Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:00]
A
Are you a parent looking for an independent, flexible and tuition free school in Oregon? Evergreen Virtual Academy offers a dynamic and
- [00:08]
B
tuition free public education with Oregon certified teachers for PK through 12th grade students. Your student gets a laptop, live class
- [00:15]
A
sessions and the ability to chart their own unique path. Plus in person events and social activities all year. When school has no walls, learning has no limits. Learn more and enroll now. Evergreen Virtual Academy evergreenvirtual.org Easter has come
- [00:31]
C
and gone and with it a multitude of religious passion plays in which Judas betrayal of Jesus is played out in front of an audience of the faithful. In my experience, this includes the ubiquitous 30 shekels of silver paid to Judas for his identification of Jesus with a kiss. But was the Empire really so bad at keeping tabs on troublemakers that they needed an elaborate scheme to find him? What exactly did Judas betrayed and can we know why he did it? Stay tuned for all of that and so much more. Welcome to Ms. Quoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman. The only show where a six time New York Times best selling author and world renowned Bible scholar uncovers the many fascinating little known facts about the New Testament, the historical Jesus and the rise of Christianity. I'm your host, Megan Lewis. Lets begin. The name Judas has become a byword for a traitor. Someone who sells you out for their own gain. The fact that Judas betrayed Jesus isn't really a matter of debate, but exactly what was it that he told the Roman authorities? Was Jesus truly that hard to find or did the Gospels not give us the full picture? Before we get into that, Bart, good morning. How are you doing today?
- [01:47]
A
Yep, doing fine, thanks. I'm in my recording studio now and I finally got the AC unit to work. It's getting, getting warm out there. So I'm glad. In fact, it's worrying so. Well, I'm wearing a sweater.
- [02:01]
C
No. It's getting a bit toasty in Maryland as well. Actually. Before we start, and this is a little bit of a random one, I wanted to ask what career path you'd have chosen if you hadn't gone with academia.
- [02:13]
A
Wow. Okay. Yeah, that's random and it's a short answer. I have no clue. I'll tell you, I had no interest in becoming an academic. You know when you start thinking about like what you want to do with your life. I, I didn't think much about it till I was probably in high school and I thought, I didn't know what I thought I'd be a businessman or something. I didn't know my, my dad was in business and I really couldn't figure out what I wanted to do, you know, And I, like when I was in, in high school, I was thinking, you know, maybe I'll sell real estate or maybe be an insurance salesman. Something about sales maybe. I really had no, no idea. And I only got interested in academics. I, I was smart enough in high school, but I, you know, I didn't really kind of kill myself for it, but is only because I got so interested in the Bible and started passionately studying the Bible. And pretty soon I was like, all I was doing was studying and, you know, the Bible and theology and early Christian history and things like that that I realized I was pretty good at it. And I also just really, that was my passion. And so I snuck in through the back door of academia. I've got a brother. I don't know if I've mentioned my brother on here before. My, my brother is three years older than me and he's an academic who, like, he started in eighth grade, man, he was going to be an academic and always has been. And for me it was, it was just an accident.
- [03:27]
C
Really amazing. I bought the insurance salesman. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it as Bart. New Testament scholar.
- [03:34]
A
Well, I don't know. I mean, it's a lot. It actually probably works better at cocktail parties. I mean, you want to kill a conversation pretty quickly, you know, actually tell somebody what you do. If you're a New Testament person, it's like, what? And you know, they always act like they're, you know, oh, that's very interesting. But they're saying, oh my God, you got to be kidding me.
- [03:56]
C
Internally working on their plan.
- [03:59]
A
I studied Jesus.
- [04:05]
C
Amazing.
- [04:06]
A
Amazing, right? You know, you went into a really bizarre area. You talk about New Testament being bizarre. Assyriology, like what you said a little
- [04:15]
C
on the esoteric lines. All through the high school, I kind of wavered between some kind of history. I did classics in high school and absolutely loved it, or some kind of art. So I went, once I graduated, I did two years in art school. I loved it, absolutely loved it. And then was sitting in an introductory lecture with my sister. She was going around universities and working out where she wanted to apply to, and she came to a university that was next, next door essentially to the one I was attending. So I met up with her, we had lunch, and then I went and sat through kind of the pitches that the history department was giving and absolutely fell in love, applied to the university and transferred the following year. And that was an ancient history degree program. I was planning on being A classicist. But my undergraduate dissertation advisor was the departmental assyriologist, and he gave me this fantastic spiel, essentially saying all of the classics have been translated. There's not a whole lot that you could do. But. But we've got so many cuneiform texts that need someone to work on them. You could be one of those someones. I was like, yes, fantastic. Let's do this. So I did it, and just kind of haven't stopped, huh?
