The Ancients - Judas Iscariot

Episode Date: April 5, 2026

**Warning: This episode contains graphic descriptions of violence, including suicide**What really happened to Judas Iscariot? From shifting accounts in the Gospels to the 30 pieces of silver, Tristan Hughes is joined by Professor Paul Middleton to trace the stories that made Judas Christianity’s most infamous villain.Along the way, they explore the kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane, the conflicting accounts of Judas’s death, and the long debate over whether he was a historical figure or a later invention.MOREJesus of NazarethListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPontius PilateListen on AppleListen on SpotifyWatch this episode on our YouTube channel: @TheAncientsPodcastPresented by Tristan Hughes. Audio editor is Aidan Lonergan. The producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic SoundsThe Ancients is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever wondered why the Romans were defeated in the Tudorburg Forest? What secrets lie buried in prehistoric Ireland? Or what made Alexander truly great? With a subscription to History Hit, you can explore our ancient past alongside the world's leading historians and archaeologists. You'll also unlock hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a brand new release every single week covering everything from the ancient world to World War II.

Just visit historyhit.com slash subscribe. Hey guys, Tristan here. Just a quick message from me before we start this episode on Judas Iscariot. I just want to warn you that the episode, it does contain descriptions of graphic violence and suicide, which some listeners may find disturbing. He's the original villain of Christianity, the betrayer who handed Jesus over in the Garden of Gethsemini for trial and ultimately for crucifixion. Judas Iscariot. We all know the name, but what do the gospel accounts actually say about him and about his story? Well, in this episode, we're going to delve into those very questions. We'll explore key topics of debate, the name Judas Iscariate itself, the betrayal, the 30 coins of silver,

the two very different accounts of his demise, and more. Welcome to the ancients. I'm Tristan Hughes, your host, and this is the story of Judas Iscariot. Our guest is Dr Paul Middleton, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Chester. Paul, it is such a pleasure to have you on the podcast today. Pleasure to be here. And to talk about none other than Judas Iscariot is one of the biggest, in popular opinion today, he's one of the biggest traitors of all time, the OG traitor. in the story of Christianity. Yeah, that's right.

To be a Judas is to be a particularly bad character to turn on your football team or something like that. But it's become this archetypal villain, particularly known for his treachery. And he must be a fascinating figure to study, Paul, with the sources we have available, and of course, given the importance of his position in the Christian narrative.

Yeah, I mean, it's really important to note that Judas has always referenced as one of the 12. So he's one of Jesus's 12 disciples. He's with Jesus in the gospel stories throughout his ministry. And then really at the end, he goes to the chief priest, and suddenly he agrees to betray Jesus. And it's never really quite clear what his motivations were. And that's actually been one of the enigmas through history.

And many retellings of Judas tried to give him a reason for doing that. You start to see it in John's gospel where his motivation is greed. But that's later than the kind of original idea. Really? Well, we're certainly going to explore that in our chat today. One of the themes will certainly be the motivation and the 30 pieces of silver and so on. But I feel, Paul, we do need to start with the story of Judas that we have in the Gospels. So is Judas mentioned in all four of the canonical Gospels?

Yes, he is. So he's mentioned in the list of disciples that we have. in the Gospels. It's important to just note that the list of disciples isn't quite stable. There's always 12, but there's slight variations. He's with Jesus throughout the ministry. And then he's mentioned specifically when it comes to the betrayal. One of Jesus' disciples, Judas Iscari, went to the chief priests and agrees to betray Jesus. They promised to give him money. And then you have the famous story in the Garden of Gissimery. It is slightly different in the Gospels. and it's the Valley of Kidron and John, it's not Kisemone, but in Matthew and Mark, you get the

description of the kiss. So Judas has agreed previously with the chief priests and the temple guards that he'll point Jesus out by kissing him. And of course, that again becomes a symbol of treachery that he betrays Jesus for this sign of friendship. Jesus is then arrested. And then the stories diverge, because in Mark, you don't actually hear any more about Judas. Of course, the disciples go on to run away. Peter, of course, denies Jesus. And at the end, there is an empty tomb, and there's a young man says to the women who discover the tomb,

go and tell Peter and the disciples. And it's not actually clear that that doesn't include Judas, but the message doesn't get through anyway. So it doesn't really matter there. In Matthew, you get a bit more there. Judas realizes that he has sinned, he's betrayed, innocent blood. and of course there you get the story that everybody knows about his death where he returns the money that he's already been given

in Matthew there's a slight detail, Judas gets the money up front and then of course he goes out and hangs himself. In Luke's Gospel it's a bit different in the Acts of the Apostle the second edition, what's less known is Judas doesn't actually hang himself. He dies in another way. He just trips over in a field and his guts spill out but we can talk about that a bit. And in John, it's not mentioned at all.

