Judas: A Cleverly Devised Tale
2 Peter 1:16 says that the original followers of Jesus “didn’t follow cleverly devised tales” and then immediately affirms that a story found in the Gospels really happened as described (2 Peter 1:16-18).
But why do you suppose the early Christians felt the need to address this? Why did the early church feel vulnerable to the criticism that the stories in the Gospels were more clever in nature than historical? Might it have been for good reason?
To consider one answer to this question, we’ll explore one of the most fascinating and compelling theories about the Gospels there is: the theory that the Judas story in the Gospels is a literary compilation of details from the betrayal stories in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) simply combined together to create something "new."
Could the Judas character of the Christian scriptures be nothing more than the product of ancient imagination? Might his invention even be the result of an ancient literary technique we see the New Testament authors using over and over again?
To explore all this and more, we’ll begin with the proposed source: the betrayal stories of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.
As we consider each of these tales in turn, I think you’ll quickly see why this theory is so compelling and why the early church may have felt the need to defend the Gospels as being something other than what such literary parallels make them seem: cleverly devised indeed.
JOSEPH (Judah/One of the Twelve)
For starters, let’s take Joseph’s betrayal by his brothers found in the book of Genesis. It’s one of the earliest betrayal stories in the Bible - though not the very earliest (chronologically). We’ll actually need to talk about that one in a minute.
But for now, you’ll recall that Joseph was one of the patriarch Jacob’s twelve sons, who in turn fathered Israel’s twelve tribes. One day, as Joseph approached from afar, his brothers decided to betray him cause they were ticked off about his dreams of ruling over them. “Here comes the dreamer”, one said spitefully.
Ironically, in the end, their decision to betray him - in defiance of the idea that Joseph would ascend above them - would actually help lead to that very outcome.
After Joseph's brothers throw him in a pit, one of Jacob’s twelve sons (one of his brothers), Judah, had an idea. Why not sell Joseph to some people passing by for some silver (see Genesis chapter 37:26-28).
Now you may already be starting to think as cleverly as this theory suggests the Gospel authors were thinking. As an important clue, keep in mind how Jesus had twelve disciples that paralleled Jacob having twelve sons and Israel’s having twelve tribes that they fathered as patriarchs.
Wait, one of these original twelve betrays the most favored son by handing him over captive to a group of people for a payment of silver… Why does that begin to sound so familiar?
But it gets better.
Did you know that the name “Judas” is a greek form of the name “Judah” ? That’s right. In fact, the Greek translation of the Old Testament - the septuagint - apparently spells the name of Jacob’s son and Joseph’s brother Judah in Greek in Genesis the same way “Judas” is spelled in the Gospels (also written in Greek).
That means that the "Judas" of the twelve disciples has the same name as the Judah of the twelve sons of "Jacob." He bears the name of the one who had the idea to betray Joseph by selling him over captive to a group for a payment of silver.
Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went away to the chief priests, that he might deliver him to them. They, when they heard it, were glad, and promised to give him money. He sought how he might conveniently deliver him. (Mark 14:10-11 WEB)
Why do I mention it? Hmm... No reason. Couldn’t possibly matter - because if there’s one thing we know, we know this: Christians don’t follow "cleverly devised tales." Right?
Well, hold on tight, cause we’re only getting started.
KING DAVID'S BETRAYER (Shared My Bread / Hung Himself)
Let’s talk about another Old Testament betrayal story.
In this case, we’re interested the member of King David’s inner circle who betrayed him: a man named Ahithophel.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, a couple the psalms of David are actually understood to be about this individual’s betrayal: Psalm 41 and Psalm 55. Although the fuller story is to be found in the book of 2 Samuel.
In Psalm 55, like in 2 Samuel, Ahithophel is called out by name explicitly. Where as Psalm 41:9, also commonly believed to be about Ahithophel’s betrayal in its original context, is of particular interest to us here. In it, David describes his close friend who ate bread with him but then betrayed him.
"Yes, my own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who ate bread with me, has lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9 WEB)
You know what would be really crazy? What if we wrote a scene where someone in a man’s inner circle literally ate bread with him and then got up right from that table where they just shared that bread with the explicit purpose of betraying them… that would just resemble this so much, wouldn’t it? But even more so, would be if the man being betrayed was himself a royal heir of David too. But perhaps that would be almost too on the nose.
When it was evening he came with the twelve. As they sat and were eating, Jesus said, “Most certainly I tell you, one of you will betray me—he who eats with me.”