- [05:27]
A
Well, I mean, I would say moving from classics to seriology isn't from an outsider's point of view. It's not like moving. Moving from, you know, like neuropsychology to what you know. It's still like. It's ancient stuff with languages. Yeah, but. Okay. You had that interest. Yeah, well.
- [05:43]
C
Yeah, always.
- [05:44]
A
Well done.
- [05:46]
C
Okay, so talking about history, Judas Iscariot. Can you tell us briefly who Judas Iscariot was and what his name means?
- [05:57]
A
Judas Iscariot was one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. Jesus chose 12 men who apparently had been following him to be his inner circle. He's called Judas Iscariot because his name, his first name, Jude or Judas, was a common name. And there has to be some way to differentiate him from other people with that name. So the name Jude and the name Judas is the same name in Greek and Aramaic. So he's called Judas Iscariot. Jesus has a brother named Jude, for example. You don't want to confuse those two. So the issue is we don't know what iscariot means. There are lots of theories about it. People usually think that there's some kind of etymological explanation for it. And so they take apart the name, they try and figure out Iscariot. It sounds like the Latin Sicarii Sicarii were the. Were these kind of revolutionaries in Israel. They were called that from the Latin word for a dagger. They would go into large crowds and they would dagger some administrator and then run off. And so they were called dagger men. And Sicarii Iscariot, maybe he's like. He was a revolutionary who wanted to overthrow the Romans. Other people point out that Iscariot could be derived from a term that means something like redhead, red hair. So you have all these possible explanations. The one that is probably most common, which I think is probably the least problematic, is that it comes from a Hebrew term, ish keriot, which would mean man from Kerioth, a village named Kerioth. The problem is we don't know of a village at the time named Kerioth. So we don't know. But anyway, so he was one of the disciples. And in all of our traditions, he handed Jesus over to the authorities who wanted to arrest him. They decided that he was a troublemaker and they wanted to take him out of the way. And so the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem made an arrangement with Judas to betray Jesus to them. And he showed them where they could arrest him without the crowds around.
- [08:07]
C
So why do you think it's important to talk about Judas and his role in the New Testament?
- [08:11]
A
Well, he doesn't show up a lot in the Gospels, but where he shows up, it's really quite critical because he's the one who handed Jesus over to the authorities. And so it's understood that he is the one who, you know, he's the one who betrayed Jesus, even though he was an insider. And so the gospel stories, all four of the gospels focus on the events surrounding Jesus death and resurrection. In all four, of course, he has a public ministry, but the public ministry, you know, it takes a good chunk of the gospel. So in the Gospel of Mark, for example, the public ministry lasts about 10 chapters, but then the last week lasts the final six chapters. So six chapters for the final week and 10 chapters for everything else. In the Gospel of John, it's even more extreme because in John, it's clear Jesus public ministry lasts three years, or just about three years, probably. But nine of the chapters of the 21 are on the last week. So the last week is what really it's all driving toward. And the events of Jesus death and then his resurrection are driven by the fact that somebody turned him over to the authorities.
- [09:21]
C
Do the canonical Gospels have significant differences in what they say about Judas?
- [09:26]
A
Yeah, there are a lot of similarities, probably because there were widespread traditions that probably have some kind of historical root that, as I said, he was named Judas Iscariot, he was one of the twelve, he betrayed Jesus and so forth. There are differences, including, for example, why did he do it? You know, one gospel will say, well, he did it because he wanted the 30 pieces of silver. Another gospel will say, you know, the devil had come, come into him and made him do it. You know, in other words, say, well, he was a devil, you know, and so. So there are different, different ways of explaining that there are differences in what happened after he betrayed Jesus. Some of these differences are actually contradictory to each other, and some of the differences are just different.
- [10:10]
C
Can you give an example of one of the contradictions?
- [10:12]
A
Yeah. So the big one has to do with how Judas died. So you have the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And his death is only recounted in one of them, the Gospel of Matthew. The other gospels just leave him out of the picture. After he betrays Jesus, he's gone. No more reference to him. In Matthew, we're told that after Judas betrayal, he hanged himself. So that doesn't contradict one of the Gospels, but it does contradict the other account of Judas death in the Book of Acts. In the Book of Acts, chapter one, after Jesus death and resurrection, the disciples come together to talk about what to do now because one of their members has been lost. Judas is no longer with them because he's died. And in the Book of Acts, we're told that he died because he fell head first and. And his intestines burst on the ground and bled all over the place. And that's how he died. So in one of them, he hangs himself, and the other, somehow he falls and bursts open, whatever that means.
- [11:18]
C
Interesting. Could you explain a little more about those differences?