So actually, although it's a fairly straightforward story, Judas betrays Jesus for money and hangs himself. Well, actually, there are variations in all of the Gospels. It's only in Matthew that Judas actually gets the 30 pieces of silver. It's only in Matthew that Judas hangs himself. So actually, the traditions are a little different in each of the Gospels. And that is something that I love us to explore now as we kind of go, if we go now through his story,

almost chapter by chapter and then highlights the variations in his story from gospel account to gospel account. So do they all start? It sounds where you're saying, Paul, do all the gospel start by highlighting who the 12 disciples are, you know, that number is often given of 12? And so we are introduced to Judas before we get events like the Last Supper and the Garden of Gethsemini and so on. Yes, he's just mentioned by name. He's always last in the list of disciples, and usually it says the one who would betray him. Luke says the one who would become a traitor. In John's Gospel, a couple of times you do get a notice that the devil had always put it into Judas's heart. Luke and John, the devil is involved, not in Matthew and Mark. There's

much more of an interplay between Jesus and Judas at the Last Supper. But basically, we don't really hear much about Judas, apart from the fact he's one of the 12 in the list of disciples. And then Mark, which is the earliest gospel, he's at the last supper, but he has gone to the chief priest earlier, and they've agreed to give him money. And then, you know, he goes out to the, well, they're in the garden and the soldiers come in to arrest Jesus, come, Judas kisses Jesus and Jesus is arrested. And if we do the last supper bit now, so do we have in all of the accounts that Judas has already decided to betray Jesus before that last supper takes place. How is Judas portrayed, you know, in this, his famous depiction of all that, they're all breaking bread together at this

table in the various accounts? Yeah, so Jesus knows that someone is going to betray him. And I think the gospel writers are very keen to point out that Jesus is in control. So Jesus knows what's going to happen. Now, in John's version, you do get much more of an interesting. play here. So the disciple Jesus loves, is leaning on his chest and Peter asks, you know, ask him who it is and

Jesus says it's the one who I dip this bread in and he so he dips the bread into the cup and hands it to Judas. Judas then eats and then John says and Satan entered him. Now that seems to me

although this is a bit controversial, but One of the interesting things in the gospel tradition is Jesus is known as an exorcist. He casts out demons in Matthew Mark and Luke. It's pretty firm in the tradition. But he doesn't do that in John. I think it's far too messy. You know, Jesus is already quite elevated, very close to God, very godlike in John.

And I think when Jesus hands Judas the bread, Jesus is effectively putting the devil into Judas. So for John, Jesus is a good troll of the events, and he even manipulates the devil to carry out Judas' act of betrayal. And interestingly enough, there's a continuity error in Matthew Mark and Luke in that they don't say anything about Judas going anywhere before he appears in the garden. But John fixes that and says, and Judas went out. He left and it was night. So John is kind of highlighting that kind of sinister darkness that is infected Judas. So John portrays Jesus as very much in control. And John is the only one that actually gives a motivation. Judas is doing it because he's the treasurer and he's greedy.

John says that he used to take money out of the common purse, a really bad character. So John solves the problem. Well, why did Judas do it? because it's pretty odd. There's no real motive in the other Gospels. But in John, you've got this idea that Judas is greedy and Satan infected. And do we get any of the other gospels that mentioned kind of Satan directly at that time as well, saying that Satan was in Judas at that time?

Yes, so you don't get it in Matthew and Mark, but you do get it in Luke. Just before the Judas goes to the chief priest, Luke says that Satan entered into the heart. of Judas. Now, I think John knows that story. I think John knows the other Gospels. So rather than just have Satan kind of randomly enter into Judas of his own volition, I think John really wants Jesus to be completely in control, so he kind of manipulates Satan. But yeah, Luke is the first one to say that Satan is somehow responsible. Judas becomes almost this hapless character at the whim of these

cosmic forces. And so we get to kind of the climax of the story, the betrayal itself in the Garden of Geth, Thessemone, and are all of the accounts quite similar in what happens there, Paul? Yes and no. So Matthew is quite similar to Mark. Judas appears with the resting party. And as I say, the other, the gospel writers haven't said that he's gone anywhere. And then he, it's noted that he'd already made an arrangement. The arrangement isn't narrated. It's just it's put in as an aside. And in Matthew and in Mark, Judas kisses Jesus. Jesus says something like, you know,

are you betraying the son of man with a kiss? But, you know, this is an act of friendship of respect that you'd expect between a teacher and his pupil, but it becomes a sign of betrayal. And then Jesus is arrested. Now, Luke is quite similar, right up to the point where he, where you would expect the kiss.

but there is a small detail here. Judas goes to kiss Jesus, but the kiss isn't actually narrated. Now, it might be implied, but I think because Satan is in Judas, Luke thinks it would be actually inappropriate for Judas to touch Jesus here. The two kind of cosmic powers can't be separated. Judas is now an infected character, and after this has no part in the story. and so Luke very pointedly calls the disciples afterwards when they go to the resurrected Jesus. He talks about the 11.

Now, Matthew does that too, but of course Matthew has killed Judas off and through hanging. Luke will do that later in his second volume, He'll narrate Judas's death. So Judas goes to kiss Jesus and Luke, but he doesn't actually do it, and I think that's deliberate. John's story is actually completely different. So it's not Githemeny. John omits the prayer. So when Jesus is praying in Gassimony in Matthew Mark and look about the cup to pass him by,

you know, if it's God's will, that he may be spared the crucifixion. John just doesn't have that. He actually recycles the words earlier on and says, you know, what shall I say? Father save me from this hour? No, because that's the reason I've come into this world. So John, I think, knows that story,

but he simply rejects it. But Jesus takes the disciples past the Kidron. Valley, and that's where Judas brings an unfeasibly large number of soldiers. Now, although John has sorted one problem out, when did Judas leave, he causes another problem because although in the other Gospels, it seems to be the case that Judas needs to point Jesus out, which is a bit strange anyway because, you know, Jesus has been acting in public, so it seems odd that they wouldn't have recognized him and you would need someone to point him out. John has Jesus take them to the garden, but then Jesus basically decloses himself. He says,

you know, who you're looking for? They all say Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus says, that's me, I'm he. So you've actually not got any reason for Judas to be there because he's not needed to, so the reason for Judas being there in the other gospel just disappears. And when Jesus says, I am he, which some people think he refers to the divine name when, from the burning bush, when God says to Moses, I am who I am, I am he. All the soldiers fall down in the ground. And before that's quite happens in the presence of God. You know, people fall to the ground.