...He answered them, “It is one of the twelve, he who dips with me in the dish. (Mark 14:17-18, 20 WEB)
Jesus therefore answered, “It is he to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. After the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him.
Then Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.”
...Therefore having received that morsel, he went out immediately. It was night. (John 13:26-27,30 WEB)
Oh yeah! I almost forgot: do you know what happened to this man Ahithophel, betrayer of King David? After he saw the consequences of his betrayal and was unhappy with the outcome, the Scriptures tell us that he went and hung himself! (See 2 Samuel 17:23).
And you know, that all somehow seems incredibly familiar too… I mean, a guy in the inner circle who ate the anointed David King’s bread with him before betraying him and who later in seeing the outcome of his betrayal goes and hangs himself. Sound like anybody else you know?
Then [Judas] went away and hanged himself. (Matt. 27:5b WEB)
Well if we’re committed to the idea that the Gospels are not cleverly devised tales, we might not want to think so. Perhaps these parallels are all just a coincidence?
But we’ve not yet even examined half the evidence, so let’s get all the facts on the table before we reach any firm conclusions (if we can help ourselves). Let’s move onto our next old testament betrayal story.
BETRAYAL WITH A KISS (Death by Intestine Spillage)
Did you know that the Hebrew Scriptures have a thing or two to say about the deceptive kiss of a friend or enemy? For example, see Proverbs 27:6 or Genesis 27:26-27. But no other example is clearer than the one that’s a part of another betrayal story from the days of King David (also found in the book of 2 Samuel).
In this particular betrayal story, we’re told that a man walks up to another, his friend, and leans in close as if to kiss him. Pulling his beard in with one hand to get him close for presumed kiss, he instead stabs him in the gut with the other hand. A betrayal with a kiss if there ever was one. As a result of this deceptively delivered blow, the man’s bowels spill out of him and he dies (see 2 Samuel 20:9-10).
But that surely has nothing to do with the Judas betrayal story which also includes a betrayal with a kiss, right? For in Mark, Matthew and Luke’s version, Judas also betrays Jesus with a kiss, in the garden of Gethsemane scene.
[Jesus] came the third time and said to [the disciples], “...The hour has come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise! Let’s get going. Behold, he who betrays me is at hand.”
Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came—and with him a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders.
Now he who betrayed him had given them a sign, saying, “Whomever I will kiss, that is he. Seize him, and lead him away safely.” When he had come, immediately he came to him and said, “Rabbi! Rabbi!” and kissed him. They laid their hands on him and seized him. (Mark 14:41-46 WEB)
But thats actually not where the parallels with this story end.
Above we talked about Judas not only eating Jesus bread and betraying him like David’s betrayer Ahithophel but also hanging himself like him. But did you know that Judas also has an alternate ending in the Gospels? The alternate ending appears, in Luke part 2, the book of Acts. For in Acts’ first chapter, it describes Judas mysteriously dying in a field he’s purchased by falling over and having his own intestines suddenly spilling out - almost as if mysteriously cut in half I might add (see Acts 1:15-18).
But wait, isn’t that how the man betrayed with a kiss in 2 Samuel died? With his intestines spilling out?
Joab said to Amasa, “Is it well with you, my brother?” Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s hand. So he struck him with it in the body and shed out his bowels to the ground, and didn’t strike him again; and he died. (2 Samuel 20:9-10a WEB)
And a bit crazier still is how this occurs in Luke’s overall telling of things. For unlike in Mark and Matthew, in Luke’s Gethsemane scene, Jesus verbally rebukes Judas’ for betraying him with a kiss specifically.
While he was still speaking, a crowd appeared. He who was called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He came near to Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said to him, “Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? (Luke 22:47-48 WEB)
And then later, Luke tells us, Judas mysteriously dies in this way.
Judas... obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness; and falling headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines gushed out. (Acts 1:15,18 WEB)
You know, it’s almost as if, in the end, the betrayal with a kiss in the Hebrew Scriptures was supernaturally reversed back on Judas in Luke’s version of the story.
I mean, he literally goes to betray someone with a kiss of death, is explicitly rebuked for it by the Lord and then miraculously falls over, cut in half and with his own intestines spilling out instead. In fact, in Luke's version it's almost like the one Judas ultimately betrayed was himself.
But surely this is all just coincidence upon coincidence, right? Not causally connected… at least not at a mere human level… because Christians do not “follow cleverly devised tales”. Thats what the author of 2 Peter wants us to think anyway.