- [11:21]
A
Yeah. So there are some interesting similarities between the two stories. I've given kind of a brief summary of how he dies. But the stories are interesting because of their similarities and their differences in relation to each other. So in Matthew's account, Matthew's the account where we're told that he was given 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. And what happens is when he realizes how they were treating Jesus, he gets upset and he tries to return the money to the priests who have paid it to him. And they won't take it because, you know, they said, look, you know, we're not going to take it back. So he throws the money down in the temple precinct and he goes out and hangs himself. The priests take the money and they can't redeposit it in the temple treasury because it's been used to betray innocent blood. And so it's blood money. And so instead of putting it in the temple treasury, they go out and they buy a field. Field with it in Jerusalem as a burial field. And it's called the field of blood because it was purchased with blood money. Okay, so that's Matthew's account. In Act's account, you have a similar account to the extent that the death of Judas has something to do with a field of blood. But in this case, it's not that the priests have bought a field with blood money, so they call it the field of blood. In this case, what happens is Judas falls headlong and spills his intestines on the ground and bleeds all over it. And so they called it the field of Blood because Judas blood was spilled on it. But he's the one who had bought the field. He bought the field with the money and then he bled all over it. So it's called the field of Blood. And both you've got this field called the field of Blood that's connected with Judas death and something to do with his betrayal. But they're completely at odds with each other. In one, the priests buy it, the other Judas buys it, and one's filled with blood because of blood money, and the other is filled with blood because he bled on it. In one, he dies by hanging, the other, he dies by falling forward and bursting open. People, of course, tried to reconcile these things, but this one's really hard to reconcile.
- [13:33]
C
No, no, that's definitely a tricky one. How do you reconcile those two stories?
- [13:38]
A
Yeah, well, you have to do some really fancy footwork because if somebody hangs themselves by the neck, that's very different from falling down on a field and spilling your intestines on it. So people have to come up with stuff and they make stuff up. And, for example, a common explanation which makes no sense to me is that what happened is Judas was hanging himself, but the rope broke. And so when the rope broke, he fell headlong onto the ground and spilled his intestines out on it. And so that's the explanation. And, man, I know a lot of people buy that. I mean, I know scholars. I had a debate with a scholar in England, like on the radio, where he. Or there's a video of it where he argued that that's what happened. And I said, so, like, it doesn't work if somebody is cut down from a rope that they're hanging on, or if the rope breaks, they fall with their feet toward the ground. They don't fall head first. You can't fall head first. If the rope is broken, you fall feet first. And so it doesn't work because in ax, he falls head first. So anyway, you come up with something or you say, well, he was hanging and yeah, it didn't kill him. So what they did is they took him down and like, they threw him off a cliff and he broke out his. You know, or whatever. You just make stuff up. But in fact, I don't think you can reconcile. And what I. I tell people, I tell my students, look, don't take my word for this. Just write out what exactly happens in Matthew. Then write out exactly what happens in, in acts and compare the two. I'm telling you, you can't reconcile these two.
- [15:09]
C
So a possible explanation for that may be held in the next question. Some scholars argue that there never was a Judas Iscariot and he was invented by Christians, which would explain why there are all these stories that don't line up. What are your thoughts on that view?
- [15:24]
A
Yeah, well, so it is a view and there's some logic to this view. And there are some scholars who have advanced this view. And it's, it's one of these views that a lot of people find really attractive. But I, I think is implausible. I think there, there must have been a Judas. But for reasons we can talk about. But the argument tends to be that the name Judas is obviously related to the word Jew. And these accounts are highly anti Jewish in their orientation. It's the Jewish leaders who have Jesus arrested. They're the ones who insist on his death. The Jewish crowd gathers together. Pilate asks them if they want them to release Jesus. And the Jewish crowd says no. And the Jewish crowd prefers an insurrectionist Barabbas. And so it's all about how Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. And the, the argument is it's not an accident that the one who turns him over is Judas. So that's the argument. I think it needs to be taken very seriously. But I think there are really compelling reasons for thinking that there was a Judas is carried and that he did something that led to Jesus death. We'll be talking about what that was in a minute. But what historians do when they're trying to piece together something that happened in the past, they look at their sources. They say, how many sources do we have that say something? Or these sources reliant on each other, or are they independent of each other? If you got a bunch of sources that all say it, then it's probably, you know, that's more likely something that happened. And in this particular case, you have stories about Judas. You have stories in John that are different from the ones in Matthew. And Matthew have some differences from Mark and Mark, from Luke, and they're all different. And the Book of Acts have stuff has a story in it. And so you have stories about Judas independently attested in our tradition. And moreover, the main thing that is said about him does not seem to be the sort of thing that somebody would make up if they wanted to tell a story about Jesus. People who are telling stories about Jesus after his death, the Christian of his followers who are telling stories tend to tell the stories that they find to be useful for their views, for their purposes. And they don't make up things that make Jesus look bad or that you know, that might cast a shadow on Jesus. They things that make him look good and positive. The idea that you'd make up a story of one of Jesus insiders betraying him is really kind of hard to put your mind around. I mean, Jesus had no more authority than that. He couldn't even control the 12. And so, you know, surely Jesus was a man with, you know, charismatic authority. And so it doesn't seem like somebody would make that one up. So the fact that it's independently attested and it seems unlikely for somebody to make it up, you could have made up some other story, some other person named Judas who hasn't even connected with the 12, you know, or you could make up something else. So that's. That's one reason for thinking. Those are two reasons for thinking that probably he's a historical figure.
