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I will have to do some more checking on the etymology. I just remember several histories of Roman Judea describing, among the various factions (Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes) etc. a group of people called "sicarii" meaning basically insurectionists. Some of these books speculate (and I admit it is just that) that "iscariot" is derived from sicarii. I really thought this was common knowledge. By the way, the reversal of a vowel and consonant is common in language change. Today we call things that fly in the air "birds" even though the original word was "brids." Many today use the word "aks" to describe a question -- perhaps in a couple of centuries know one will say "ask" any more. This of course does not prove that the I and S in Judas's name was switched, but it opens the possibility.
As for the dating -- although a rebellion against Rome started in 66 CE, there was constant rebellious activity in Judea uner Roman occupation. You could say the rebellion started many years before Jesus' birth. For example, according to Josephus Herod the Great had two religious leaders executed for rebellion. In 6 CE Varus had two thousand rebels crucified. Around 48 CE two Galilleans were crucified for insurrection -- to choose "66" as a starting date is arbitrary, in this context. 66 marks the year that the rebellion became open and widespread.
In all 4 accounts in the NT, Pilate asks Jesus if he is "king of the Jews" -- the charge is sedition. Of course, there is good reason why this element of Jesus' career is toned down in the NT (although there are many textual indications of it): in the early years of Christianity (after 70, and especially after 135) Jews did not want Jewish Christians to go around preaching that Jesus would return as messiah. Once Christians turned principally to Gentiles, and gave up on converting many Jews, there was no sense to presenting Jesus as messiah in the Jewish sense (kick out the Romans, become king); a new notion of messiah would be more appealing to Gentile Romans, and this form of Christianity is expressed in the NT slrubenstein

By the way, I am not satisfied with the Catholic Encyclopedia as a definitive source. Aside from the fact that encyclopedias should rely on fresh research, and not other encyclopedias, for documentation, the Catholic Encyclopedia is obviously biased. I looked at the article and it does indeed assert that Iscariot means, without doubt, man of Keriot. But it does not provide an account of any academic debates (if there are any), nor does it provide the reasons for which it reaches this conclusion. In fact, the article (I only skimmed the rest of it) seems to rely entirely on NT quotes and references to Church Fathers. I didn't see any reference to contemporary texts or linguistics or anything else. slrubenstein

Hi, slr! First of all, I agree with you that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the most reliable source. Nevertheless, I continue to hold that Iscariot is derived from the Hebrew Ish Kerayoth" for purely philological reasons. Here is the argument for it:

  1. The term Ish XXX, meaning "Man of XXX" was a common appellation at that time. Examples include Nahum of Gimzo (Nahum Ish Gimzo), a legendary Tanna who appears in the Mishnah, and John of Giscala (Yohanan Ish Gush Halav), who is described by Josephus as a rebel leader in the Galilee.
  2. While I accept the possibility of a consonantal shift in the name, there would have to be some evidence of this occurring in other, similar transliterations of names from Hebrew/Aramaic to Latin/English. I've worked on a lot of those texts professionally, and no such shift comes to mind. On the other hand, it is common in other languages: the Albanian national hero Skanderbeg was originally Alexander Bey, but the shift occurred in the Albanian itself, not in the transliteration.

("Iskander" for "Alexander" --as in Arabic --is actually very germane to the Iscariot/Sicariot issue. That has absolutely nothing to do with Albanian.Wetman 15:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC))

  1. The Hebrew name for as far back as I can trace is Yehudah Ish Kerayoth, pronounced 'Ish [preceded by a glottal stop], Ke [the e representing a shewa] ra yoth. Stress is on the last syllable.

(Derivation of "-ote" comes when the original Aramaic is made Greek.Wetman 15:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC))

  1. To assume that the name is from Sicarii requires a) a consonantal shift of the i and the s to justify the Is syllable, justification for the ot syllable at the end of the word. Ot (really oth), by the way, is a common Hebrew suffix, indicating the plural, most often for the feminine gender.

(Written vowels in Aramaic?

  1. Iscariot does not require any of these explanations. The "Is represents the word Ish (the Hebrew letter shin used to represent the sh sound, is often used for the "s" sound as well, as in Yisrael/Israel. Furthermore the transliteration system began before the formalization of sh as representing that sound in English. Cariot is almost the exact equivalent of Kerayoth (say it fast a couple of times), with a simple shift of stress to the first syllable because of the addition of the suffix Ish. The stress shit can be attributed to the prefixed "Is."
  2. The letters "sc" as transliteration appear again in the aforementioned Giscala, which is Gush Halav, the initial H being a guttural het. C appears in transliteration in place of certain sounds close to "k". Halav is sometimes transliterated chalav to represent the sound, while kerayoth is, more properly, qerayoth.
  3. In all other of transliterations of biblical or mishnaic Hebrew, an initial letter I indicates the combination yod hiriq, combining to form the syllable yi. That does not exist in Sicarii
  4. Apart from the historical vilification of Judas Iscariot, what evidence is there that he also belonged to a secretive band of assassins?

Sorry if it's kinda technical, but you asked about the linguistics … By the way, the Bible and later the Mishnah are full of false etymologies, intended to provide some insight into the character of the person or object. Sicarii as a source for Iscariot could well be one of those. Danny

Danny, I don't have any response to you -- this are good reasons to support Ish Keryot. I am not a scholar of Roman Judea, and my mentioning the sicarii was not an argument but a reference to something I had heard. My question is not "what is the real meaning of Iscariot;" my question is, do all scholars of Roman Judea agree as to the origin or meaning of Iscariot? If no one takes "sicarii" seriously, it should be cut; if many scholars agree with your reasons for supporting ish keryot, your reasons should be incorporated in. If there is any debate among credible scholars, I think that debate should be mentioned here. I must leave it to someone else to take this article further, I have read only a few history books. slrubenstein
Also, for what it is worth the very plausibility of your explanation would explain why the emendation I suggested might have happened. These kinds of error in verbal or written transcription occur in the direction of "more inteligible" or "more sensible," not less. In other words, a couple of cneturies after the fact, a transcriber may have read "sicarii" and thought, "This doesn't make sense, it must be a mistake" and made a correction to something that sounded a lot more reasonable -- "Is Keri" and so on. I am NOT claiming that this is what happened -- I still cannot prove it and your explanation is plausible. To prove it would require other evidence I do not have. I am just suggesting that if it did happen, it happened in something like this way, slrubenstein
Hi slr! I really mean no offence hear, but you seem to be grabbing at straws. Unfortunately, I haven't got all my resources with me at the moment, but I will try to see what I can find. It would have to be a pretty early source that made the transcription error, because all the early Aramaic sources I know say Ish Kerayoth, including photographs and slides of the earliest parchment codexes that I have seen with him mentioned. I will look around some more, see if there is a source for the sicarii interpretation. I actually think it happened the other way around. People heard the term sicarii (which was generally a negative term) and attached it to Judas. Thus a mistaken etymology was born. I'll keep checking Danny
Though it might be wrong, it's definitely been proposed. It's mentioned in "Life of Jesus", although the author says it's dubious: he cites Vito Fornari, Della vita di Gesù Cristo (1949). So, I think it deserves mention. Graft
I don't really have anything to add to the discussion, but I got to this page by searching for Skanderbeg through google. I'd like to mention that he was born under the name Gjergj Kastriot, was given the titles bey and Iskander (or whatever the spelling would be). In Albanian, the transliteration became Gjergj Kastriot Skënderbe. The Albanian language has all sorts of endings for names (depending on how it's used in a sentence) so you might see several kinds of spellings such as Gjergj Kastrioti, Skënderbeu, etc. In English you usually see Skanderbeg or George Castriota. All this makes it rather hard to find all the different spellings of a name in Wikipedia. Dori 05:35, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding this text in the opening paragraph:

However, other accounts say Judas was merely the designated facilitator of a prearranged prisoner exchange (following the money-lender riot in the Temple) that gave Jesus to the Roman authorities by mutual agreement, and that the "traitor" aspect was a historical distortion.