JUDAS'S TWO DEATHS: IN HARMONY?
And so, perhaps we shouldn’t even talk about the attempts to harmonize the two versions of Judas’s death by hanging in Matthew compared to supernatural intestinal evacuation by Luke in Acts. I mean, how could one explain it after seeing all we’ve seen?
Consider: How the earliest dated gospel, Mark, included the original shorter Judas betrayal story and in it, already featuring details from both betrayal stories from 2nd Samuel (featuring both the betrayal after sharing bread during the last supper and the betrayal with a kiss in gethsemane - see Mark 14). And then to see Matthew expand on that by also adding a death for Judas drawn from one of these two stories already paralleled by Mark’s version that he’s building upon: hanging himself (Matt. 27:5b). Meanwhile, Luke expands on Mark’s version with a death of Judas from the other 2nd Samuel story that Mark already paralleled, the betrayal with a kiss but with the consequence of it reversed on him with his own intestines spilling out (Luke 22:47-48, Acts 1:18). How could we avoid facing what the Gospel authors all seem to be clearly in on - with them all evidently up to the same thing literarily here, riffing off each other and the same Hebrew Scriptures to develop their versions of the tale?
And worse of all, with the nature of his death (hanging or mysterious intestine spillage) only being a surface level explanation of the bigger difference between Matthew and Luke’s version of Judas’ ending. For in Matthew, Judas gives the betrayal silver back and then goes and hangs himself (like David’s betrayer).
Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that Jesus was condemned, felt remorse, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood.”
But they said, “What is that to us? You see to it.”
He threw down the pieces of silver in the sanctuary and departed. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matt. 27:3-5 WEB)
But in Luke’s version, Judas not only doesn’t give the money back but instead, he uses the money himself to buy a field and goes there and mysteriously dies with his intestines spilling out (like the 2 Samuel kiss of betrayal victim).
Judas... obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness; and falling headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines gushed out. It became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem that in their language that field was called ‘Akeldama,’ that is, ‘The field of blood.’ (Acts 1:15,18-19 WEB)
Was Judas remorseful and giving the money back to then sorrowfully hang himself? Or did he show no sign of remorse and use his money on himself, buying a field, only to be mysteriously punished in the field he bought? Or perhaps better still, instead of this being literal history, are both stories simply based on old testament betrayal stories that Mark, Matthew and Luke all seem to be alluding to?
And yet, despite the rising weight of all this, we’re still not done. Which is why we’ll move on to one more Old Testament betrayal story.
By the way, all the above I learned from the writings of the late Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong. However, this next parallel, is one he seems perhaps to have overlooked.
CAIN AND ABEL (The original Field of Blood)
Ah, the original biblical betrayal story: Cain and Abel.
Now as you’ll recall, Cain was angry and jealous of Abel cause God honored Abel’s offering but rejected Cain’s. (Side note: the Torah elsewhere says God requires a first born or first fruits offering but in Genesis, only Abel is said to give one here.)
So Cain is spiteful towards Abel his brother and tricks him to go out into a field with him and betrays him by killing him there.
Cain said to Abel, his brother, “Let’s go into the field.” While they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and killed him. (Gen. 4:8)
Then God asks him, where is your brother Abel? And Cain says: who am I my brother’s keeper? God tells him your brother Abel’s blood cried out to me from the ground.
The Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries to me from the ground. Now you are cursed because of the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. (Genesis 4:10-11)
To which, we might now ask: the blood on the ground of what again? The blood on the ground of the field of course! Wait a minute… there's a field of blood in the original betrayal Story of the Bible! Now why does that seem so familiar?
Oh thats right! Because there’s a FIELD of BLOOD in the betrayal story of Jesus by Judas in the Gospels too… just like every other Old Testament betrayal story details. At least, there is such a field once Matthew added a few more parallel details to what Mark already had included.
SECONDARY COMPOSITES
(Beyond the composite of Old Testament betrayal story details that make up the Judas story in the Gospels, there also appear to be at least a couple details drawn from secondary composites build around some of those specifics: combining details from two fields associated with death in Genesis and from two Old Testament stories about being sold for the price of a slave.)
But there is this rather interesting thing about the field of blood in the Gospels. When it first appears in the gospel of Matthew (who like Luke and John knowingly build on Mark’s foundation), I always wondered at the purpose for the field of blood that the gospel of Matthew describes.