- [18:23]
C
Thank you. I have questions as we go forward about the actual actions that Judas carries out. But before we get into that, I had a thought just occur to me as you were explaining about why some people think that Judas was invented. Etymological connections in ancient languages that also sound similar in English. So Judas Jewish can be a little tricky sometimes. Is there an actual connection between those two words, or is it that they just sound similar in English?
- [18:56]
A
I think that both of them go back to Judah as the tribe that was in the southern part of Israel then became a nation, the nation of Judah. And I think that Jew is somebody who lived in Judah. And then later in the New Testament times it'd be Judea. The name got slightly changed to Judea. And that the name Judas probably refers to somebody who's, you know, just naming after the. After the country.
- [19:25]
C
Thank you. So thinking now about what Jesus is recorded to have done, the Gospels describe how he identified Jesus for the authorities, which has always been a point of confusion for me. It doesn't seem that Jesus was particularly quiet or subtle or really interested at all in avoiding attention. So why did the authorities need Judas to point him out to them?
- [19:50]
A
Yeah, you know, I. I never thought about that for years, I'll have to admit. But you're absolutely right. I mean, he rides into town on the donkey with the acclamation of the crowds. He goes into the temple and he over Jesus goes, turns over tables and. And he like causes this big ruckus. And it's like he's got all these crowds around him. Why do somebody. To tell you where he's going to be. I mean, in the gospels, the point is that Judas tells them where they can find him when there Aren't crowds around? But, you know, probably about 20 years ago, I started thinking, you know, maybe I'd watch too many detective movies or something. Why don't they just tail him? I mean, how hard can it be? Just have somebody follow him and let you know where. And so I realized, you know, it doesn't really quite make sense. And actually, that's why I don't think what Judas betrayed was his whereabouts. I don't think that is what Judas did. I mean, he may have done that, but I don't think that's really what's going on historically. I don't think that's historically what happened.
- [20:50]
C
So that brings us really to the crux of this episode. If Judas wasn't employed to just point Jesus out to the authorities, what information could he have provided that would have led to Jesus arrest?
- [21:01]
A
Yeah, I think that's the issue. I don't think that he showed them where to arrest him. I think he gave them what they needed in order to arrest him. This is kind of a long and complicated sequence of thinking. It's not simple, but I'll put it in the simplest terms. In the simplest terms, I think Judas betrayed to the Jewish authorities what they needed in order to bring Jesus to the attention of the Romans. That he revealed what Jesus had been teaching. That was not public knowledge. That could be seen as a serious offense against the Romans. And I think what he told the Jewish authorities was that Jesus was calling himself the Messiah. That wasn't publicly known, but once that they learned that he was calling himself the Messiah, that's all they needed to have him arrested. Before we get into the details of that, let me just say that a Messiah, in that context, the term Messiah, as we've talked about on the podcast before, refers to the Anointed One of Israel. The word Messiah comes from the Hebrew word Mashiach, which means anointed one, which is a reference to the king of Israel who was anointed during a coronation ceremony. There hadn't been a king in Israel for 600 years, but some Jews expected that God would bring a king who would liberate Israel from its oppressors and establish Israel as a sovereign state in the land. Who would be a king, so a political figure, but also a military figure who would overcome the enemy so that a future Messiah would be this future military leader who became a king. And I think that Judas betrayed to the authorities that Jesus was calling himself the future Messiah.
- [22:54]
C
Would that alone have been enough to warrant an arrest? If there's no planning, no army, no military intent, which there doesn't seem to have been. Would that just the use of the term Messiah have been enough?
- [23:11]
A
Yeah, I think so. I mean, especially in Roman eyes. So the way the sequence of things works in the Gospels, I think, is basic, that Jewish authorities worried about Jesus causing some kind of uprising, some kind of ruckus. He's starting to get crowds around him. He's preaching this message that God is soon going to intervene in history and destroy his enemies, and there's going to be some kind of war that's going to take place so that they want to get him out of the public eye because they don't want the crowds during this busy, busy, busy Passover time to start rallying around the idea that very soon there's going to be some kind of divine event happens that involves a war. And so once they hear that he is calling himself the future king, this is something Romans, the Roman authorities would have been most concerned about. For people who don't understand quite the situation, the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem were local authorities who ran the civic affairs of the city. But the Roman governor was in charge of ordering the entire area. And he pretty much let the local authorities carry on with what they had to do. But the Roman governor was responsible for keeping peace. And so if there's any kind of uprising, the Romans are going to crack down on it. If you have somebody claiming to be a future king who says that a war is coming or that some kind of destruction is coming to God's enemies, and he claims to be the leader of the people who are going to be, you know, who are going to emerge as the rulers of this region, if he's calling himself king, that even without an army, that's enough for them just to nip it in the bud and get rid of the guy, which is what they do.