What other accounts are being referred to here? I'd be curious as to what else they might say about Jesus, and non-Christian historical sources about Jesus seem to be few and far between. Wesley

I'm deleting the sentence listed above. The non-Christian accounts of Jesus, such as Josephus and Tacitus, do not mention any such thing. It appears to be pure speculation not attributed to any source. Wesley

Been a while since I read the Inferno, but wasn't Judas in one of the three mouths of Satan, getting chewed on? Graft

Indeed, that is the case (found my copy):

In each of his three mouths he crunched a sinner,
with teeth like those that rake the hemp and flax,
keeping three sinners constantly in pain;
The one in front-the biting he endured
was nothing like the clawing that he took:
sometimes his back was raked clean of its skin.
"That soul up there who suffers most of all,"
my guide explained, "Is Judas Iscariot:
the one with head inside and legs out kicking.''


by pointing him out to arresting Roman soldiers Not exactly. Check the documents. Wetman 15:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Under the section 'Motivation of Judas' the text refers to Satan 'entering into Judas' - What is the bible reference for this? (sorry, would look it up but don't have a bible to hand).

The etymology section is curious - especially the rejection of a sicarii etymology not for the very good reasons listed in the above discussion, but simply because of the timing of the rebellion. Cross-referencing other wikipedia articles, even Church scholars put the absolute earliest gospel being written at 40CE, which makes it at least contemporary or later than the sicarii and therefore while Judas as a historical person could not have belonged, he could very well have been anachronistically gifted with a last name of this etymology for his appearance in the Bible (or even just a fictional character with this symbolic name). It strikes me as very odd that fairly weak dismissal remains in that section, while a very well fleshed-out argument against it sits hidden in the discussion page. -- (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased and/or Subjective?[edit]

This is a quote from the article:

Philosophical Questions

Judas' actions, and the divine punishment he receives for them bring up many similar troubling philosphical questions.
If Jesus foreees Judas' betrayal then Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus
If Judas can not control his betrayal of Jesus, than his punishment and portrayal as a traitor in western culture is undeserved
If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is being punished for saving humanity

Many of these themes are brought up in Three Versions of Judas, a short story by Jorge Luis Borges.

My question (I am a little new here) is: would it be appropriate to change it to something like "For some people, Judas' actions, and the divine..." or something similar?

Sure thing. One thing you'll hear alot in Wikipedia is: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages! Anything you can do to add to the Wikipedia:NPOV of the article would be great. I just added these to round out the theological issues. Welcome to wikipedia! -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:05, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
P.S. It's customary to sign talk pages with ~~~~, which appends your signature and a timestamp like so : DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:05, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Tslag 21:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

If the themes are worth discussing, then it's best to concentrate on Jorge Luis Borges' use of Judas Iscariot and keep your own self in the background. A report is always more encyclopedic than a personal rumination. Wetman 22:09, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A seperate question: where in the bible does it say Judas is sent to hell? i've never read the new testament, so if someone could find a passage regarding this, that would be good. Xunflash 16:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Xunflash--I am fairly certain that the New Testament never explicitly condemns Judas to hell, although Judas is referred to as "son of perdition," in John 17:12, which some take to be a reference to his eternal damnation. Also, there is the statement in Mark 14:21 (make of it what you will): "The Son of man does indeed go as it is written about him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had never been born." Mitchell Powell (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Judas Prohibition Eras[edit]

"In fact, in some jurisdictions it was against the law to name an infant Judas." The jurisdictions and the period would make this more informative. --Wetman 06:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) Just because JAHOVAH knows and sees all things that ever happened [HE created time, us and life so HE sees all of time in a whole] HE knows everything that will ever happen in everyones life [thus the predictions about Judas and his betrayal] dos"nt mean that HE is unrightous in telling what HE knew Judas would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of Iscariot[edit]

I removed a chunk of text suggesting that 'Iscariot' comes from Aramaic. There are two main theories about the meaning of the name: a strong Hebrew-origin theory, and a weak Latin-origin theory. All other theories stand weaker.

The name is presented in Greek as Ισκαριωθ (Iskariôth) and Ισκαριωτης (Iskariôtês). This gives us a few clues: the second version is the first with a Greek ending tacked onto it. Therefore, the first, indeclinable version is likely to be the original name. As -ωθ (-ôth) would be a good representation of the feminine plural ending in Hebrew or Aramaic, it is likely that the name comes from either of those languages. It would be unlikely that a man would be given a feminine name, and therefore it is likely that this ending is part of a construct state. The Hebrew word איש (îš) means 'man', and this has been found as the first element in other topical surnames. It just so happens that there is a place called קריות (Qrîyôth) in Judah, which is mentioned in Joshua 15:25 (there's a place of the same name in Moab too). This name is the plural of קריה (qiryâ), meaning 'town'. Therefore, it seems reasonable to interpret 'Iscariot' as the Hebrew surname איש־קריות (Κ–Qrîyôth). Note that this cannot be Aramaic: the first element is clearly Hebrew. The derivation from the Latin sicarius just seems to be far more contrived, as it is improbable that Latin had any impact on Judaea. --Gareth Hughes 15:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For contemporary usage of Latin sicarii in Judea, there is Josephus. --Wetman 23:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any way to improve this "Bible history"?[edit]

  • "Judas Iscariot, son of Simon Iscariot..." Apparently we think "the Iscariot family" carried this as a surname... Thus "Mrs Iscariot, mother of Judas..." and so forth?
  • "...Tyrian shekels, the only coins accepted at the Temple of Jerusalem." This is a new understanding of numismatics and the economy of Antiquity. Or is this just a fanciful projection of modern foreign exchange problems: "I'm sorry we don't take those Canadian quarters here..."

The level of historical understanding here is apparently on a par with the etymological understanding. So, I have added to the text:There are two major theories on the meaning of this name the following each of which must satisfy certain expectations in order to be credible: Let us work out what are the requirements for any believable etymology— without pushing our candidates. Let us enter those prerequisites in the article. Prerequisited includes parsimony, contemporary parallels, etc. Then the reader can decide. That's an authentically neutral point-of-view (not the same as "NPOV" alas!) --Wetman 02:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greek Misinterpretation[edit]

I watched a three-hour three part piece on the Discovery Channel about Jesus and there was a historian who mentioned something about the fact that when looking at the Greek of the text or something there is one word (which I am not sure what it is and I think it would be great if we could find out what it is) that he believed was misinterpreted. The word when used in all other Classical writings etc. is used to mean "hand over" but when associated with Judas the meaning has been changed to "betray". He believed this was a misinterpretation and that at the Last Supper Jesus did say to all the disciples something along the lines of, "One of you will betray me..." and then turned to Judas and told him to do what he had to do, but that none of the other disciples suspected or even thought that Judas was the betrayer. They simply thought he was either going out to give money and food to the poor so they could have a Passover meal or going out to set up preparations for the disciples Passover meal (or something of the sort). The historian mentioned how it was written that Judas was the only disciple that Jesus referred to as his friend and that Jesus probably chose Judas to hand himself (Jesus) over to the priests.

I came to Wikipedia to see what we had written up about Judas and was pleased to see that you had included sections stating that perhaps Judas had not betrayed Jesus etc. because it is good to get all sides of the story, but perhaps if we can find out about this word and the misinterpretation that would add a good bit of fact to some of the other claims. Have you or anybody else heard of what I have mentioned? I will keep looking, nice article though. --Nadsat 22:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Greek word you're looking for is παραδιδωμι (paradidōmi). Its most basic meaning is 'to hand over'. It is the same word that is used in the Pauline Epistles (1 Corinthians 11.2 for example) to describe the handing down of the traditional eyewitness accounts. Therefore, the word doesn't have the negative connotations of the English 'betray', but its context shows that that is what is meant: Judas is the one who hands over Jesus to those who want him dead. It would be wrong to draw too much out of the use of this word, as its meaning is always part reliant on context. Gareth Hughes 11:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the word, its been bothering me for days. Okay, I just thought that it was a more factual backing perhaps to why Judas might not actually have been the one who technically "betrayed" Jesus. I realize that its meaning is part reliant on context and that's why I thought it significant. The fact that humans have translated this word to mean "betray" when referring to Judas, versus its usual meaning of "to hand over" shows that if the word is looked at as it usually is, Judas merely handed Jesus over to those who wanted him dead, (as you said) but the significance lies in the fact that this handing over might not have been malicious and perhaps something planned that Judas "had" to do. Therefore it was not really betrayal and is only looked at that way because of human error. If you think best not to include it, that's fine, I just don't really understand. Thanks for the help with the word, again. --Nadsat 01:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

lost gospel ?[edit]

Apperently there is some discussion about a "possible" lost gospel from Judas which is found back again. Why is there no mention of it here?