And then they get up and Jesus says, who you're looking for? And as he said, Jesus of Nazareth. And he says, I told you. So basically, you can come and arrest me, but let the disciples go. And there's another change that John makes. In the other gospels, the disciples all run away. Whereas in John, Jesus has secured the disciples' release. so they don't run away, they leave.

But then you wonder, well, why was Judas needed there in the first place? Because he doesn't need to point them out, because Jesus basically discloses himself. Because again, although all the gospel writers are really keen to point out that Jesus is in control for Luke and for John in particular, Jesus is kind of the heavenly visitor that really consents for everything to happen. So he orchestrates his own arrest. but John has used the tradition of Judas bringing the soldiers with them, but Judas just stands around like a spare part. There's really nothing for him to do.

And then Judas just disappears from the narrative. He's not named again. Well, I'm really grateful for going through those sections one by one in detail, because I felt it was important to highlight at the beginning, how the overarching story of Judas as the betrayer is there in all of four, but how there are interesting differences in the various gospels and we can delve into them. and we'll get to the death in a moment as well, the more brutal version that you have surviving in the gospel of Luke. But just so we can also get our sense around the timing. So Mark does the earliest gospel, and then, is it Matthew, Luke, then, John, is that what we think? Yeah, so it's very difficult to date the gospel.

So most scholars agree that, well, virtual scholars agree, Mark is the earliest. I mean, there's some fringe views out there, but Mark's the early's gospel probably after the fall of Jerusalem, because there's some references Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem, which... And that's the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome, that's 70 AD. That's the Jewish Revolt. So at most things, most folk,

either just before or, you know, just after or a little after. I think it's probably a few years after the fall of Jerusalem. Then Matthew and Luke very clearly use Mark as a source. So Mark needs time to circulate. And so Matthew and Luke are both using Mark and some other sources as well. And then John is probably sometime later. Scholars are divided over the extent to which John knows the other Gospels.

I'm pretty sure he knows Mark and Luke at least. But that's a change in scholarship. Some people think that John is an independent tradition, but I think there's enough verbal parallels. In fact, I'm the Judas' story in particular, the Last Supper scene, really develops on some of the themes there. When Jesus says, one dipping his bread with me, in other words, one eating with me is going to betray me, John kind of takes that up and actually has that drama that I was

talking about before. And also the reference to Satan. I think John quite often uses books, embellishments of the stories. So John is probably last. But you'll get variations with these datings. But Luke and Matthew are definitely using Mark, and John is probably using at least Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke. And it said Luke and John are the ones that really include that Satan, that demonic possession of Judas, which is really, really interesting. And I think that lines up with,

we've already mentioned how in the Gospel of Matthew, it's the suicide of Judas after he's betrayed Jesus. But of course, we must also mention this other more gruesome death that is mentioned in Luke. It's not suicide. This is like divine punishment, isn't it, Paul? Absolutely. So this is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, which is the second volume of Luke's work.

He writes a gospel, which tells the story of Jesus. Then he writes another volume, which is the story of the development of the church. And this tradition that Jesus has 12 disciples is really important for Luke, because for Luke, these apostles become the bedrock of the church. So Luke seeks to replace Judas. in the first chapter, he has Peter stand up. And then Peter basically recounts how Judas died, which is to say, we've got a gap and then the castle lots and they get Matarias as the new disciple. But he describes that Judas had bought a field with the money. And he, you know, one day he just basically,

the water's water's field is called. And he trips over or he falls over. He falls headlong. It's not obvious how it happened. And his guts basically spill out. and it's called the field of blood. You know, interestingly, the field of blood is also mentored in Matthew when that's what the chief priest to do with the money that Jesus has returned. It's called the field of blood to this day. And, you know, again, it's this idea of kind of treachery. But this is a proper end for a villain, according to Luke.

Because Luke actually has a couple of other divine killings. Oh, no, really? Wow. So there was a couple of disciples, Ananias and Sapphira, who are members of the church, and everybody is, basically put their money into a common pot, but they hold some back and then lie about it. And interestingly, Peter confronts Ananias and says, you know, Satan has entered your heart. So it kind of parallel here. And Ananias basically drops down dead.

So it's a divine slaying. And then you get a really kind of, it's almost hammer horror stuff. Safira, his wife, comes up and Peter says something along lines of, you know, do you hear the footstay? steps, those are the footsteps of the people that buried your husband and she drops dead as well. But what's really interesting is that the appropriate punishment for somebody whom Satan has entered is this divine destruction. Also get Herod Agrippa as well, who claims divine honors for himself and he's eaten by worms. Which actually, there is a parallel story in Josephus, the Jewish historian. So he probably did have a pretty gruesome end. But again, Luke seems to

suggest that this is a divine slaying. So I think it's most natural to read, although it's not explicit, Judas falling headlong and his bowels bursting out as again a divine killing. You do get some attempts to reconcile the two stories. Oh yes, yes, as early as Augustine. So you've got to imagine this. So Judas hangs himself in Matthew, but you've got to get him onto the field and his bowels bursting out. So how do you do it? Well, the rope snaps and he falls into the field and as boils gush out. Now, I think, you know, that's pretty comical because actually in Matthew Judas has returned the money and it's the chief priest that buy the field with that money rather than put it back in the Temple Treasury. Whereas an axe, he's bought

the field with that money. So there are two different stories. I think for Luke, you know, hanging is, you know, my granny would say, hanging's too good for him. You know, it's just a, such a villain. But this then brings this really interesting question about how we should would interpret the suicide of Judas and Matthew. It's quite clearly in Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, this is an unambiguously bad death. God has caused this, God has executed him. Hanging, of course, is, and largely because of Judas,

it has been the kind of unforgivable sin in Christian history. Until really very recently, suicides weren't to be buried in consecrated ground, and there's all sorts of rituals about how. they should be buried in facing downwards and so on, or buried at crossroads. Because again, it's this fact that you're taking your life something that belongs to God. Now, many people, again, from Augustine onwards, have interpreted the death of this hanging of Judas as again adding and compounding to sin, because it's assumed that there was this horror of suicide in the ancient world in Jewish and Christian tradition.