- [24:50]
C
So why do you think that Judas portrayed that Jesus was calling himself the Messiah?
- [24:56]
A
Yeah. As opposed to, like, you know, where is he? Yeah, I think so. There are lots of reasons for thinking this. It's not a novelty with me. Others have said this. I think probably I first read about this in it. I think Albert Schweitzer had a similar view in his quest for the historical Jesus, that this is what Judas betrayed, even though that's not what the Gospels say. The Gospels, you know, say he betrayed his whereabouts. But there are very good reasons for thinking that in fact he betrayed, that Jesus was calling himself the future king. So among other things, one has to ask, why is it that Jesus was crucified why did they crucify Jesus? It certainly has to do with something that he was saying, right? Or something saying or doing. They weren't just like picking people off the street and crucifying them. They had reasons for crucifying people. And so why did they crucify Jesus? Well, in the accounts of Jesus death, it's really quite clear in all the accounts, when Pilate puts him on trial, he asks him, are you the King of the Jews? And Jesus either doesn't say anything, or he says yes, or he says maybe, or he says, that's what you say. But he says something, something. And he gets killed for calling himself the King of the Jews. And in the placard above his head on the cross, this is the King of the Jews. It's all about being King of the Jews. And there are very good reasons for thinking that this is not an explanation that later Christians made up for why Romans killed Jesus. One very good reason for thinking that this isn't like a Christian invention. Oh, yeah, well, they said he was the King of the Jews, but he never said that is because this phrase, King of the Jews, is never a phrase that Christians used for Jesus in any of our writings. This strikes people as odd, but read through the New Testament. In the New Testament, in the Gospels, in Paul, they call Jesus lots of things. They call him the Savior, they call him the Son of God, they call him the Son of Man, they call him all sorts of things. They call him the Lord, they don't call him King of the Jews. What does that show? It shows that they did not assign this label to Jesus. This wasn't how they imagined him. But that means they wouldn't have assigned the label to Jesus at his crucifixion. They would have come up with something else. So he's killed for calling himself the King of the Jews. And in the Gospels, Jesus does not go around saying he's the King of the Jews. Look through all of the sermons in Matthew or everything he says in Mark or Luke. He doesn't talk about himself as the King of the Jews. Well, then why would that be the question at his trial? Why that question? Why not? Did you really go into the temple and turn over some tables? Or are you really a troublemaker? Or are you really this, that or the other thing. Are you really causing trouble with the Sadducees and Pharisees? It's none of those questions. It's. The question is pointed. Are you the King of the Jews? The Roman authorities have heard that he's calling himself The King of the Jews. Well, he doesn't call himself that in public ever. And it's not the sort of thing a Christian later would make up. They got the information from someone, so where'd they get it? Well, the hypothesis that Schweitzer had that I think is right, is that to his own disciples, Jesus was explaining that the kingdom of God is coming and I'm going to be the king. I will be the future king. Jesus thought that he was the Messiah of the future kingdom. And one of the disciples who knew he was saying that told the authorities.
- [28:25]
C
What are your reasons for thinking that Jesus was teaching this information privately?
- [28:30]
A
Right. So he's never recorded saying it publicly. So why do I think he actually taught this to the disciples? There are some passages in the New Testament that I think show clearly this is something he was teaching the disciples with the sayings of Jesus, as we've seen repeatedly on this podcast. You have to figure out if this is a saying that Jesus really said or if it's something that somebody put on his lips later that he wanted him to say. There's a saying of Jesus. I'm sure Jesus said, because I don't think anybody would have put it on his lips after his death. In both Matthew and Luke, Jesus is talking to his disciples, and he says to them, you 12 will be seated on 12 thrones, ruling the 12 tribes of Israel in the future kingdom. Okay? So when the kingdom comes, king's on the throne, you 12 will be ruling the 12 tribes. Why do I think this is something Jesus really said? Because after Jesus death, nobody would have made it up that way because everybody knew one of the twelve had betrayed Jesus. Judas is one of the twelve. He betrayed Jesus. He's an outsider now. But Jesus is Talking to the 12, including Judas, and he says, you12 will be ruling. In other words, Judas will be one of the rulers. So you see, somebody later wouldn't make that up because they wouldn't want to imply that Judas would be one of the rulers, which means it probably went back to Jesus. If Jesus is telling the 12th that they'll be on 12 Thrones ruling 12 tribes, who's going to be ruling them? Well, he's the one who chose them. He's their leader. He's the one who's going to be the king. He's going to have the king, and he's going to have 12 rulers under him. And that's how Jesus was imagining would happen when the coming destruction came and God set up his kingdom. Judas knew that full well. He tells it to the authorities, the Jewish authorities, tell it to the Roman authorities. And at the trial Pilate asked him, are you the king of the Jews? And Jesus says yes or maybe, but they end up crucifying him for it.
