The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

by Leolaia 60 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  In another article on this topic of Midrashic typology in the NT,

  https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1979-1_022.pdf

  An early effort is made to explain the use of the word in a footnote:

  1 It is not the purpose of this article to propose a precise definition of the terms midrash and midrashic. For a discussion of this problem see Le Deaut, "Apropos a Definition of Midrash," Int. 25 (1971) pp. 259-82, and Wright, "The Literary Genre Midrash," CBQ 28 (1966) pp. 105-38,417-57. In this article the term midrash will be used rather loosely. We will be considering many NT passages which comment upon the OT; such passages are "midrashic" in at least the etymological sense of the word, regardless how much they may differ from the halakhic or haggadic midrash. We need some term by which to refer to such passages, and "midrash" seems a logical choice. Some writers use this term in a different sense. For example S. Sandmel (The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity [New York: Oxford, 1967] p. 188) speaks of the gospels as a midrash on the life of Jesus. But in this article the term will be restricted to passages which comment upon the OT.
• 

  peacefulpete

  The very essence of second temple Judaism (for want of a better word) was typological reading of OT stories with some perceived relevance to contemporary issues. What happened before would happen again as it were. Every letter of Tanakh was seen as brimming with significance beyond the text at face value. You of course know that.

  Sectarian self identification with heroes and events of the past was everywhere.

  Apart from that later usage, the OT itself is a collection of retellings of creation and savior cycles. Splitting of waters is famously obvious. IOW whatever the terminology preferred, the idea of perceiving an providential connection/equation of the past with the present/future is a very common concept in much of the ancient world including within Judaism.

  That being the case, it's not surprising the sectarian authors of the Gospels made full use of the OT and related works in the creation of the narrative about a savior whose name (Joshuah/Jesus) itself drawn from these texts.
• 

  PioneerSchmioneer

  You are just a nut who likes to use big words.

  I went to 10 years of Hebrew school, 10 years of Christian religious studies on top of that.

  I worked on one of the first new English translations of Tobit from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

  I started my studies in Koine Greek beginning in 1984.

  I was the editor for a nationally read religious magazine for two and a half years.

  I am tired of dealing with armchair exJW scholars who think they know what they are talking about and just want the Bible to be wrong because they were WOUNDED by the Watchtower and are not brave enough to put the blame where it belongs--not on a book but on stupid men leading a cult.

  Believe what you want. Go ahead. If it helps you to hear this: You're the expert.

  Enjoy sounding smart to yourself.
• 

  Phizzy

  Oh dear, an Ad hominem attack ! P.S. you just lost all credibility as far as I am concerned,and trumpeting your qualifications is not impressive.

  A good number of Scholars have come to wrong conclusions in the past, and often because without realising it, they were looking at the Texts with believer's eyes. Or they were just plain wrong.

  Just address what you disagree with, and back it up with more than mere opinion, and you may regain some credibility.
• 

  Jeffro

  To paraphrase PioneerSchmioneer in a previous thread, ‘you are wrong because you broke the rules’. Appeal to authority, especially one’s own authority, with no direct bearing on the content discussed is fallacious and particularly arrogant, and common among particular styles of academia where such people lose sight of a legitimate interest in truth in favour of self-importance and tradition. And he threw in some ad hominem on top for ‘good measure’, including straw manning motivations and poisoning the well. Pathetic.

  It is entirely unimpressive to say a particular interpretation is wrong (or likely wrong) because it isn’t consistent with some other self-important (and often biased) interpretation. It is much more helpful to assess interpretations based on content, historical context, comparison with other sources to which the authors had access, and the probable motivations of the authors.
• 

  Jeffro

  PioneerSchmioneer:

  Why hide a "made up fact" you worked so hard to make up? You would want people to see what you worked so hard to make up, wouldn't you?

  One possible reason is well illustrated by the question itself… to make it seem more credible. It’s similar to the tedious ‘criterion of embarrassment’… as a separate example, despite the fact that Genesis was compiled in the neo-Babylonian period based on earlier Israelite and Babylonian folklore, there is the argument that ‘Moses must have been real because he included his own shortcomings’ (and also his own death in Deuteronomy but that can be glossed over easily enough). 🙄 It is essentially a parlour trick. Similarly, whilst it is possible that Judas Iscariot existed, the character seems more like a trope (the relevant events at the ‘last supper’ being particularly contrived), and apologists have to do backflips to reconcile the contradictory death stories.
• 

  careful

  Wow, resurrecting one of Leolaia's old and always informative posts. She has been inactive here now for 10+ years. She went off into comparative linguistics at the graduate level. Does anyone know how she's doing?
• 

  peacefulpete

  Regarding Leolaia, She has a rare gift, I lost contact quite a few years ago. She was teaching language at Stanford at the time. She is no longer there. All the best to her wherever she is.

  P.S. You have no idea how disappointed your comments have made me. I'm hoping you may be able to take a step back and get excited again about learning new ideas and approaches or assisting us to do the same. We've had a number of well-schooled professionals on this forum willing to contribute to discussions, using their expertise to kindly steer those of us with less experience. Narkissos for example was/is a valued Greek translator as well as versed in the schools of philosophy. He tolerated amateurs such as myself. My 25 year passion for research began with a desire to understand the book I had imagined myself an expert. Now my puzzle solving nature craves resolution to the origin and earliest stages of Christianity. I've read literally hundreds of respected works on this and related topics. I've a pretty comprehensive view of the larger issues and controversies. I love learning, if you care to share something with me on this topic I'll always welcome it.
• 

  careful

  PP,

  Well, I didn't mean to disappoint you or anyone. Judas Iscariot is not been of much interest to me over the years, so I have not particularly pursued scholarship on him or the issues he represents. We all make decisions, whether fully conscious or not (or just from what crosses our path), regarding how we will spend our time researching things. My limited time just does not include this topic, nor likely will it. Sorry that I have little to contribute on the subject.

  I love learning too, but we all have our limits as to time spent on anything.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Sorry careful I was directing that to P.S.(pioneer schmioneer) His/their comments disappointed me. I'm not sure what to think. The person who posted that last comment and the one who posted in earlier threads seem like two different people. I am after all presenting nothing more than what they accepted was true of the OT, was continued in the Gospels,

  Earlier he/they posted a comment much like mine in thought. :

  Yet the Bible writers used different genres to preserve and pass on their truths. They often employed motifs familiar to the ancient reader. This meant borrowing from popular types and formats of ancient storytelling.....Like the Moses story, where as a babe, he is preserved from pharaoh by being placed in a reed basket and sent down the Nile only to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter. This is likely not history but a borrowed mythological motif....