Well, that's a tradition that just wasn't there. there's no antipathy towards suicide in Judaism. It's actually pretty neutral. Some characters, there's about half a dozen suicides in the Hebrew Bible, most famously, of course, Samson, which of course is a positive self-killing. In fact, not only does he kill himself. He kills 3,000 Philistines as well, so it's a kind of suicide killing. The others are fairly shady characters, but the manner of their death doesn't really add to that. negative assessment of their characters.

And there's one that's quite close to Judas' death. Ahitha Pell, who is a servant of David, who kind of betrays David, King David, and he, very businesslike goes out and hangs himself. Kind of a very similar language to Matthew, which he was very economical with the language.

Judas went out and hanged himself. So King David, who is believed to live maybe like 900 years earlier from the Bible, you know, kind of Solomon, Saul, and so on. But in his case, is portrayed by someone, but that person then goes... Athythapel, and he goes out, and when he realizes what he's done, he goes out and hangs himself,

and then he's buried with his father. So it's a fairly business-like suicide. So there's no negative, and the rabbis are divided over his fate. Some say he has a place in the heavens. So there's no portrayal of suicide as something necessarily negative. And I've argued previously that I think we could interpret judicious. his death in Matthew as a noble death. Now, noble death is a great Roman tradition against suicide is okay, self-killing is okay, under certain conditions. One is to resolve into horrible shame,

and another is when commanded by a god, and then there's other things like on the battlefield and so on. Cassius and Brutus in the civil wars against Mark Anthony and Octavian and so on, they commit suicide after losing the battle. Yes, there's all sorts of stories where it's a way of restoring lost honour, or indeed killing yourself as an offering to the gods so that your army might win, or when you're commanded by the emperor of gods. Now, I think Judas's death in Matthew comes under two of those categories to restore lost honour and commanded by a god. Judas has done something incredibly shameful, and so he goes out and kills himself. But he also inflicts upon himself the actual penalty laid down by God for betraying innocent blood that you get

in the Viticus numbers and Deuteronomy. And interestingly, he goes to the chief priests and says to them, I've betrayed innocent blood. And they should have imposed that penalty, at least in theory, but they say, you know, what's that to us? See to it yourself. And so he does. He does what is commanded in the mosaic law. He inflicts upon himself, the capital, punishment. That's a controversial view, but I think once we just take a step back and say, well, self-killing in itself wasn't viewed with the same horror as it later became in Christian tradition, largely because of Judas's death, we can actually interpret it more positively. And Matthew's not that interested in Judas's death. He's interested in the money,

because he just mentions Judas goes back to the chief priest, hands back the money, and then he hangs himself. But then Matthew goes into extraordinary detail about this money. The chief priest recognized that it's not, that it's blood money, so it's not appropriate to put it back in the temple, so they buy the field. And then what's really interesting is they get their hands back on Jesus again. So knowing that Jesus is innocent because Judas has told them, pilots told them, they still want them to be crucified. So Matthew is really putting the blame, effectively taking the blame off of Judas

and putting it very firmly on the chief priest. So that's, I think, the function of Judas's death in Matthew, rather than it being seen as a punishment on Judas. Whereas in Luke, the death of Judas is definitely retribution, divine retribution for Judas's actions. And this is really interesting hearing what you're saying there, Paul, because almost the two middle gospels, if we think, when they're written chronologically, like you have the two that talk about the end of Judas, one of them already Luke goes heavy on the satanic possession, there's no remorse, there's no

repentance, and the divine punishment. And yet, with the other gospel, with Matthew, you get a very different portrayal of the end of Judas as someone who agree, as you say, there is debate around it, but I think you've put your arguments across very well for, you know, like suicide at the time and the beliefs around it, that actually, and the refusing, they wanted to hand back the 30 pieces and so on, that this is a Judas where actually is this someone who did fully repent, you know, from what he did in the past. And, you know, I guess the question is more out, like where he ended up, maybe in certain beliefs in thinking. Yeah. And what you say is really important. Judas does repent. It says he repents. Now, some people say, oh, the word that's used is not the same word as it's normally

associated with repentance. But actually, Jesus tells a parable of two sons to go and work in the vineyard. One says he will, but then doesn't. The other says he won't, but then later repents. And it's the same word, melititomai. The parable is meant to represent the fact that people disobey God to start with and then repent and change their mind and do God's will. It's the same word that's used of Judas. So, you know, it's quite clear that the vocabulary here is the same that's used of repenting. So it might be cord. I'm pretty sure I'm right on this. That's what I said. Paul, you've done a lot of work around this.

So we are going to explore a few more themes from the story as time goes on, including the 30 pieces of silver, the name Judas is scarriot, and hopefully we'll also get to the Garden of Githemeni as well. But it's good to talk about the work around, you know, the death of Judas first. Because as I mentioned, you've done lots of work around it. But before we go into those other key themes from his story, now that we've kind of really delved into the details of the various gospel accounts for Judas, I must also ask about his name, his story in other ancient accounts, because we've done episodes in the past where we've talked about the apocryphal gospels and other types of literature that didn't make it into the finished version of the Bible almost.