Wilbert 17:15, Apr 05, 2005 (GMT)

Interesting, but probably nothing earth-shattering. It's a Gnostic gospel, which is generally about as valuable as a Chick Comic. The Gnostics were extremely prolific and inventive, but pretty far removed from the original Christians ideologically. Graft 20:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For a less dismissive view, Wilbert may want to see Gospel of Judas. --Wetman 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Portrayal of Judas[edit]

A few modern critics of European culture assert that in paintings and art of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, while the other apostles are portrayed as powerfully built Northern Europeans, Judas was given stereotypically Jewish characteristics. Specific examples of such portrayals in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, however, are hard to come by.

I added that "specific examples are hard to come by" because I thought it might flush out one. This text is an interpretation of what someone feels ought to be true, perhaps. Can anyone identify an actual European painting where Judas stands out as a "Jew"? German late Gothic panels would be a good place to start hunting. This is certainly not a familiar convention. Any reason to keep it?--Wetman 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

DaVinci's Last Supper?

Five years ago, in Colmar Museum (France) there was a renaissance-period painting - alas I did not note the painter's name - in which just one of the disciples was clearly given stereotypical 'jewish' features. Judas, of course.(wooolfy 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))


The song 'Potters' Field by Antrax seems to be about Judas and his betrayal. And I feel that Metallica's 'The God That Failed' is also of the same betrayal. "Healing hands held back by deepened nails". And I am sure I'm not the first to think of the latter.

I added a reference to Leon Rosselson's "Stand Up For Judas" awhile back; that reference seems to have gone away. While I concede that the English folkie is hardly a household name, I'd contend this song is at least as significant as some professional "wrestler" being referred to as "Judas". I don't want to get into a "revert war" but I would like to petition for restoring the reference. (Note: the "David Campbell" listed as performing the cover version on "And They All Sang Leon Rosselsongs" is not me.) --Davecampbell 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
On further investigation, it appears the entire section on songs referring to Judas was deleted in "Revision as of 16:59, 29 April 2006;". I don't see any discussion as to why that section was deleted. I propose to restore it, but not without discussing it first. Anyone have anything to say about it? --Davecampbell 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've re-added and fleshed out the reference to "Stand Up For Judas" here, and in the pop-culture article as well. --Davecampbell 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ive added Coldplay's Lost+, with the rap from Jay-Z in the pop-culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Religions[edit]

It is believed in Islam that when Judas tried to surrender Jusus Christ to the authorities, God exchanged the two persons' bodies and faces. So, Jesus looked like Judas and Judas looked like Jesus. The "police" took Judas instead of Jesus and crucified him. God then raised Jesus to Heaven without being killed. Hamadamas 10:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard about this claim. However, as far as I know, the Qur'an, Surah 4:156-159, in its account of how Jesus was not really crucified, never names Judas. Is there another part of the Qur'an I haven't heard about, or is there some citable source within Islam that holds this view? Otherwise I suspect--although I am far from certain one way or another--that this story cannot be used in wikipedia. Mitchell Powell (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Judas is evil, not as the traitor, but as the suicidor.[edit]

The great significance about Judas is not his treason but his suicide. Should he repent, the other 11 apostles would have needed to forgive him and reconcile with him and he could wander the Eath preaching like the other Apostles did and suffer martyrdom. He would be venerated, even bigger sinners have reformed to become saints. It was his suicide which made him unredeemably evil, because that was the great crime against nature, not the treason.

          • Hmmm... curious to know if there has been scholarly speculation that (assuming Judas existed) the man's death may not have been a suicide but made to look like one? 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it was a hit. Probably by the Hittites, who specialized in that craft. Wahkeenah 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Judas" as a reproach[edit]

Do you think Wikipedia will soon need an article List of occasions when "Judas" was used as a reproach ? It's beginning to look like it. --Wetman 10:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Judas window[edit]

Somewhere should mention that the word "judas" or "judas window" means a peephole in a door. it's not worth having it's own article.

I am new to this discussion and not an expert either. But I noticed that the article states that Jesus was arrested by "Roman soldiers". Actually I believe that he was arrested by armed guards or henchmen employed by the Jewish authorities and wasn't turned over to the Romans till later. Thank you.

Because the above two paragraphs are unsigned, I cannot tell whether they are a single contribution or (as I suspect) two separate comments by two authors. But as to the first paragraph, there does exist on wiktionary an entry for "judas/judas-hole" here: And as to paragraph two, the Gospel of Matthew is consistent with your view, describing the initial arrest/seizure thus, "While he was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priest and elders of the people" (26:47). The other two synoptic gospels speak the same way. John, however, adds that included in the mob were a "detachment of soldiers" (18:3). It is not specified whether these soldiers were Roman or some sort of Pharisee "henchmen" or "armed guards." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell (talkcontribs) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does this have photographs requested?[edit]

I think photography was a little bit after Judas's time. Ken Arromdee 05:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken that out. Ken Arromdee 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

New Judas Info[edit]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Judas Iscariot, vilified as Christ's betrayer, acted at Jesus' request in turning him over to the authorities who crucified him, according to a 1,700-year-old copy of the "Gospel of Judas" unveiled on Thursday. In an alternative view to traditional Christian teaching, the Judas gospel shows the reviled disciple as the only one in Jesus' inner circle who understood his desire to shed his earthly body.

Source : [1]

I think the quotation marks around "Jesus" and "Judas" should be removed in the section "Gospel of Judas". They imply that the persons mentioned in the text are not the same as the ones mentioned in the Bible, and there is no reason to suppose so. --Tail 12:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Seen this. Go to to see more info. of this nature. Martial Law 06:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Jesus didn't ask?[edit]

It said in the first line that Jesus asked judas to betray him, which, according to biblical texts, is quite innaccurate. I've changed it so that it says that he is said to have betrayed him, which is somewhat more accurate in my opinion.

I think maybe he knew he would betray him...but that it was possible that Judas might have a change of heart. He did look for the better in people, after all!

Philosophical Questions[edit]

I cleaned this section up a little. There were remarks throughout that was not NPOV, attempting to discredit the philosophical questions posed. They served no purpose but to confuse the reader and distract from the observations. User: 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You were right to delete that stuff, but I've got a hunch the entire "Gospel According to Judas" is going to prove to be an elaborate fraud in any case, kind of an "antiquified" version of the Hitler "diaries" or the Howard Hughes "autobiography". Wahkeenah 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I just Undid my revert to's changes. Please include a edit discription if only a small one. It makes vandalism easier to spot, Espesially with articles like this which are prone to vandalism. Orangutan 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

General Improvement[edit]

I'd like to see this article come closer to featured material. I started today with a variety of edits - adding wikilinks to articles (Temptation of Jesus, Arrest of Jesus, Jesus and the Money Changers), improving the grammar (inc. removing several misused commas), and tidying up some of the sentence structures. Any thoughts? - Slow Graffiti 01:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Date of Death[edit]

How can anyone accurately detail the time of Judas' death? According to Matthew, 27:5  :

               "And throwing the down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; 
                         and he [Judas] went and hanged himself."

By this account, Judas committed suicide before Jesus even died.

They havent detailed the time of his death. Its somewhere around 28-33CE. That’s not particularly accurate...