- [30:39]
C
So the million dollar impossible to answer question following all of that. If Judas is essentially being promised a throne in the future kingdom, he's going to be a king above one of the tribes. Why then does he turn on his leader? We can't know for certain. What are some of the motives that have been ascribed to him?
- [30:58]
A
Yeah, well, we can't know for certain. You're right. I mean we can't know. This is. I'm pretty sure he betrayed the information that Jesus was calling himself the fug Messiah king. Why did he do it? There are a number of reasons that have been suggested. You'll find different ones in different Jesus movies produced in Hollywood. And some of them are more plausible than others. Some think, for example, that Judas did think that there was going to be an imminent event that happened, but that he thought that it would be a kind of a military uprising, that Jesus would rouse the troops, that he would get people in Jerusalem all excited during his Passover and the would band together and throughout the, the Romans who were there in town and then start a war against the Romans and overthrow the Romans and there'd be a new. And so Judas wanted to get that thing going and he saw that Jesus wasn't doing anything much about it. He came into Jerusalem and he teaches some and he does a few things, but it doesn't, he doesn't rouse the troops. And so maybe Judas does it in order to force Jesus hand that Jesus gets arrested, he's going to have to call out for help and maybe people will come to it and there'll be an uprising then. So maybe that's one possibility. Another possibility is that Judas comes into town and is hoping for this kind of military coup and it doesn't happen. And Jesus isn't doing anything. He gets frustrated and he realizes that Jesus isn't about to do this and he gets ticked off. He says, you know, I've devoted my life to the saints and you're not even trying to make it happen. And so out of frustration and anger, he turns him over is another possibility. You know, so those are two of the options that are widely thrown out there. Other people say, look, he wanted the money, he took the 30. Take the 30 bucks. So there, there are a variety of things. I don't think we have a good way to know what really was going on in his head, why he did this, or what happened after he did it?
- [32:52]
C
What if you had to choose one? Which motive would you find most compelling?
- [32:56]
A
I think the most compelling would be that he came to realize that Jesus wasn't going to do anything to make it happen. And that the end that Jesus kept saying was coming soon, showed no signs of coming. And he finally just came to think, you know, Jesus, his message actually isn't coming true. And he found it frustrating that Jesus was doing nothing in order to promote it other than just, you know, teaching and that out of frustration, he turned him in.
- [33:25]
C
Do you think it's likely that he was expecting the crucifixion or some kind of execution as the outcome of his actions?
- [33:31]
A
I don't know how much somebody like Judas, who would have grown up in rural Galilee, probably like the other disciples, and Jesus may never have seen a Roman in their lives. There weren't Roman soldiers everywhere and probably knew nothing about the Roman system of justice or up there, probably may not have even ever seen a crucifixion or anything like it. And so I don't know, when they arrive in Jerusalem, all they can do is goggle at these tall buildings like, oh, my God, what is this? And they're like, they're not used to this kind of culture that they've been thrown into. So I don't know if he really understood what the implications would be. And I don't know if the Jewish authorities, what their idea was. You know, they may have just thought, you know, we're just going to take this troublemaker out of sight for a while until things calmed down after the Passover. I just. I don't know. But one thing led to the next and, you know, it was, you know, the next day that Jesus was hanging on a cross.
- [34:29]
C
We will wrap it up there, but thank you so much. And we'll be back momentarily with some news about upcoming events.
- [34:38]
A
I'm Bart Ehrman and I'm happy to announce a new online course titled the Bible and the Quran, comparing their historical problems. The course will take place over two days and will consist of eight lectures. It'll happen on Saturday, May 4 and Sunday, May 5. This is going to be an unusually exciting, interesting and informative course. I don't think there's ever been anything like it. I'll be speaking about the historical problems that scholarship have had in studying the Christian Bible. And a scholar of Islam, Javad Hashmi, will be addressing the same problems with respect to the Quran. Javad is an unusual scholar, he engages in historical criticism on the Muslim scriptures much as I do on the Christian Bible. Javad's currently finishing his PhD in Islamic Studies at Harvard, where he specializes in Quranic studies, Islamic origins, the historical Muhammad, and the question of religion and violence, especially in relation to the Quran. For this course, we've chosen four critical areas of historical concern and will discuss each of these areas in relationship to the Bible and the Quran. These are the four areas. First, getting back to the originals, Knowing what the authors actually wrote. Can we know the original words of the New Testament? Can we know the original words of the Quran? Two, the reliability of the accounts, the problem of contradictions and errors. How much history and how much story is in the New Testament and in the Quran? Number three, the quests for the historical Jesus and the historical Muhammad. How do we know what Jesus really said and did? How do we know what Muhammad really said and did? And four, Scripture and violence. A history of hatred, intolerance and violence. Is the Bible to blame? Is the Quran to blame? Javad and I will be taking turns giving our lectures. I'll discuss the topic with respect to the New Testament, then Javad on the Quran, and then we'll discuss the similarities and the differences we find. So there'll be four lectures a day, and each day will be followed by a live Q and A with those who attend. I've done a lot of controversial things before, but I'm not sure I've done one that's this important.