You see, in Matthew, it says that this field was purchased with Judas’ betrayal silver by the priest he gave it back to (in his version) for the purpose of providing a place to bury strangers or foreigners.
The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It’s not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.” They took counsel, and bought the potter’s field with them to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called “The Field of Blood” to this day. (Matt. 27:6-8)
Huh… A place to bury foreigners or strangers? What does that have to do with the field of blood in the Cain and Abel story? Not much, I figured.
But that was before I knew about the importance of literary composites in the Gospels you see. Or how the New Testament authors include composites so often.
For example, how the Judas betrayal story itself appears to be a composite of betrayal story details from the Hebrew Scriptures combined together to make a new whole as we’ve been discussing.
Heck, even the two greatest commandments in the Gospels are a composite of two “thou shalt love” commands from two different places in the old testament (one from Deuteronomy and one from Leviticus). Again, like with Judas, combined together because of a common feature they share. In fact, there appear to only be three "thou shalt love" commands in the entire Old Testament.
For a scholarly study of composite scriptural quotations in the New Testament specifically, check out “Composite Citations in Antiquity: Volume Two: New Testament Uses.” A great reference by a group of Bible scholars. One thing you’ll notice if you do is how with these literary composites almost always a common feature that the source passages being combined together and which they had long before they were combined together in the New Testament. Speaking of which, 1 out of every 5-6 Old Testament citations or explicit quotations in the New Testament appears to be a composite quotation according to this same study. That's around 17-20% of the Scriptural quotations in the New Testament and strongly indicates this was a common literary convention used by the authors of the New Testament including the authors of the Gospels.
And speaking of common features leading to composites in the New Testament, it turns out the field of blood isn’t the only field associated with death - or where the remains of the dead end up - in the book of Genesis we should be thinking about here. The other? The one Abraham buys when his wife Sarah dies.
Consider why Abraham needs to buy it: Because as strangers in a strange land (having come from a foreign land called by God to leave his own people), Abraham and his household have nowhere to bury their dead! So they buy a field (see Genesis 23) and - as the Scriptures go on to tell us - use it for generations to bury the people of their household when they die.
In fact, Abraham even explicitly calls himself a “stranger” and a “foreigner” to those he buys the field from!
“I am a stranger and a foreigner living with you. Give me a possession of a burying-place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.”
...The field, and the cave that is in it, were deeded to Abraham by the children of Heth as a possession for a burial place. (Gen. 23:4, 20 WEB)
Hence, making the field of blood in the gospel of Matthew, purchased to give foreigners or strangers a place to bury their dead (Matt. 27:7-8), a likely composite of at least these two fields associated with the dead (or human remains) in the book of Genesis. Mystery solved? And you might be surprised just how many mysteries composites as a clever literary device of the New Testament authors can solve in the Gospels.
Now to be complete, you might have noticed that Matthew blends to a few more details from the books of Jeremiah and Zechariah in with his FIELD of BLOOD composite. Or how, while Joseph was sold into slavery by his brother’s for 20 pieces of silver (at Judah’s suggestion), the price for a slave in Exodus 21:32 is 30 pieces of silver. Most importantly, you should know that this same amount also appears in the book of Zechariah, where the shepherd in Zechariah 11 is paid this amount (the price of slave) by God’s unfaithful people as an insult against him. In that same passage, God tells Zachariah to throw the 30 pieces of silver to the potter in the Lord’s house.
The Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter—the handsome price that I was valued at by them!” I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter in Lord's house. (Zechariah 11:13 WEB)
Well, Judas is paid 30 pieces of silver (not 20 pieces) and later throws it in the temple (the lord’s house) to the priests in Matthew’s version of the Judas betrayal story (Matt. 27:5), pulling these additional details into his composite design.
He threw down the pieces of silver in the sanctuary and departed. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matt. 27:5 WEB)
All these associated details, mostly from Old Testament betrayal stories (as a primary composite) and also from some secondary composites (fields associated with death in Genesis, being betrayed/wronged for the price of a slave in the Old Testament) are combined together in the Gospel betrayal story of Judas - the grand literary composite that it is.
It’s a pattern the earliest Gospel author Mark begins and the later canonical gospel authors pick up and expand upon without missing a beat (all knowingly playing the same game, it seems). Heck, even John makes Jesus and Judas literally dip bread together at the table (John 13:26-30), making one betrayal parallel that was more subtle in Mark, Matthew and Luke even more explicit in his version (and here I thought it was a bit on the nose already).