Its more accurate than the date of death for Zoroaster which is 3000-560 BCE. Clinkophonist 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

About the time of Judas' death see this article of the Journal of Biblical Accuracy: Judas: When did he die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavros69 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Last April I added a detail from statue of Judas in Malta. This was removed. Why? Maltesedog 11:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Going to Heaven[edit]

OK, many forms of literature (and the movie Passion of the Christ) suggested that Judas might had gone to Hell. But many Catholics believe that you can be the biggest sinner in the world, but you can go to heaven if you are truely sorry for your sins. In the bible, Judas admitted that he had sin and even feels bad to the point where he threw away the 30 pieces of silver and even asked the king (or what ever type of ruler he was) to release Jesus. It seems like he was truely sorry for his betrayal. Isn't it quite possible that Judas would had gone to Heaven?

I'm fairly certain Jesus said something about his betrayer, to the effect of the betrayer soon coming into a very bad situation.... Homestarmy 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It never really said in the bible that Judas went to Hell (that's what I think, I could be wrong). Maybe the bad situation was being hung and/or feeling guilty.

Actually, Jesus's actual quote (and I don't have a bible handy, so look it up on your own) was 'better that man was never born', or the like. This implies eternal damnation, though Jesus said this of others in the past (...those who prey on the 'littlest' of the fold...) so you could open this up to interpretation, but that quote makes me think that good ol' Dante got it fairly right in his Inferno, eh? ;)

-I'm not an expert, but the bible doesn't say anywhere that Judas went to hell, right? This article suggests that he goes to hell...

Am I missing it[edit]

Or is the information according to the four Gospels of his time spent with Jesus missing? 04:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, you appear to be correct :/. I don't see any conspicious edit summaries to indicate it being deleted for some reason either.... Homestarmy 04:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems user Rara vandalised that section on 18 October and missed by a bot, I think it has been fixed now, but someone may wish to check Gazjo 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Judas and logic: half-truth ?[edit]

Some good questions are posed on the thread relating to Judas.

[edit] Philosophical questions

Judas is also the subject of many philosophical writings, including The Problem of Natural Evil by Bertrand Russell and "Three Versions of Judas", a short story by Jorge Luis Borges. They both allege various problematic ideological contradictions with the discrepancy between Judas' actions and his eternal punishment.

If Jesus foresees Judas' betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control his betrayal of Jesus, then he is not morally responsible for his actions. The question has been approached by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, which differentiates between foreknowledge and predestination, and argues that the omnipotence of the divine is not sufficient grounds for eliminating the existence of free will.

If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is being punished for saving humanity. This goes hand-in-hand with the "free will" argument, and Aquinas's Summa deals with the issue of free will in demons and other beings instrumental in the life of Jesus that are nevertheless damned. This becomes a moot point in some denominations that denote Hell, not as a place of everlasting torture, but as non-existent state of the dead and the common grave of mankind.

If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross, and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then Judas has suffered much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus, and his role in the Atonement is that much more significant.

Does Jesus' plea, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do," (Luke 23:34) not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas' sins?

It has been speculated that Judas' damnation, which seems to be possible from the Gospels' text, may not actually stem from his betrayal of Christ, but from the despair which caused him to subsequently commit suicide. This position is not without its problems, but it does avoid the paradox of Judas' predestined act setting in motion both the salvation of all mankind and his own damnation.

What if Jesus knew he was going to die? Presumably he did. Was his purpose for coming not to cleanse the world of its sins? Perhaps Judas was all part of His master plan. Was Satan working through Judas? Since Satan failed in his temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, this may have been his second act of betrayal to God.

Some additional viewpoints:

Truth number one, is that Judas, like Peter may have been pre-destined to their roles. Peter to deny Jesus, and Judas to betray Jesus.

Regardless of his role, the role of Judas would have been insignificant in his role to die; Jesus had as his mission a role which he would have to provide.

So is there a purpose to the role of Judas ?

Is it to show that we should not prejudge others, and ourselves to our purpose relative to the 'way of the cross' as it relates to Christ.

Is it to show an abstract representation to us that in some cases we are predestined for actions that may appear inappropriate to us at the time, but are important to the message of Jesus Christ, and that we should not 'betray the cross' and the role we will play relative to the wishes of God ?

In my opinion, Judas provides 'the role' of betrayal, not that he betrayed Jesus Christ, but that he betrayed his role, by taking his life, in light of an action that was in his eyes a betrayal, but in the depths of prophesy was critical to the message from within and from without.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the apparent contradiction[edit]

I have removed some material from this as I don't think it's really up to the required standard. I have taken out suggestions that 'hanging' has any meaning other than the conventional one (if someone can produce evidence that the word was used that would be a different matter).

I have also removed the reference to 'types' - there may well be a good case to be made for this point of view, but this one isn't it. The citation is to what appears to be a Christian apologetics hobbyist site, which cites the Toronto Journal of Theology, only to admit that the author of the article in question does not in fact to support the idea.

This article suggests that "There is a consensus among modern scholars that Matthew's story of Judas's death is a midrashic exposition". Perhaps someone with expertise in this area could add to this section here? Rbreen 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed an apparently speculative section here, because it has remained unsourced for weeks. There needs to be a more substantial basis for this kind of argument. Rbreen 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it is full of typographical and punctuation errors, the entire second paragraph of this section consists of personal opinion and should be removed unless it can be written in a non-POV manner and site sources. 07:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted to the earlier version, we need cited sources for this. Rbreen 14:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Judas and Antisemitism[edit]

There seem to be some good examples of Judas displaying stereotypically Jewish features in mediaeval and Renaissance paintings on this site [2] (the site focuses on the implications of Judas having red hair) LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical Questions[edit]

In the passage "The question has been approached by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, which differentiates between foreknowledge and predestination, and argues that the omnipotence of the divine is not sufficient grounds for eliminating the existence of free will." it seems to me that "omnipotence" should be "omniscience," which refers to the infinite knowledge of God, rather than the infinite power. What do you think? Zerobot 17:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Roman authorities?[edit]

Roman authorities? Should this not be the soldiers of Caiaphas? -- Grammaticus VII (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which use of the words "Roman authorities" you're referring to, but if you're speaking of the reference to Jesus being arrested by the Roman authorities, I'm not sure it should be changed. The situation is this (forgive me if I'm leaving out some details): In the three synoptic gospels, a mob is referred to as coming to get Jesus. In John, the mob also includes "a detachment of soldiers . . . from the chief priests and Pharisees." The first question, then, is whether these "soldiers" were Roman soldiers who were "from" the Jewish authorities in the sense of being sent at their demand, or whether they were personal soldiers, not from the Roman army, in the employ of Caiaphas or the chief priests or Pharisees. But even if the solders are in fact not Roman, Jesus was by all accounts turned over at some point to Roman soldiers, and this could be referred to accurately as an "arrest" by Roman authorities. However, as far as I know the phrase "soldiers of Caiaphas" appears in no account. Hope that helps. Mitchell Powell (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Judas may have hung himself around the waist when he hanged himself (hanging), then fell forward or backward (falling headlong), causing his stomach to split open and his innards to spill out on the ground. This theory brings together the two Christian-accepted deaths of Judas into harmony. -- (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But why would you hang yourself around the waist? I have heard it suggested that the word "hanged" here (and elsewhere in the Bible, e.g. Haman being "hanged" in the book of Esther) should actually be translated "impaled". If this was the case, it would help to align the two accounts - Judas went to the field and threw himself on a sword/spear/etc and his guts spilled out. Seems more likely than someone's body bursting open by merely tripping! No idea if this is correct. (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Death section[edit]