And do we see Judas's name pop up in those pieces of literature too? Yes, so people wrestle with this kind of idea again of why Judas betrayed Jesus and then what we cave on him. And interestingly, the text that seem to talk about on being a villain, and like Luke, keep him alive for a little longer. And he becomes this wretched figure. So Papius, the kind of second century church figure, has two different stories about Judas. But in both, he lives a miserable life. he's incredibly fat. So it's a very early example of kind of fat shaming,

but, you know, it's leaking all over the place and he's like putrid, smells putridly. And, you know, in one version, he's run over by a wagon and again, explodes everywhere. The wagon is kind of kept in another version

where again, he's so big that he can't actually pass through somewhere where a wagon can't pass. And again, he is a miserable death. And again, the idea of his gut spilling out is so bad, the stench is so bad that even years afterwards, it's said that people can't pass by this place when he died without holding their noses. So again, what's really interesting about this is that in Christian tradition,

the hanging of Judas has been taken to be this absolutely appropriate sentence for a villain, but actually from look onwards, you get these ideas of Judas being so bad that they actually keep him alive to make his life an absolute misery. And I think the readers are meant to enjoy the suffering of Judas. So it's worse to be kept alive and then it comes to this kind of miserable end. Maybe most interesting is, of course, the discovery of the gospel of Judas in the 1970s. Yes, Paul, take it away. What is the gospel of Judas? Well, the gospel of Judas is a text that was actually, we kind of knew it existed because it's referred to by an early Christian writing, but it was only discovered in the 1970s in Egypt. And there was a lot of

speculation about its contents. And even when we knew what it said, there was this idea that it was a kind of redemptive take on Judas, that Judas was this kind of hero. Well, it doesn't actually say that at all. Judas still goes out and betrays Jesus. But it's a text where,

loosely called Gnostic texts. I mean, there's problems with that kind of language, but generally this characterization of Gnostic is when secret knowledge is revealed. The disciples are sitting around and Judas is with them and they're trying to pray, and Jesus comes up, and Jesus isn't very nice in the gospel of Judas. He laughs at them, and they get a bit uppity about this year, why are you laughing at? But anyway, Jesus laughs quite a lot in this gospel, but he basically takes Judas aside at some point

and gives them a lot of secret teaching. But he calls Judas the 13th demon, so he's still not very nice about Judas. He's not very nice about any of the disciples, actually. So Judas is not really a hero in the Gospel of Judas, but he's the one to whom Jesus, Jesus kind of reveals secret knowledge. Ari, Judas talks about a vision of the other disciples chasing them and, you know, giving them a hard time and so on, and then he goes out and betrays him. But it's an interesting text.

It's not quite the heroic idea of Judas that we get in later kind of fictional novels. And again, like the last temptation of Christ, you know, the book and then the film, where Judas and Jesus basically are in cahoots. this is another tellings of the Judas story, again, try to make sense of his motivation. And of course, the massive problem is if Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, then Jesus wouldn't have been crucified and salvation wouldn't have happened. And that's captured quite nicely by a line in Jesus Christ Superstar, Tim Bryce's lyrics where Jesus and Judas are having this demonstration in the garden. And Judas says, you know, what if I just stayed here and ruined

your ambition, you know, which kind of captures this kind of incongruity at the heart of, because the Judas story really brings up quite interesting theological questions about free will and salvation, but partly because we don't really get a satisfactory picture of Judas in the Gospels, and that's one of the problems, which these later retellings, both ancient gospels and modern fictions or reconstructions are grasping at. Well, we've done a few episodes in the past where we've explored kind of the world of developing Christianity in the first few centuries AD, before you get to kind of these church fathers coming together at a place like the Council of Nicaea or many of these other councils and slowly

trying to figure out, you know, what is the right and what is heresy almost and how before that you have communities across what was the Roman Empire, everywhere from London to Alexandria, and how they would have had different beliefs. They would have been reading different texts that they would have been thinking was the right one. So you almost had this idea of Christianity's at that time. And it's fascinating to think, you know, if you have these later texts, these apocrypha that mentioned Judas and different portrayals of Judas, some worse, some better, you know, how these different Christian communities would have viewed him and his story. Would some of them taking it more like Matthew, you know, redeemed at the end, or would others have gone down the

hog of the other way of Luke and so on, or him getting incredibly fat and smelly and putrid and never repenting. It's really interesting to think how the portrayal of Judas could have differed through these different early Christian communities. Yeah, well, I think the fact that you've got this story of betrayal, which is a bad thing. I mean, that very quickly leads to the Judas being regarded as a villain. And that's actually where this self-killing tradition comes wrong, you get it pretty much crystallized in Augustine, and you get a couple of hints earlier on, but not too many. But yeah, so I think Judas is, I think virtually all Christians are basically seeing them as a villain. Infamous, yes, always, yes. If I'm right about the portrayal

and the gospel of Matthew, then that's maybe the high point. I think it's probably downhill from there, maybe the gospel of Judas accepted, but, you know, he's still, the gospel ends, at least the version we have when he goes out to betray him. So we don't actually, we don't see what happens. I suppose you've got that just interesting hint in Mark where the disciples never meet Jesus. There's no resurrection appearances in Mark at all. So we don't know whether Mark intended Judas to be included. I mean, it does say that, you know, you woe to the person that betrays Jesus, better that millstone be hung around his neck and thrown in the sea. But really interesting thing is John just loses interest in Judas. Again, you just get a mention of the Jesus appearing to some

disciples, but it doesn't seem particularly bothered about Judas. Well, let's move on some key themes, and I must, Paul, we must now talk about the name, Judas Iscarriot, because we've had our good friend, Professor Joan Taylor on the podcast in the past, and I know she's done work around this as well. There's lots of interesting debate and talk about the whole name Judas Iscarriot. Now, let's go through the surname first of all, Iscarriot. I mean, what do we think this means? Well, we don't know. You were shaking your head when I asked that question, which was,