- [37:18]
C
Important.
- [37:20]
A
And now I'd like to introduce Javad himself so he can tell you what he's going to be talking about.
- [37:26]
B
Thank you so much, Bart. I'm super excited to be teaching this course with you. I think it's going to be something really quite special. It might be the first publicly available academic course that takes a comparative approach to Islamic origins. So if you're interested in that topic, this is the course for you. My part is going to consist of four lectures. In the first lecture, we'll be taking a look at the transmission history of the Quranic text. Basically to ask ourselves, do we have with us today the original Quranic text and does it really go back to the Prophet Muhammad? In lecture number two, we'll be looking at the content of the Quranic text, looking at certain influences or texts that the Quran interacts with and scholars think influence the Quranic stories and accounts. We'll also be asking ourselves whether we should take these stories and accounts to be historically and scientifically accurate, or do we think that there are certain mythical or legendary aspects to them, just as many biblical scholars think in regards to biblical stories. In lecture three, we'll be shifting to the quest for the historical Muhammad, just like there's a quest for the historical Jesus. Did the Prophet Muhammad even exist? And if he did exist, what can we know about him? Can we trust the traditional Islamic sources? And what does the Quran or what can the Quran tell us about the historical Muhammad? In lecture number four, we'll shift to the question of scripture and violence. Many people think Islam is inherently violent and link that all back to the Quran. So we'll be exploring that question in our final lecture. We'll round all this off with a discussion between Bart and I about whether or not we think faithful Christians and faithful Muslims can engage with their text in an academically rigorous manner and an academically honest manner. So that'll be a good discussion that we'll have. I'm super excited about this course. Like I said, it might even get banned in certain countries. We might get a fatwa on our head. So make sure you sign up because this is going to be an interesting course. Thanks so much.
- [39:25]
A
Thanks, Javad. This is going to be a great course. I don't think it's ever been done before. It'll be interesting not just to Christians and Muslims, but to anyone in our world that deals with either of the two largest religious traditions in the history of the human race. Pretty important stuff. Again, this will be on May 4th and 5th. In terms of pricing, the regular price for the course will be $59.95, but we have an early bird pricing of $49.95. And if you buy the course, if you come to it, you'll be given lifetime access to the recording. To learn more and to register for the course, Simply go to barturban.com Bibleand Quran Again, this will be an amazing course and I hope you'll be able to come.
- [40:23]
B
This is Bart's weekly update where we
- [40:26]
A
get to catch up on all the latest about Dr. Ehrman's book releases, speaking engagements, ehrmanblog.org happenings and online course launches.
- [40:37]
C
So, Bart, this weekend you're going to be recording the Bible and the Quran. We've spoken very briefly about this before. Could you just remind us what the most exciting part of this was going to be?
- [40:51]
A
Yeah, well, it's going to be exciting for me. I've spent most of my career talking about issues connected with the reliability of the New Testament. Do we actually have the original words? Are there contradictions and differences? How do we know about the historical Jesus? The things like critical problems of the New Testament? And people have long asked me, well, what about other sacred books, you know, how about the, you know, the Torah or how about the Quran or how about the Book of Mormon or whatever. And these are not areas of my expertise. And so this is going to be so interesting because I'm going to talk about these issues to explain what the situation is with the New Testament. And Javad Hashmi, who's the Islamic scholar who's going to be joining me, will be talking about the same issues about the Quran. And so I won't be talking about the Quran, he won't be talking about the New Testament.
- [41:41]
C
He.
- [41:42]
A
We are both experts in our respective fields. So I'll talk about one of these issues about my field, he'll talk about his, and then we'll talk together about them and compare notes. And so it's not going to be like I'm going to be trying to defend the New Testament, he's going to try and defend the Quran or I'm going to be attacking the Quran. It's really, this is going to be historically based. And for anyone who's interested in either or both books, there's nothing like this. I've never heard of anything like this. And so I think this is really something to pay attention to. So I hope, I hope people can come because they're certainly going to be hearing things they don't know and I'm going to be hearing things that I don't know because I, as I said, I'm not an expert in the Quran, but Javad is. And so I'm really, really excited about this.