"The Gospel (Matthew 27:9-10 ) presents this as fulfilment of a prophecy "which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" (cf. Zechariah 11:12-13 )." The Book of Zechariah has both money and field from the prophecy "spoken through Jeremiah". Removal of one verse to create a contradiction where one does not exist, especially without cited RS, is OR. I've reverted this again to the proper context of the two verses in Zechariah, and removed the OR statement about "no prophecy". Faith (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain how a reference to a prophecy by Jeremiah can be cited as a prophecy by Zechariah? --Rbreen (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
As soon as you explain why your replacement should be allowed under WP:OR ;) Seriously, the sentence isn't cited, and it's obviously OR. Whether it was recorded by Zechariah after Jeremiah prophesied it, or whether they both prophesied it, or whether it's a transcription error is something that will need to come from cited sources. My opinions on the matter would only be that, also OR. However, the Scripture citation shows it is in the Book of Zechariah with a cross-reference to Matthew, making it a RS citation (which doesn't need to be ref'd separately, because it's in the Biblegateway citation). I do not have to fix the OR statement; I only have to show why it's OR and remove it. However, I tried to make a middle road by both fixing it and placing the proper Scripture citation to support my fix. Faith (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm simply stating the obvious fact - the citation is to Zecharaiah, not Jeremiah. You appear to be suggesting that the citation to Jeremiah actually means Zecharaiah, even though it doesn't say so. And you accuse me of original research? --Rbreen (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort for the article (I specifically stated "My opinions on the matter would only be that, also OR"). However, as far as the article is concerned, Matthew verses are cross-referenced to the Zecharaiah verses on (and elsewhere), which is included with that RS citation (Cross references: Matthew 27:9 : Zech 11:12, Matthew 27:10 : Zech 11:13). Any speculation that has been included in the article as to Jeremiah v Zecharaiah is OR. Faith (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Edit: BTW, there is some interesting coverage of the topic at Christian Thinktank if you actually looking for a possible answer. 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello friends. Normally the Bible is almost transparently easy to understand, but indeed this is a notoriously difficult set of texts to explain. It requires understanding the orginal languages and the conventions that held at the time they were composed. Even with these things, there is room for scholars to disagree.
You are both right, in my opinion. That there are apparant contradictions between the texts is obvious to even a casual reader. I rather like this, personally, 'cause it shows the Bible isn't a careful hoax with no internal difficulties.
Anyway it is a classic example of where editors could be tempted to "cover up" an inconsistancy or to magnify it unreasonably.
One excellent, recent, professional treatment is found in Maarten JJ Menken (Catholic Theological University, Utrecht), 'The Old Testament Quotation in Matthew 27,9-10: Textual Form and Context', Biblica 83 (2002): 305–328. Happily this is even available online. The same article is reprinted in a book by the same author, Matthew's bible: the Old Testament text of the evangelist, which discusses Matthew's treatment of Old Testament quotations throughout his gospel.
In cases like this, I think it is wise to go for the highest level of scholastic reference available (journal articles), and usually to check for any diversity of opinion in these works. Given the complexities, it would be bizarre if scholars all thought precisely the same thing. Journal articles are often better than monographs (regular books), since monographs are published if editors think they will make money, reflect the ideology of the publisher and pass basic style and fact checking. Journal articles, on the other hand, must pass a peer review by experts in the field, often specifically chosen from divergent schools within the discipline the journal serves.
Anyway, I think the particular issue that's prompted the discussion above is a very complex one. The apparent inconsistencies are not easily swept away, however, they are not ultimately fatal to the reliability of the Bible either. I'm afraid I think covering the issue from reliable sources is the only way forward, and the best sources are not easy to read because many technical issues need to be invoked.
The positive side of this is that the question is very interesting. People who just want a yes or no answer without any reason why can always skip over the text to the conclusion. As for me, though, I love it when it gets complicated. :)Alastair Haines (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've now read Menken's whole argument, I'm very impressed. A simple, non-technical summary is as follows. It is a feature of Matthew's gospel that he explicitly presents events in Jesus' life as fulfilments of prophecy (this is well-known and obvious to a casual reader from chapters 1-4 alone). Matthew appears to use the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint) like many other New Testament writers. (Obviously only experts can make judgements like this, but it is uncontroversial among them.) Matthew's writing, on close scrutiny, shows evidence of adaption of OT quotes to an existing gospel narrative like Mark (widely believed by scholars to have preceded Matthew). It also shows some adaptation of narrative to suit quotations. There are apparant constraints on how far Matthew will adapt things to make his point. For example, he doesn't change major facts of the narrative, and stays close to word-for-word quotation from the LXX. However, some things appear to be of less importance to Matthew and he smooths them for the sake of his reader and the point he is trying to make. (We do the same kind of thing in newspaper reports, where quotes are partial and relevant, and only the most significant events are covered.) The narrative concerning Judas (and more importantly Jesus) and the quotation(s) (plural according to Menken) are the most freely adapted and most awkward in context of all Matthew's OT quotations.
Menken points out how similar a Jeremiah passage and the Zechariah passage are, especially in conceptual theological terms. He suggests Matthew was using both, adapting them to the Judas narrative, and adapting that narrative to the quotes. The adaptation is most questionable, yet most relevant at the point of reference to "the field". As this comes from Jeremiah, Matthew cites the source most important to validating the connections he is making. We need to remember that writing in those days had not developed quotation marks and footnoting in the way we have in modern texts. Matthew's point in citing Jeremiah is to flag (for those with ears to hear) the source of his modification of Zechariah, he goes no further, since he is mainly telling a story, not providing exegesis (contrast this with Hebrews or Paul's epistles).
I think Menken's detailed analysis of words and phrases and even manuscript variations is thorough, clear and plausible. I'm sure we would find similar comments in reviews. His general idea (sketched above) is not, in fact, new; however, the painstaking treatment of details and reconstruction of Matthew's issues in composition is outstanding.
One sentence summary: according to Menken, Matthew drew on parallel prophecies in Zechariah and Jeremiah, cutting and pasting to suit the context, and citing Jeremiah since that is the source a reader might overlook unless it was mentioned explicitly. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, CTT covers Menken's ideas, if not quoting him directly. It's a reasonable proposition, especially since Jeremiah would be considered the major prophet. I don't object to pointing out there is diversified opinions on the matter among scholars, as long as it's supported with proper citation and parapharsed or quoted accurately. I do object to editor OR, from either or any direction. (Thanks again Alastair) --Faith (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You are very welcome Faith, I also agree with you that less technical sources than Menken are preferable for the article. In many ways Menken is a source that many readers would struggle to evalutate, which undermines the verifiability principle. Because Wiki is a team effort, has unlimited space, and caters for readers which include technocrats, sources like Menken are worth finding and footnoting imo. But I trust your judgement in selecting text and sources that are more user-friendly, while retaining reliabilty. Happy editing! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply Menken was not a good source. I was saying no source was bad. I think your addition is just fine. Faith (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, no, my apologies, on reflection I see you are right and I put words in your mouth. Naughty me. You are quite right, any reliable source is good, and it often doesn't hurt to have more than one. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"the historical Judas"[edit]

I'm surprised to see how much of this entry takes Judas for granted as a historical figure, rather than simply an allegorical stand-in for Jews (thus the name "Judas"). This debate gets skimmed over at the end of the entry, when it probably belongs at the top of the page. (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the policy of wikipedia to give the greatest amount of space to views more commonly held. Therefore, as the vast majority of scholars examining Judas treat him as an individual, and a comparative handful treat him as an allegory for Judaism, the article reflects this. However attractive the view may seem to you, individual feelings about what views deserve priorities cannot work as the basis of organization for an encyclopedia of this scope. Mitchell Powell (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph regarding Tyrian shekels.[edit]

The section "Biblical narrative" has an informative, but unfortunately out of place, paragraph describing the appearance and reletive worth of the Tyrian shekel. This should be removed from the article as it isn't quite relevant to the subject at hand. However, this information would be welcome at it's own appropriate page. Thanks. Reason turns rancid (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite unproductive to delete text that you concede is "informative", simply because you think it might be misplaced. Wikipedia editors do not spend every day checking back to see whether you've decided to delete their text, nor have much desire to edit and re-edit their text until it finally satisfies your particular criteria for publication.
I think that at least the majority of this text was and is relevant, as it describes (1) what the "pieces of silver" looked like, (2) some of their ambivalent religious implications, (3) why the Israelite priesthood would be dispensing such a coinage, (4) how much they were actually worth (how much silver it was). No doubt there should indeed be a main article Tyrian shekel, but even once created nearly this much information should remain in summary of it. Wnt (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need for such detail in this article. The shekels are peripheral to the subject and may well be mythical. If you want to put this information somewhere, create the article and put it there. It does not belong here. --Rbreen (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

redundant text[edit]

The end of the introduction has this text:

Most modern Christians, whether laity, clergy, or theologians, still consider Judas a traitor. Indeed the term Judas has entered many languages as a synonym for betrayer, and Judas has become the archetype of the betrayer in Western art and literature. However, some scholars have embraced alternative notions that Judas was merely the negotiator in a prearranged prisoner exchange that gave Jesus to the Roman authorities by mutual agreement or acted with Jesus' knowledge and consent to ensure the re-enactment of Biblical prophecy, and that his later portrayal as "traitor" was a historical distortion.