I kind of knew that was coming. Yeah, so I'm working on a book-court judicious now, and this is the, you know, I'm going to have to take a stand on this. It might just simply be the place it was from, Ishkariot, the man from Kerriot. We know Kerriott is a place, do we as well? Maybe, maybe not. I'm just like a city, really.

But maybe the more interesting kind of speculation is whether it's a reference to Sikarios, the kind of Jewish terrorists, guerrillas that were going around just before the Jewish war. So the Sakari were, Sakari's just a dagger. The dagger men, they were going around basically assassinating important figures that they thought were collaborators with Rome. So many a high priest met their end. Because, you know, at Ataturst, the Romans varied amongst the Jews. I mean, the Romans did largely let the Jews practice their monotheistic faith because it was regarded as an ancient, ancestral, ethnic practice. So the Romans kind of respected that.

There's anti-Jewish feelings amongst Greeks and Romans because of some of the odd things they did. But, you know, they were largely, Romans were largely, you know, live and let live to some extent. I don't want to over and romanticise it. But so the aristocracy in particular, it was in their interest to get on. But you have this other idea that, you know, any, king, any authority other than God is just an affront. And so these dagger men, the Sakari, were basically going around, basically kind of extremist terrorists, murdering folk and causing havoc. And eventually this leads to the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66 and ultimately to the

destruction of the temple. So it may well be that Judas is a member there, or at least remembered as a figure there, or that this is an invented character, again, as a warning against, you know, because early Christianity obviously started as a Jewish movement. So it may have been a movement that was particularly against the revolt or trying to, again, identify themselves as in opposition to that. So it could be that, and that really then relates to the first name as well, Judas. Well, I mean, Judas is just basically the name Judah. It's the name Jude. So, Jesus had a brother called Judas or Jude and the book of Jude, but the letter of Jude in the New Testament, which was traditionally believed to be by Jesus' brother. It's exactly the same name. And there's

been obviously some speculation that Judas Ascari was actually Jesus' his brother, Jude as well. I don't think that's likely, but it then becomes that kind of brotherly rival story. So it's an incredibly common name, and it becomes a kind of cipher for Judaism itself. Jew, effectively, it's where the name comes from, effectively. So you've got the Jew that was a kind of radical terrorist. Some people have speculated, Haremackery, a scholar in particular, that Judas Iscarat was an invented character in order to demonise Judaism as the church developed.

Now, I think the story's too early for that kind of, you know, it's in Mark, so I don't think that kind of hostility between what became Christianity and Judaism and strong enough to that to work. But, you know, there might be some kind of particular opposition to the Jewish war, the Jewish revolt, or there could have just been a guy called Judas Iscaria. Yes. I mean, it's like, it's the big debate, isn't it? But, I mean, just personally from what you've said so far, Paul, I mean, the fact that

he's mentioned in all the four gospels, you know, and all this family accounts, I mean, surely there must have been a historical figure of Judas or is this, it's out of a debate, I guess. Well, I suppose if you remember that Matthew and Luke definitely and John probably are using Mark, so Judas isn't really an independent tradition. It could all just be from Mark. So the question is, did Mark invent the name or whenever Mark got the information from? Was that an invention? But, you know, it's difficult to tell.

But, yeah, so the fact that something is in all the Gospels doesn't necessarily make it historical because what we need is kind of independent sources. And unfortunately, we don't really have that. It seems to me that there is really nothing in Matthew, Luke or John about Judas that can't come from development or, you know, you can explain why they would have used kind of free composition or, you know, develop that source. You don't really need to postulate another independent source for any part of the Judas story. It's you can see how Matthew Luke and John develop what they have in Mark. So although I wouldn't say that the fact that's all four Gospels is proof of a historical Judas, I'm not convinced by the explanations for Judas being an invented character.

An invented villain, yes, but not an invented character. That's a nice difference, and I think we'll delve into that a bit as we go on. I mean, there are a couple of things I always wanted to ask about going from the story. If we move on from the name Iscariot, although I did also have in my notes, is there a potential Aramaic link with the word Iscariot and this idea of constrictor? I mean, this is the thing. when you've got a name like this and you've got a character like this, there's always this concern to try and explain it and see whether it links to the story.

I suppose you do get this kind of thing where characters are named after by what they do. I mean, that's fairly common Hebrew tradition in Hebrew storytelling. But it's a bit forced, it seems to me. To be honest, I think it is probably the guy's name. Fair enough. We've certainly covered that now, but I just wanted to raise it because it was also there. I like to move on to the next theme in my notes, which I have here, which is going back to the 30 pieces of silver pool.

