A Betrayal of the Original Text: The Traditional Translation and Interpretation of the Last Supper
The Last Supper of the canonical Gospels is traditionally regarded as a Seder (Passover celebration). Jonathan Klawans casts doubt on this interpretation (1). He proposed that the Seder did not come into existence until after the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. Klawans does not present any explanation why the Last Supper was important enough to the early Christians for them to first record the event, then make it sacrosanct, and finally commemorate it by regularly re-enacting it as a sacramental ritual.
The canonical Gospel accounts of the Last Supper will be examined and new translations will be presented. The new translations allow a reconstruction of the actual events of the Last Supper. The new translations also permit an interpretation of the events surrounding the Last Supper that is not theologically motivated and which is more in keeping with Jesus' historical context than the traditional interpretation. The new translations will demonstrate that the canonical accounts of the Last Supper were derived from source material in which Jesus voluntary handed himself over to the Judean authorities after selecting Judas as his trusted representative. The redactors of the canonical Gospels took the original material and created a tale of betrayal and desertion in order to discredit Jesus' most loyal followers and whitewash the real nature of Jesus' activities. Finally, the demonstration of how the Last Supper account had been altered, shows how the Jesus movement made the transition from being an obscure Judean sect to a widespread Hellenic religion.
The incidents in the Gospel attributed to John that led up to the Last Supper differ from those in the Synoptic Gospels. In the Johannine Gospel, Jesus had incurred the enmity of the Temple Establishment with his prior Temple altercation (John 2:13-17) and by capturing the public's attention with his activities at Bethany (John 11:1-55). In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' public demonstrations (2) precipitated his arrest. Following his processional entry into Jerusalem, he cleared and then possibly occupied the Temple courtyard for three days (3).
The Temple demonstration, no matter when it occurred or what form it took, was a challenge to the legitimacy and the authority of the Roman appointed High Priest (4). This action also questioned the right and ability of the Romans to exert control over Judean religion and politics (5). Jesus� coup attempt apparently received little support from his fellow Judeans. He then had to be concerned about the Roman response to his act of defiance.
According to the Johannine Gospel, the High Priest stated that Jesus' arrest would stave off Roman reprisals against the citizens of Judea (6). In fact, after the Romans seized Jesus, they did not take their usual wide spread retribution (7). According to the canonical gospel accounts the Romans seemed content with making an example out of Jesus alone, and did not hunt down and arrest his followers (8)
The traditional English language translation of John Chapter 13 v. 21-30 is given below, followed by two new translations using alternative definitions from Liddell and Scott's Classical Greek-English Lexicon (9). The alternate word choices have just as much, if not more validity, than the traditional word choices.
The Traditional Translation of John 13 (NIV) (10)
JN 13:21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me." JN 13:22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means." JN 13:25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" JN 13:26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the bowl." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. JN 13:27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him (11). "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, JN 13:28 but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. JN 13:29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. JN 13:30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.
Two alternative translations based on the Greek text are given below. These translations use word choices that are determined by context, not by orthodox theology. A brief explanation accompanies each new translation.
The First Proposed New Translation of John 13 based on the Greek Textus Receptus (12):
Saying these things troubled Jesus in the spirit and (he) declared (13) and stated (14): "This is the truth, this is the truth, (15) I am telling you that one of you must turn me (16) in." The disciples were disturbed by what he had said and looked at one another One of the disciples, the one Jesus loved, was reclining (leaning) against him. Simon Peter then nodded at this one and said to him: "Tell (us) who it will be. From whom does he demand this (17)? " Then the one leaning back against the chest of Jesus asked him: "Lord, who will it be?" Jesus replied as follows: "It is the one for whom I shall dunk a morsel (of bread). After dunking the morsel (in wine) (18), he took (it) and gave it to Judas the relative of Simon Iscariot (19). And after the morsel (20), Jesus thereupon told him: " Do what you must do and do it expeditiously.� But of those reclining, no one understood what he had demanded of him, because some thought that since Judas held the purse, Jesus had asked him to buy the things we (21) need for the feast, or that he should give something to the poor. Therefore after accepting the morsel (22), that one immediately went out, and night fell.
In this translation Jesus has decided to turn himself over to the Temple Hierarchy and has chosen Judas as his emissary. Sharing food from his plate is the final blessing he bestowed on Judas before sending him off to perform an abhorrent and dangerous mission. It also demonstrated to the other disciples that Jesus bore no ill will towards Judas and had chosen him because he was especially trusted.