But I’m sure this is all just a coincidence, right? The parallel rich examples here - and many more that make up the dozens of Scriptural composites in the Gospels and the New Testament more broadly, they must all just be a huge coincidence. Why? Because christians, we’re told by the man forging a letter in the apostle peter’s name, don’t follow cleverly devised tales… and surely therefore don’t follow a set of writings created using such a clever device as these literary composites!
CLEVERLY DEVISED TALES REVISITED
As it turns out, the ironic truth here is even greater than we’ve yet considered. You see, even 2 peter, where we get this “cleverly devised tales” phrasing, provides us evidence that it’s more of what we’ve seen above rather than less or otherwise.
In 2 peter, at the very same moment it says that the early Christians don’t follow cleverly devised tales, it backs this up by immediately stating that when they spoke of God speaking to Jesus at the Transfiguration saying “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” (a story we find in the Gospels, I’ll remind you), that this really happened and he saw it with his own eyes and heard it with his own ears on the mountain (2 Peter 1:16-18).
For we didn’t follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” We heard this voice come out of heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18 WEB)
Now as I mentioned, we find this transfiguration story in the Gospels including the same words of god from heaven that 2 peter quotes (see Matthew 17:1-13) - which, are also the words spoken by God from Heaven at Jesus' baptism in the synoptic Gospels as well (e.g. Matthew 3:16-17). I guess repetition is the key after all… Even at the expense of slightly less creatively devised tales.
But here’s the crazy thing: These words of God from heaven in both stories - some bible scholars point out - is likely another New Testament literary composite! In fact, one that again follows the pattern we saw above of combining like parts together to form a new whole.
In this case, the composite would be of God’s own words to His anointed one as found in two places in the Hebrew Scriptures (that both passages feature God’s words to His anointed one being the shared or common feature that unites them).
Those two passages are Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1.
In Psalm 2:7, God’s words to the Davidic king are...
“You are my son, today I have become your father.”
In Isaiah 42:1, God’s words to his chosen servant, as the Gospel of Matthew itself quotes them are...
“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit on him. He will proclaim justice to the nations.” (Matthew 12:18).
Together as a composite of God’s words from heaven to Jesus...
“You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.”
But how can this be? The immediate example and evidence that Christians do not follow cleverly devised tales is yet another example of the New Testament authors using the same clever literary device, yet one more literary composite?
Its almost like the biblical literalist and - some bible Scholars say forger - behind 2 Peter left us this smoking gun that biblical literalism is a lie of the early church? That the very evidence called upon should itself be clear evidence of the exact opposite is stunning?
I mean really, lying conman starting cults and new religions? It is enough to make Jospeh Smith or L. Ron Hubbard blush. And here I thought only in America could marketing be so misleading.
It seems that the early Christians may have followed cleverly devised tales after all.
CONCLUSION
Thanks for listening. If you want to learn more about composites, a really solid place to start is that scholarly reference Composites Citations in Antiquity - Volume two: New Testament Uses I mentioned earlier.
Be aware that it is only focused on explicit composites quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) featured in the New Testament. That’s just the explicit quotes… which it calculates between 1 out of every 5-6 quotes as being composites.
But hopefully by now you know that the content in the Gospels that can be explained by this literary pattern go well beyond the explicit quotations alone and can also include characters and events as well.
And as I love the topic, I may do another blog (or videos) exploring other likely examples of this (as I have a list of a favorite dozen or so I’d love to discuss). Please subscribe if you want to dive into this topic further.
But yeah, Christians do follow cleverly devised tales. But hey, who doesn’t? Welcome the human race! We love art and creative storytelling. And since when does a story have to be literally true to be valued as communicating something that’s true anyway. Even Jesus knew and used this fact with his frequent parables. Perhaps the Gospel authors were even inspired to follow his lead.
Anyway, I know Christians are competitive but really, to say like the 2nd century Justin Martyr “yeah we have a bunch of the same or parallel ideas but the difference with us, is our stories are true?” (paraphrase) ? Well as long as they want to sell it, there will be contrarians here ready to respond by calling out the deception. It simply flies in the face of the broader record if you ask me. I can either believe these ancient voices or my own eyes. And truth is, they haven’t got a chance.
So that’s it for now. I hope you’ve enjoyed this article, please subscribe for more content like this in the future. And if you do, I’ll see you in the next one.