I mean, it might not seem like a lot of money today, but do we get a real sense that that was like a small fortune back then? Well, it's the price of a slave traditionally. That's the way it comes from. And it's important, although this has become iconic, you know, people know what 30 pieces of silver means. It's only in Matthew. In Mark, the chief priest promised to give him money,

but it's only in Matthew. Matthew that they don't just promise to give him money. They give him money up front. Now, the reason Matthew has them give the money up front is so that he can then do this story later on of giving the money back. So he, because he wants to have this scene of putting the blame, transferring the blame from Judas onto the chief priest, Matthew needs to add this idea that he was paid and then, you know, it fills in a gap, you know, how much was he paid? So Matthew invents the 30 pieces of silver, which of course is again, because, you know, come this, you know, you can say to somebody, well, if you got your 30 pieces of silver,

and your people know what that means, you know, it means you've done something, betrayed somebody for money or done something bad for money. So the 30 piece of silver is an invention by Matthew purely so that you can give the money back. It serves this literary function. I mean, the historical context, surely there would have been cases where the authorities were offering a bribe, offering rewards to try and get an insider, a traitor, if there was a particular religious zealot in their eyes causing trouble. I mean, surely we'd have numerous examples of that through ancient history. So this creation of 30 pieces of silver would align with that kind of ancient tradition

of what almost certainly was happening with other figures in the Roman Empire. Yes, sure. And in Mark, they promised to give them money. So we never find out actually what happened. I mean, I suppose you could create a backstory. Judas goes to the chief priest gets the money and lives out the rest of his days somewhere else. I mean, who knows? But yeah, so Matthew adds this detail about 30 pieces of silver.

But it's actually an interesting, I don't know if I buy this, but it's interesting. In the Joseph story in the Old Testament, you know, Joseph and the technical dream coat and all that sort of stuff, where again, there may again be parallels here with the Jesus narrative. You might remember that the brothers all threw Joseph in the pet and just leave him to die and they dip the coat and the blood and all that sort of stuff to say. The technicaler dream coat story. Okay, right. Yes. And then, you know, then some hairy ishmae it's come passing by again to quote Tim Rice again.

The brother that says let's sell him is Judah. So, you know, that's another kind of link with this story. But it's 20 points. But there's this, I mean, this is almost irresistible. In a much later document called the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, which is basically what is the deathbed speech that each of the leaders of the 12 tribes is the testament of Gad. He actually talks about this story, but he says that Judah was actually paid 30 coins and kept 10 back. And that's where you get the 20. So you get this kind of really interesting kind of link with a Judah. Same name as Judas, of course, and this idea of 30. So I don't know if Matthew kind of took it from there. But it's just quite irresistible. This test of patriarchs is about 100 BCE.

So, you know, Matthew could have known about it the story. but, you know, maybe about just one of those literary coincidences, but I really, I like that connection. Well, I'd like to quickly move on to the Garden of Geth-Semone, but we won't talk on it for too long, because we've already mentioned earlier on, you know, kind of what happens in the garden in three of the Gospels, of course, not in John, isn't it, with the Kijon?

But could you give us a sense of the importance of the Garden of Geth-Semone some 2,000 years ago? Because obviously you have the story, but like the archaeological, the historical context of that garden and why it is such an emphatic place for the climax of this betrayal story of Judas to happen? It's probably the opposite way around. The Garden of Gasseminine has become,

I mean, I think it was probably just a place. And it's an olive groves. And because it becomes the place of the betrayal, it probably becomes a place of prominence. And again, there's questions about its historicity as well. But yeah, in the garden, after the last supper, Jesus takes the disciples there and takes a couple of them a wee bit further and then famously prays that the cup might pass them by. And of course this leads to some later criticism of

Christianity, some Greek Roman moralists kind of say, well, you'll look at your Jesus who turns cowardly compared with them, and you'll say Socrates who willingly goes to his death. I'm not particularly convinced the Gassimini is a particularly important place for the story other than that that's where it happens. And of course, it's out of the way, which sets up this idea that Judas needs to take the, well, it's secluded, so it's somewhere that Judas can take the soldiers. I mean, again, there is this kind of historical question, why wasn't Jesus just arrested? But Mark kind of says, well, the chief priests were frightened of the people, so they wanted to do it when, not during the festival, when there's

lots of crowds, but of course, then they end up doing it during the festival just away from the crowd. So there's some textual problems there as well. Right. Okay. to climax here now, Paul. You mentioned hystericity. So it seems like there is largely leaning towards Judas as a real figure. But Paul, he's explaining this fascinating argument that actually maybe the betrayal story linked to him was added later, was an invention. Yeah, so this is probably a minority view because some people would say, well, if you're going to invent a story about Jesus being arrested, you wouldn't invent being one of his close followers. And indeed, that's one of the criticisms you get with some figures, actually, is Celsius. Oregon has a dialogue with Celsius,

and he says, well, you know, couldn't have been much of a leader if one of his followers turns against him. But again, if you think about, well, what are the gospel writers trying to do? They're trying to show that Jesus is in control and at the crucifection as part of God's plan. So actually, Jesus knowing that one of his followers is going to betray him wouldn't be particularly problematic, it seems to me. But as I've mentioned, the story is really flat. There's no motivation. Mark just basically suddenly says,

Judas goes to the chief priest and agrees to betray him. It's not obvious what inspired him to do that. There's just nothing in the story to suggest that. Matthew just follows Mark and Luke tries to explain it by Satan. As I said, John gives him a motive, but then doesn't know what to do. with them. He doesn't seem necessary. The question then is, well, if we look to earlier traditions, then do we find a story of Judas? So there isn't much that it's earlier. So we've got the letters

of Paul. And some people think that, as well as using Mark, Matthew and Luke had another independent source, which we call Q. This is Q. Yeah, so it's just been German for source, really. So this is a saying source, which Matthew and Luke, they've got a lot of overlaps that aren't in Mark. So when we go to Paul, there are two maybe relevant traditions here. Paul recounts the Last Supper. And a lot of translations say on the night in which Jesus was betrayed, and Jesus took bread and gave thanks. But the word for betrayed is paradidemi, which just basically means handed over or arrested in fact. In ancient Greek. Yes, in Greek. So John the Baptist is the same word after John was. Now, there is some folk that think that this also has some kind of cosmic