Then the exact same text appears in the Modern Interpretations section . I'm not sure what to do this but it just doesn't read too good in this instance.--Woland (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why a point mentioned in the text should not also be mentioned in the lede if it's important enough. But this does seem to be redundant here, besides giving undue weight to what appears to be an unsupported minority position. I'm going to remove it. --Rbreen (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest rather strongly that we put the text back in, although perhaps in an improved form. The lead-in really should provide a good overview summary of the body of the article. That the character and role of Judas has been reinterpreted by many modern commentators is important, as is the contrast with traditional and conservative Christian thinkers who still understand Judas as an almost archetypical traitor. I'm not sure which point of view Woland sees as the minority view (the modern reinterpretation, I think), but I'd argue that both views are significant, and neither should be seen as marginal. The traditional view has affected centuries of art, literature and language, and is the one held by the vast majority of Christians. On the other hand, the modern reinterpretation is showing up as a theme in more and more modern literature. Having said all that, I'd support anyone who could re-write the text to do a better job of this. EastTN (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The "modern interpretation" arguments as to why Judas must have been a late Gospel idea are arguments which can easily be argued against but are not: This causes a BIAS to the article which does not reflect the overall view held by scholars or Christians as a whole. There should just be a simple comment that some argue for the Judas betrayal being a late invention. The reader may wish to know 'how late'? but the detailed arguments should be taken out or placed in a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Motiviation: OR[edit]

Some [citation needed] have questioned whether the monetary value of 30 pieces of silver, itself not an exorbitant amount of money, was the only motivation for Judas' actions. They have also questioned whether or not it was a coincidence that 30 pieces of silver is also the price one paid as liability if their ox had killed another person's slave as required in Old Testament Law (see Exodus 21:28-32). As well as if, after seeing Jesus' popularity declining, Judas was motivated to hand Jesus over in an attempt to force the "hand of God". Jesus often spoke of the Kingdom of God, but was misunderstood. Several times Judas saw Jesus escape capture and stonings (cf. Gospel of John 6:15; 7:30) Judas might have been trying to spur Jesus into a war with the Romans by telling them where he was.

The last reading may be plausible if the etymology of "Iscariot" (see below) could be related to Sicarii, a sect of the Zealots committed to the violent overthrow of Rome. If Judas was a Sicarius then it's possible that he saw Jesus as the Messiah in the fashion expected by the Zealots: a military leader who would defeat and cast out the Romans. If this scenario was the case, then Judas may well have been trying to force Jesus into a position where he had to reveal himself as the divinely appointed warrior-king who would destroy his enemies.

I removed this section as it is all Unsourced speculation. Please re-include with sources proving that this is a Notable interpretation. Ashmoo (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Judes[edit]

I have removed the following section:

Judas Iscariot is mentioned only a few times in the canonical gospels. The apostle whose name is generally rendered in English as Saint Jude was actually named Judas son of James, and outside the New Testament the apostle Saint Thomas is sometimes called Judas Thomas Didymus. Some people have speculated that Judas Iscariot is the same as one or both of these people, and have advanced as support for their theory the fact that some manuscripts refer to Judas son of James as Judas the Zealot, which they link with the theory that the name Iscariot refers to the Sicarii. However, the list of the Twelve in Luke 6:15,16 clearly treats Thomas, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot as three separate people and the list in Acts 1 treats Thomas and Judas son of James as still alive at a time when Judas Iscariot is dead.
John 14:22 indicates that Jesus had a disciple called "Judas (not the Iscariot)," probably Judas son of James or possibly Thomas. The latter identification is less likely, since Thomas is not called Judas anywhere else in the New Testament, but it is supported by many writings in the Syriac church which refer to him by this name. The most famous writings naming "Thomas" as Judas are perhaps the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas. Thomas itself simply means 'twin' and was thus this individual's nickname rather than his actual name.
Another New Testament Judas, Jesus' brother Judas, is referred to in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. He may be the same person as Judas son of James (his different father would be explained by the Roman Catholic theory that Jesus' so-called "brothers" were really his cousins), or, in view of the statement in John 7:5 that "even his brothers did not believe" in Jesus, he may be someone else. In any case, Judas was a common name at the time of the New Testament.

This is about other people in the New Testament called Judas; apart from one piece of unreferenced speculation, which is then discounted, that they were the same person, they do not seem to be about Judas Iscariot as such. If this needs to be in the article at all, it should be in a different place and in very much less detail.--Rbreen (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Another Gospel[edit]

Austerlitz -- (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Islamic View[edit]

Don't Muslims believe that Judas died on the cross and not Jesus? Why is this not in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinnerman1928 (talkcontribs)

I don't know. Do they? If so, find a source and add it! (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Judas and Dracula 2000[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that in Dracula 2000 its indicated that Judas' suicide lead to himself raising from the dead as the vampire lord? Yami (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No... I don't believe that this would be suitable for this article. Taelus (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be appropriate if it was added to a section entitled 'Judas in Popular Culture' or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Gnostic POV[edit]

It could be argued that the current article has a bit of a gnostic POV. Like it or not, Judas is not a terribly important figure in Christianity as a whole, and although his betrayal of Christ did lead to the saving act of the Passion, it is likely that the Passion would have occured anyways without the intervention of Judas. Also, certain fixations on Judas' Jewish background ignore the fact that all the early apostles were Jews and that his name doesn't necessarily mean that the writers of the Gospels were somehow antisemitic. Finally, the real scapegoat in the New Testament is Jesus, not Judas, and it is frankly irrelevant even for scholars to imply that Judas was somehow more of a scapegoat than Jesus, since Jesus is really the one who has the sacrificial role of liberating humanity from its sins, while on the contrary, Judas hangs himself out of shame for having sold out his Lord and Master. ADM (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OR tag on Theological & Philosophical Questions[edit]

I've added a tag to those sections. The lists of questions don't have any source at all, and some of them don't even make sense.

It may be better to present them in prose rather than in list form.ReaverFlash (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The bit about the death inconsistency[edit]

Just for the sake of fairness, I think it should point out that Matthew does mention that the Potter's Field was called the Field of Blood after that. The article as it stands makes it seem like only Acts and Matthew use two completely different fields.. when really the only thing in question is who paid for the field and what precise manner of death it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)



Does anyone know or have any clues about this painting? It LOOKS like a Rennessaince era fresco, but there is no info on it. If it can't be identified and shown to be old enough to be public domain, it might be deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thirty pieces of silver[edit]

How much do you think this article can be expanded? Can you find outside references? - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Early days yet - that's why it has a "newpage" tag. It will, for example, include information on the Tyrian shekel. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If this is where the merge proposal discussion is located, Thirty pieces of silver is such a widely used concept in literature that a page is appropriate for it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The merge tag has now been removed. StAnselm (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Judas" as a reference in popular arts[edit]

Mention is made of a band called "Judas Iscariot" and a Metallica song - but no mention of Judas Priest? Seems like a rather glaring omission, even if beside the point of the article. Just a thought. Pterantula (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Payment for the betrayal[edit]

The Biblical narrative section states:

According to the account given in the Gospel of John, Judas carried the disciples' money bag[8] and betrayed Jesus for a bribe of "thirty pieces of silver"[9]

Two issues here. First, the "money bag" item lacks context, and no relationship is shown here between that and the bribe (although a possible connection is discussed in the Theology section further down). Second, although the second footnote (9) leads to the correct source in Mark, the phrasing suggests that the "thirty pieces" is in John. While Mark states that Judas was promised money for the betrayal of Jesus, Mark 14:10-11, and Luke states money was offered for that betrayal, Luke 22:3-6, only Matthew contains the story of the thirty pieces of silver. See Brown, Raymond E. (1994), The Death of the Messiah, New York: Doubleday. Vol. One, p. 59 (Special Matthean Passion Material) ISBN 0-385-19396-3; Bruce, Frederick F. (1983) The Gospel of John, Introduction, Exposition and Notes, p. 287 ISBN 0-8028-0883-2.

