|
|
 |
Francesco
Maddalena
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
I have a question regarding Judas Iscariot.
Catholic Tradition (and Christian tradition,
in general) show Judas as a traitor who killed
himself after Jesus' Crucifixion, although
some scholars these days challenge this view.
For example 1 Corinthians 15:5 says:
5 he appeared to Cephas, and then
to the Twelve.
Here Paul says that Jesus appeared to the
Twelve after His Death and Resurrection,
not
the Eleven. Sure, Matthias replaces Judas,
but this was only a month after Jesus' Ascension
to Heaven, Acts 1:3.
Also, some scholars claim that Jesus appearing
to the eleven, in Matthew and Luke, includes
Judas as John 20:24 shows that the first time,
Thomas was not present. So the eleven were
the twelve minus Thomas . . . although Jesus
appeared later on to the Apostles with Thomas
present.
Another criticism is the problem of the conflicting
ways Judas Iscariot died. Was he:
- hanged, or
- disemboweled:
<Some say this resembles
deaths as you saw them in the Old Testament,
claiming that Judas did not kill himself
but endured an Old Testament type of death.>
Also, in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:28-30 Jesus
tells the Apostles that they will:
sit on the twelve thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.
This might be conflicting because it includes
Judas, but if Judas was a traitor later on,
he would not be able to sit on one of the
thrones Jesus speaks of and Jesus does not
state any exception in the text.
- So what is the real story?
- Did Paul made a mistake when he said The Twelve, meaning the eleven Apostles
without Judas?
- Are the accounts of Judas' death wrong?
- How can we reconcile it with some
difficult and conflicting Scripture
passages?
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Francesco
|
|
{
Did Paul made a mistake when he said "The Twelve", meaning "the Eleven" Apostles
without Judas? }
|
|
Eric
replied:
|
Hi, Francesco —
Let's address 1 Corinthians 15:5 first. This passage depicts Jesus's
appearances to various people. It
says that the appearances occurred
after he was raised, but there is
no indication they all happened before
the Ascension. In fact, Paul enumerates
himself among the appearances without
distinction (except to say he is
last), and we know he saw Jesus after
the Ascension (Acts 9:1-15). Since, if
we take the appointment of Matthias
as occurring in chronological order
(an arguable assumption, by the way,
but I won't go there), he would
have been appointed between Ascension
(Acts 1:9) and Pentecost (Acts 2:1),
a short period of time, so the reference
to the Twelve could well
have included Matthias during this
time period of appearances.
Another possibility is that The
Twelve is being used as synonymous
with the group of Apostles regardless
of how many happened to be present.
You might argue that they clearly
use
The Eleven elsewhere
when they mean to exclude Judas.
- Why would they use The
Twelve when they mean The
Eleven and use it elsewhere?
It could be that, because twelve
is a mystical number symbolizing
Israel (the New Israel,
the Church), they preferred to use
that, in this context, or perhaps
they just weren't that concerned
about precision. If you go around
assuming that numbers in Scripture
are always absolutely exact, you'll
go nuts. It's like if you asked me
how many people showed up for an
event, I might say a dozen even
though it was really 11 or 13. Let's
not quibble over one person.
Frankly, I think it is rather absurd
to believe cryptic number mismatches
over the very clear statements of
Judas's fate.
The ways that Judas died do not necessarily
conflict. Suppose he hung himself
badly such that he was decapitated
and his body fell down the hill and
disemboweled itself. That's a scenario
in which both are true: one emphasized
the manner, the other emphasized
the results. Let's not force a contradiction
when it can be easily explained.
As for the twelve thrones, I'm not
going to worry about it. Either Judas
was really saved and will sit on
a throne, or Jesus's Words were implicitly
conditional and Judas ceded his throne
to Matthias or maybe Paul. I'm not
sure it really matters.
The important thing is not to take
Scripture so literalistic that you
tie yourself in knots. I can think
of a lot more compelling alleged contradictions if
you're going to take a literalist
view of Scripture.
Eric
|
Francesco
replied:
|
Hi, Eric —
Thank you for your answer!
Of course, I understand that numbers
in the Bible are often more symbolic
than precise numbers. One might argue
that this is true in many ancient
documents as well. Indeed, I agree
one can allow for some degree of
flexibility when it comes to numbering The Twelve.
I also think it would be quite weird
if Judas would be among the twelve after the Resurrection.
It is highly unlikely that a mass
conspiracy could have been
formed against Judas by the other
Apostles and there are virtually
no historical proofs that Judas was
shunned after the Ascension or after
Pentecost because Judas would have
certainly formed his own church.
Also the Early Fathers seem to share
Judas' tragic faith.
In my opinion, the seemingly contrasting
testimonies might be derived at by
the fact that the news about Judas
was scarce; most testimonies agree
that he met a tragic end, shortly
after betraying Jesus.
That said, Judas' exact fate might
still be murky, but there is very
little doubt, he was not part of
the Early Church.
The critiques I mentioned usually
come from:
- modern historians (not all of
them)
- liberal Christians, or
- non-Christian biblical scholars
which try to understand the historical
Jesus. Sadly, many start with a
priori supposition that the historical
Jesus is not the same as the Tradition
Jesus.
I agree with your statements on Biblical
literalism, which is a more
a problem for the
Sola Scriptura crowd.
Nevertheless, I think it is logical
to bring up questions that arise
among the historical books of the
Bible.
God bless,
Francesco
|
|
|
|