You know, after John the Baptist is delivered by God out the way so that Jesus starts his ministry. And I think you can get that same idea here. So it could just be on the night Jesus was arrested, or it might actually have some of these kind of cosmic over and indeed, if you asked Paul, Paul doesn't always answer the questions we want them to ask, but if you ask kind of who handed Jesus over, well, in Romans, Paul does say that God handed Jesus over. and actually in Delaciancy suggests it was actually even Jesus that handed himself over. So Paul's kind of cosmic gospel of Jesus being crucified and resurrected and handed over doesn't actually require a human author.

And Paul also uses exactly the same word that was translated to betray to say, I'm handing on to you this tradition. So the same word. So there's no reason. Now, that's just a start of, but more significant, Paul talks about the resurrection. These are both from One Corinthians, probably written around 54 or 53, 54.

In One Corinthians 15, Paul describes the resurrection appearances. I mean, he's keen to show that Paul, he's just as much of an apostle because he's seen Jesus. So he says, your Jesus was crucified and buried according to the scriptures. So the third day, he was again according to the scriptures. And then what's really important, he says he appeared to Peter, to Seifas, and then to the 12. Now, Paul is probably quoting an earlier reads there.

So something that probably goes back, maybe even into the 40s, or just a few years after Jesus was crucified. But he appeared to the 12. Now, that I'm calling an intact 12 tradition. So Paul doesn't seem to know about a disrupted 12. You know, as I've mentioned, Luke and Matthew go out of their way to call the assembled disciples the 11. And I suspect they know this tradition about between to the 12 and they're making that point.

So Paul seems to, doesn't seem to have any idea of a renegade disciple tradition that is somehow separated from that. There's another tradition, the Q tradition, which if it's earlier than the Gospels, where, I think it's Matthew 19 and wherever it is in Luke, where Jesus says to the disciples, remember the Q's source is probably a saying source. So sayings that were collected prior to the writing of the Gospels, you the 12 disciples will be on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. So again, this 12ness is really important. So that again only works if you have this kind of intact 12. And then in the Book of Revelation, which probably had its finished form at end of the first century, but again, it's probably a complicated textual history.

You have the Holy City where the 12 foundations are the 12. apostles of the Lamb. Now, it's only Luke that's interested in making the 12 up again. So again, if this tradition is earlier than an early tradition within it, you have kind of of these three traditions of an intact 12, but they're appearing to the Peter and to the 12 seems to me to be a pretty knockdown case that in the earliest tradition, you don't have a renegade disciple who is separated from the rest. And that would then explain why the story of Judas is so flat. Right.

And I think Judas enters into the story because Paul describes the Last Supper, the crucifixion and the resurrection. Paul has got virtually nothing about the life and teaching of Jesus. So the gospel writers, when they try to put this into a story form, have to somehow get Jesus from the upper room to the cross. So you've got to get him arrested somehow. And so it seems to me, it could have been done in other ways, but it seems to me that Mark or maybe somebody slightly before, Mark, it attaches this betrayal, this handing over to one of

Jesus' disciples. Now, why Judas? Well, Judas is always last in the list of apostles. It might be nothing more than that. So I think it's easier to demonstrate that there's an absence of this renegade disciple tradition than maybe explain why it came onto Judas. But I think there's a quite clear lack of knowledge of this betrayal tradition in the earliest strands. Paul, you've put forward your case there. I mean, I do find it very fascinating to think that Judas could have become the full guy after his demise and had all of this attached to him. But as you say, you know, still lots and lots of debate around this. Yes, very likely historical figure, one of the 12 disciples, but that big question of could that betrayal have been added later?

It's a fascinating area of his story that you've committed lots of time to study. Yeah, well, it would be ironic, again, of this iconic, you know, the thing we know about Judas, this betrayal, and to the extent where it's the archetypal betrayal, the 30 pieces of silver, I think almost certainly invented. But the betrayal itself, yeah, I think that this is a tradition which is, as early, it's in Mark, but before that it's not there. And yeah, this kind of archetypal betrayal, again, it could be just somebody just happened to attach this story to plural, Judas's name and he's ended up this villain for all time. Well, it's funny how things happened, Paul. I mean, if it wasn't the case, then you wouldn't be studying Judas in such detail. We wouldn't be having this podcast conversation today and so much.

Paul, this has been absolutely brilliant. Last but certainly not least, you did mention you are writing a book currently about Judas. Yes. It's called Redeeming Judas Ascarriot, the life, death and afterlife of an invented villain. Hopefully it'll be out in a couple of years' time. Wow. Okay. What a title. Paul, it just goes to me to say thank you so much for taking the time to come on the show. Thanks, so much.

Well, there you go. There was Dr. Paul Middleton talking all of things Judas Iscariate. I hope you enjoyed the episode. Thank you so much for listening. Now, if you've been enjoying the ancients, please make sure that you're following the show, whether that be on Spotify or wherever you get to your podcasts. That really helps us, and you'll be doing us a big favor.

If you'd also be kind enough to leave us a rating as well, but we'd really appreciate that. Now don't forget, you can also sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a new release every week. Sign up at historyhit.com slash subscribe. That's all from me. I wish you a very happy Easter holiday weekend

and I will see you in the next episode.