In contrast to Mark and Luke, only Matthew has Judas actually asking for money, which "dramatizes his iniquity". Brown (1994), pp. 119-20, fn. 5. Kablammo (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Gustave Doré - The Holy Bible - Plate CXLI, The Judas Kiss.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gustave Doré - The Holy Bible - Plate CXLI, The Judas Kiss.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 22, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-04-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Kiss of Judas

Gustave Doré's depiction of the kiss given by Judas Iscariot to Jesus, identifying him as the one whom the soldiers of the high priest Caiaphas are to arrest. The Gospels state that Jesus foresaw and allowed the betrayal because it would allow God's plan to be fulfilled, but most Christians still consider Judas a traitor. Following this event, Caiaphas condemned Jesus for blasphemy, and the Sanhedrin trial concurred with a sentence of death. Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for execution, who carried out the sentence against his own wishes.

Restoration: Adam Cuerden
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

"Various attempts at harmonization have been suggested, such as that of Augustine"[edit]

True but I can't find Augustine mentioned in the source. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew in images: please transliterate + unicodify![edit]

In the Etymology section, there's certain images of Hebrew text. Unfortunately, I can't read these. Can someone please transliterate them, and convert them into unicode? I list them here for your convenience, so please feel free to do that either here or there.

  • Hebrew HebrewIscariot-1.jpg "Liar or the false one"
  • Aramaic HebrewIscariot-2.jpg "red color"
  • Aramaic HebrewIscariot-3.jpg "deliver" (1)
  • Aramaic HebrewIscariot-4.jpg "deliver" (2)
  • Greek-Aramaic HebrewIscariot-5.jpg "Iskarioutha, chokiness"

Thanks if you can help. Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon! (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page about material I deleted yesterday[edit]

Hello, Doug,

I'd like to point out why your deletion of my work on "Judas Iscariot" is not only unjustified, but insulting:

Some of it was what we call copyvio, a copyright violation, with material copied from [1] (unless you copied it from yet another source, which is possible - in any case it appears to be a copyright violation).

As I stated in my contribution to the article, the information provided comes directly from the Lutheran Study Bible, the notes and essays of which were created by a variety of professional theologians and pastors and endorsed by their synod, a body of over two million people. And I've never seen the website to which you refer.

It all appears to be your own analysis/research - take a look at WP:NOR - we have a firm policy against original research, our articles should be based upon what we call reliable sources

A body of professional theologians publishing in their denomination's official Bible is not "reliable"? (And again, I cited the actual text; see the previous point.)

Related to that, if a notable scholar writes " best-informed explanation" you can say "X writes that this is the best-informed explanation", but Wikipedia can't say that in its own voice.

That's fine. How would you say nicely that the previous content is incomplete and misleading?

And finally, I see your edit ended up on a blog without any link or attribution to Wikipedia, which is unfortunate.

No, you were lazy or careless, since the link is provided in the words "an article on Judas Iscariot" at the beginning of the second paragraph.

new users often don't realise quite what it means when Wikipedia states it is an encyclopedia.

That might be true, but in this case, you were careless, prejudicial, and condescending.

Is providing incomplete, gravely-misleading, and factually-incorrect content relevant to the faith of more than two billion people "quite what it means when Wikipedia states it is an encyclopedia"?

You've erred, Doug. The work should be restored.


AmillennialistContraMundum (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got me on the blog, I missed that. I didn't miss though that some of the material you added to the article can be found published on the web earlier than your edit and thus is copyvio unless it can be proven differently. I wouldn't "say nicely that the previous content is incomplete and misleading?", I'd find a reliable source (according to our criteria at WP:RS that said it. I am definitely not going to restore anything I consider to be copyvio or in violation of our WP:NPOV policy. And this should be on the article talk page and I'll copy it there now. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It can be proven differently because it's in the book sitting on my coffee table (and in many other homes, churches, stores, and libraries. That's why I was able to provide specific page numbers. Do any of your sources cite specific page numbers?).

And is not the Lutheran Study Bible a "reliable source"?

AmillennialistContraMundum (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Further comments[edit]

"The best-informed explanation for this apparent contradiction" can be replaced by "An explanation for this apparent contradiction". Walther's list is unnecessary and makes this too long, this is one view of the issue and shouldn't dominate. And there is the fact that it shows up in an essay by a Lutheran minister at [4]. I don't know where the editor who added it got it from obviously, but it appears to be copyvio. But as I say, I don't think it belongs here. "And if St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly) to impugn the integrity of Scripture, then he should be allowed to speak fully:" doesn't belong at all, it's more original research. If a reliable source uses Augustine concerning the issue, that source can be used. IDougweller (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A reply to further comments[edit]

"An explanation" suggests that its merit is equal to the other, obviously ill-informed opinions presented. Can you provide a more accurate phrase? (I should have written "alleged error" rather than "apparent contradiction" anyway.)

Is list length a violation of any of Wikipedia's Terms of Use (link, please)? It seems especially inapt as a criticism here, since the list provides the reader with specific evidence for the point being made.

As to from where I got Walther's list, I stated in the content you deleted, in the copy of that content preserved at my site (that was prescient!), and in my response to your reversion above that the information came directly from the Lutheran Study Bible. Now, if providing the title of a book, direct quotations from it, and the specific page numbers where I found that information doesn't "prove" that I did the work myself without stealing it from your minister, then what does?

Does your source provide specific page numbers? If so, where, because I just checked, and I don't see them. In fact, it looks like your link's author is quoting a pastor who quoted someone else's essay, but it's hard to tell, since the work is so poorly cited.

All of which means that you're rejecting my work as plagiarism on the basis of a post that is cited less carefully than my own.

With regard to St. Augustine, he is misrepresented by the contributor(s) whose work you let stand as questioning the integrity of Scripture, so his words on the topic are completely relevant. And my source for that passage is again the Lutheran Study Bible, which itself cites Augustine.

Isn't St. Augustine a "reliable source" for . . . St. Augustine?

AmillennialistContraMundum (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • This jumped out at me on first glance: "best informed explanation" and "if St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly)". We can't say these things in Wikipedia's voice. – Lionel (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A few points come to mind rather quickly.
1) As per our article Lutheran Study Bible, that book is written from a Lutheran perspective, which, honestly, isn't a surprise. But this article, like all articles in wikipedia, is supposed to be written in a neutral, NPOV, more or less "objective" sense. I have serious problems believing any study Bible is written from such a perspective. And, yes, there are any number of Bibles, and study Bibles, written to reflect and perhaps reinforce the opinions of a given denomination. As per policies and guidelines, we are not supposed to prefer any of them over any others.
2) As a source which is, basically, also supposed to reflect the best current research, we also should use the best current research, which, in general, refers to academic sources. Again, I have serious questions whether the Lutheran Study Bible qualifies as one of the best academic sources out there. Nothing against it, but a study Bible is more of a devotional, rather than scientific, work.
3) Regarding Augustine: Augustine wrote a huge body of material. Several sources have a tendency to "cherry-pick" a given quotation which supports their position, while ignoring others. That sort of thing has happened a lot, including in some academic sources. We try to avoid that here. While I do not doubt that Augustine gave the quotation provided, it is harder to know that it is reflective of his thought as a whole. Also, there is the question exactly how much weight as per WP:WEIGHT to give his religious thought in this, which is basically primarily an overview of the entire range of material on the subject of Judas.
4) In general, as a rule of thumb, we like to more or less have content, and sources, which reflect those of the best academic sources on the subject. This includes reference works. If it could be demonstrated that these sources and material reflect those of perhaps the most highly regarded reference works which discuss Judas, that would be very useful. Otherwise, sources from any single denomination or religious tradition, particularly if they reflect the thinking of those denominations or traditions, should receive no more weight in terms of text and sources than any others.
I think it would be a very good idea if some newere editors were to acquaint themselves with all of our policies and guidelines, including WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, etc. John Carter (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The text removed from the article failed to meet Wikipedia's standards in a number of ways in that (a) it evaluated a source: "the best informed ..."; (b) it attributed motives: "carelessly (or dishonestly)..."; (c) the insertion on the essay in TLSB unbalances the section; and (d) the sources quoted are few and inadequately described (no publishing details): is the study Bible "The Lutheran Study Bible" (Concordia) or the "Lutheran Study Bible" (Augsburg Fortress)?
The acceptability of sources for religious articles is a very complicated question. Wikipedia has to be descriptive and afterwards critical. The requirements of contemporary academic (in the narrow sense of university departmental) writing are coming increasingly under fire as both inadequate and irrelevant:

The academy, for historical reasons of self-understanding, is in the modern world committed to a rationality that precludes the density of commitment and passion that I believe necessarily pertains to serious Old Testament theology.[note: the author recognises some exceptions] By such a statement I do not concede that the academy is "objective" or "neutral" or "scientific", for its commitments are as visible and demanding and exclusionary as those of any ecclesial community. They are, however, very different and therefore in its practice of its rationality it is likely that the academy will never move seriously beyond "history of religion" ["an acceptable, legitimate, and needed undertaking"]. ... ... "both enterprises, academic and ecclesial, [should be] recognised as legitimate... To refuse to learn from such ecclesial scholarship because it is not "scientific" enough strikes me as irresponsible and obscurantist."[n 1]

Bibles, whether described as "study" or not, range from straight translations such as the Revised Version (ASB) with only a minimum of cross-references and notes on textual variants produced by well recognised academics to highly POV ones such as the dispensational, premillenial "Scofield" Bible with its definite theological scheme built into the notes. In the middle there are some study Bibles which are produced by teams of scholars, reflect current knowledge and refrain from denominational interpretations.[n 2] Wherever the Study Bible quoted is located on this spectrum, it is I think permissible to use it as a source for one proposal solving the problem.

The final paragraph on Augustine is not relevant now in that I have eliminated the earlier reference because it was a bit of cherry-picking in that, although the words quoted are he goes on to justify the retention of Jeremiah in the text and uses it to draw lessons.
My suggestion is, providing the particular study-bible is properly identified, to add at the end of the preceding paragraph something like.
'One proposed resolution of the controversy is found in the/The Lutheran Study Bible, the passage "Quotes Zechariah 11:12-13, but adds phrases from Jeremiah 19:11 (a potter's field is used for burial) and an allusion to Jeremiah 32:6-11 (Jeremiah's purchase of land)." '
It should be noted that the extensive quotation from the essay is hardly relevant since it is concerned with the custom of 'chaining' quotes from the OT rather than the problem of their erroneous attribution.
  1. ^ Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament Augsburg Fortress, 1997:p743,4
  2. ^ The Spanish one produced by Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas based on the Reina-Valera 1995 is a case in point.
Jpacobb (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand tone. That is something I would change.

The fact that the Lutheran Study Bible contains devotional content does not mean that its theological, historical, or textual scholarship is in any way questionable. That's poor logic.

Also, the text notes and essays contained in the LSB are written and/or compiled by professionals with earned Master's degrees and doctorates. Dismissing highly-educated Lutheran theologians and editors because they're Lutheran is fundamentally dishonest.

And the Evangelist made no "erroneous attribution," which is shown clearly by the material that was deleted.

Finally, Augustine and Luther are quoted/noted to imply error; their own words and heirs ought to be able to add to the discussion. That they're not indicates strongly a profound bias. No wonder Wikipedia has the reputation it does.

AmillennialistContraMundum (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The above editor does not yet seem to grasp the concept of WP:NPOV. No one is dismissing the source, as he claims above, and I believe that claim itself may well qualify as fundamentally dishonest. They are pointing out that the Lutheran Study Bible is clearly and obviously written from a single POV. Everyone is free to have their own POV, but, as I already said, we prefer academic sources which do not have a clear POV behind them. The fact that individuals have degrees also doesn't actually mean much. Many of the weirdest religious theories I have ever read were written by individuals with advanced degrees. I would urge the above editor, once again, to familiarize himself with all the policies and guidelines. Like all articles relating to early Christianity, about which there is actually little if any hard evidence, included in clearly Christian sources, like the Lutheran Study Bible, it is presenting first, last, and foremost that opinion. We do not have the opinions of Anglicans, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Unification Church, or any number of other religious groups in the ariticle either. Adding one would open the door to all being included, and that would be counterproductive. As I said before, we rely first, last, and foremost on sources of a clearly independent academic variety. These would include the Encyclopedia of Religion by Mircea Eliade or Lindsay Jones, Religion Past and Present published by Brill, and any number of books included in the reference sections of academic libraries. If it can be shown that leading reference works which deal with Judas say the same thing, that will be cause for considering changing. However, any information in a clearly denominational study Bible, and not in independent academic sources, would qualify as POV. And, yes, I would say the same thing about my own copies of the Bible, which I as one of the leading editors in religion and Chiristianity have yet to add, or even propose, for addition to articles. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Every source has a point-of-view, and it's either dishonest or naive to pretend otherwise.

And still more absurd ad hominem. (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"His place among the Twelve Apostles was later replaced by Matthias."[edit] (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Jesus handpicked the Apostles. Matthias was selected by lot. The Bible offers Saul of Taurus (later Paul) as Jesus personal choice.

Of course there's always Acts 22: 9 "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

And your point is? The statement in the text is correct - Matthias replaced Judus among the Twelve - and makes no statement whether his selection was divine or not. Ckruschke (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Bob Dylan[edit]

The famous reference to "Judas" by a heckler at the Manchester concert in 1966 (released in the Bootleg series in the '90s), slamming Dylan's supposed betrayal of his art and his fans, should be included. This is one of the most (in)famous pieces of heckling of the 20th century, and Dylan's on-the-spot response "I don't believe you: you're a liar!" is one of the most gracefully ironic put-downs by a major artist. (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Betrayal by Jesus"?[edit]

From the "Modern interpretations" section:

Bart Ehrman, though suggesting that the betrayal by Jesus is "about as historically certain as anything else in the tradition", argues that what was betrayed was not the whereabouts of Jesus, but his private teachings.

I'm guessing that's probably supposed to say either "betrayal by Judas" or "betrayal of Jesus". Can anyone with access to the original source confirm what it ought to be?--Unscented (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Humanity's alleged salvation[edit]

The phrase 'humanity's alleged salvation', in the opening section, seems to me to be negative and anti-Christian rather than reflecting a neutral point of view. Can anyone suggest an alternative and neutral phrase?

BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This issue was addressed 10 February 2015 - thanks. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Role as an Apostle[edit]

I have restored my edit of 22 March in this section. I accept that additional references other than scripture are needed but the section is headed 'role as an apostle' and needs to include a brief section covering that role, including how it is handled differently in John's gospel. BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The section in the article entitled 'Role as an Apostle' is a relatively recent (2014) addition to this article, which has a long editorial history. It seems to me that a section with this title has to show that Judas shared in the life and ministry of the twelve during the period from Jesus' calling of the apostles to the prelude to His death, because the gospels clearly include him in the mission and empowerment which Jesus gives to them. Clearly it would be good if there were other primary sources relating to Judas' role as an apostle, but I am not aware of any - is anyone else? Origen's Commentary on John's Gospel reflects on Judas' interactions with the other apostles and Jesus' confidence in him (see Samuel Laeuchli, Origen's Interpretation of Judas Iscariot, Church History, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1953), pp. 253-268, available at I'm intending to restore my previous edit on this point, subject to reaching a consensus. Comments please
BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)