- [42:28]
C
I think it's a really great opportunity. And we very occasionally on Digital Hammurabi get questions about why don't you discuss the Quran? The answer is because I'm not a Quran specialist, it would be very, very unethical of me to really say anything about it at all. So having the ability to listen to you both talk about your respective specialities and then to ask questions I think will be really, really valuable if people are interested in that. Tickets are still available. The recording will be this coming weekend, the 4th and the 5th of May, starting at 12pm Eastern on the 4th, 1pm Eastern on the 5th, and the cost is $59.95. You can sign up@barturman.com BibleAndCoran and as ever, MJ Podcast is the code to get you a discount on that. And if you can't watch it live, it will be available. The recordings will be available to view afterwards as well. So I hope you can join us. It's going to be a lot of fun. And we are now going to go to a new segment which is called Scholar Spotlight. So stay tuned. I hope you enjoy
- [43:34]
A
interested in the most influential scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity. In this segment, Bart shines a light on a scholar making waves in the world of biblical studies. It's time for Scholar Spotlight and we are back now.
- [43:52]
C
Scholars Spotlight is a new one, as I said, for Barthes to share. An academic, a scholar that he thinks we should all be aware of and considering their work. So, Bart, take it away. Who are you recommending this week?
- [44:05]
A
Well, you know, there, there are lots and lots of very fine scholars who work in my field, New Testament and Early Christianity. I know the ones of my generation and the previous generations best because they're the ones who produce the most work. Some of my contemporaries are absolutely stellar scholars and I'll just mention one. His name is David Bracke, B R A K K E. He teaches at Ohio State University. He's one of the top scholars of early Christianity, not just in the United States, but in the world. He has enormous range. He can go from the New Testament up through the 5th century or so. But people who are just kind of, you know, lay folk who are interested in aspects of early Christianity would well, benefit from a couple of his things on Gnosticism. So I know a lot of people are interested in Gnosticism and I often get asked, you know, how can I find out more about Gnosticism? David has a book called Gnosticism. Maybe it's what is Gnosticism? And it describes in terms that are academically responsible but still accessible to interested readers how to understand this very famous group based on scholarship of the last, say, 30 or 40 years. Many people think about the Gnostics in terms that we were all saying back in the 1970s or so. And most scholars today realize that what we were saying back then isn't really quite right. And so this would be an up to date account. David also has some courses for the great courses. One on Gnosticism and one on Jesus and the Apocrypha. And one actually they asked him to do a new course, Introduction to the New Testament, which is the course that I originally did. And it's pretty funny because David, David and I are friends, but they wanted a new one. So they sell both of these so you can get both of them. But his is great. But the funny story, Megan, you'll probably appreciate this. About a year ago, my wife Sarah, who's a Shakespeare scholar, said, you know, I think I need to learn more about the New Testament. I think I'm gonna get David Brackey's course from the great courses on the New Testament.
- [46:18]
C
That's incredible.
- [46:19]
A
One of my chopped liver. Anyway, so David Brackey, B R A K K E, works on Gnosticism and various other things. And people might want to, if they're interested in this kind of thing. He'd be a great, great resource for you.
- [46:34]
C
Thank you so much, Bart. Now, before we finish for the week, would you mind summarizing what we spoke about today?
- [46:39]
A
Yeah. We're talking about Judas Iscariot. And I try to argue there actually was a Judas Iscariot, which I think is widely accepted. But I also tried to explain what it is I think Judas betrayed when he betrayed Jesus, I don't think he just told the authorities where they could find him in private. I think that he actually revealed the information that they needed in order to make an arrest. And the information was something Jesus was not publicly proclaiming but was telling his disciples that he in fact, understood himself to be the future Messiah who would be the king of the inbreaking kingdom of God.
- [47:14]
C
Thank you so much, Bart. AUDIENCE thank you all for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show. If you did, please subscribe to the podcast and make sure you don't miss future episodes. Subscribe Remember that you can use the code mjpodcast for a discount on all of Bart's courses over at www.barterman.com. misquoting Jesus will be back next week. Bart, what are we talking about next time?
- [47:35]
A
So next time we're getting into a more controversial issue. This week's was fairly controversial, but the next one is really controversial. It's probably the one thing that I write about that most people disagree with. It has to do with what happened to the body of Jesus. Was he actually buried on the day of his crucifixion? I think the answer is no, and we're going to be talking about that next time.
- [48:01]
C
Thank you all and goodbye. This has been an episode of Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman. We'll be back with a new episode next Tuesday, so please be sure to subscribe to our show for free on your favorite podcast listening app or on Bart Ehrman's YouTube channel so you don't miss out. From Bart Ehrman and myself, Megan Lewis, thank you for joining us.