A similar practice is still current among Hasidic Jews led by a charismatic rabbi. At the end of a communal meal the rabbi bestows his blessings on favored followers by letting them have the uneaten scraps off his plate (23).
There is an another possible translation of John 13 which has Jesus performing a well-documented Judean practice used to facilitate decision making.
The Second New Translation of John 13, Based on the Greek Textus Receptus
Saying these things troubled Jesus in the spirit and (he) declared (24) and stated (25): "This is the truth, this is the truth (26) I am telling you that one of you must turn me (27) in." The disciples were disturbed by what he had said and looked at one another.
One of the disciples, the one Jesus loved, was reclining (leaning) against him. Simon Peter then nodded at this one and said to him: "Tell (us) who it will be. From whom does he demand this?" Then the one leaning back against the chest of Jesus asked him: "Lord, who must it be?" Jesus replied as follows: "It is the one whose fragment (28) I shall draw out (29). After drawing out the fragment, he took (it) and presented it to Judas the relative (30) of Simon Iscariot. And after (31) the fragment (32) Jesus thereupon told him: "Do what you must do and do it expeditiously.� But of those reclining, no one understood what he had demanded of him, because some thought that since Judas held the purse, Jesus had asked him to buy the things we (33) need for the feast, or that he should give something to the poor. Therefore after accepting the fragment, that one immediately went out, and night fell.
This version depicts the drawing of lots to determine who would approach the Temple Priests on Jesus' behalf. Judas was selected to be the emissary who would negotiate Jesus' surrender to the Temple Priests and their Roman overlords. Psomiov (fragment) in this context describes not a piece of bread but a shard of pottery or other small object which could be used as a marker for drawing lots.
The Tanhk (Torah) contains precedents for casting lots to make decisions and to determine the outcome of elections (34). There are also New Testament examples of Judeans and Romans casting lots to make important decisions (35). The Jewish historian Josephus (b.36 CE - d. c.96 CE), a near contemporary of Jesus, recorded several examples of Jewish revolutionaries drawing lots in order to make decisions (36).
Neither of the above interpretations of the Last Supper is driven by orthodox Christian theology. Each is based on a literal translation of the words in the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament. Both translations offer a similar explanation for the events associated with the Last Supper. The results have an excellent correlation with the situation then current in Judea.
Both of the proposed new translations imply that Jesus left Jerusalem when he realized that his coup did not have popular support. Instead of fleeing into the wilderness surrounding Jerusalem or committing suicide (37) Jesus decided to turn himself over to the Temple Authorities (38). He chose to sacrifice himself rather than subject his followers and the people of Jerusalem to Roman retribution. The Roman response to rebellion was harsh (39). Jesus selected Judas, either deliberately or by lot, to perform the onerous task of turning his leader over to the authorities. Following Judas� departure, Jesus gave his followers his final instructions and then went outside the city walls to await his arrest (40).
The Johannine Gospel preserves the most complete but still heavily edited account of the so-called Last Supper. The authors of the Synoptic Gospels subjected their source to more extensive modification.
Following Jesus� announcement, the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke have a similar sequence. First the Eucharist is inserted into the narrative, and then Jesus questions the disciples' devotion and predicts Peter will deny his association with him (41).
The Markan account of the Last Supper parallels the Johannine account up to the point where Jesus' disciples protest the announcement that someone must turn him over to the authorities. Jesus still states that he is to be turned in but his interaction with Judas has been omitted. Instead Jesus announced that someone sharing the bowl with him will turn him over. The Markan author does not even make it clear what is being dipped in the bowl, whether it is a bowl for hand washing or a bowl of shared food. The text makes it appear as if Jesus was making a prediction and not deliberately selecting an emissary. The Markan Gospel has Judas act on his own without authorization from Jesus. The text presents him as a traitor.
In the Johannine Gospel, the selection of Judas is followed by Jesus' sermon instructing his disciples about what to expect and do after his death (42). This sermon is not in the Markan text. In its place the Markan redactor had inserted the Eucharist (43), which is followed by Jesus' departure for the Mount of Olives (Mark 14:26). While waiting for Judas to lead the authorities to him, Jesus questioned Peter�s steadfastness (Mark 14:30). He then reprimanded the disciples for selfishly napping rather than offering companionship during his time of foreboding and distress (44). These deviations from the Johannine text make the other disciples appear just as faithless as the Markan Judas.
-------------------------------------------The Traditional Translation of Mark 17 v. 14-20 (NIV) (45)
MK 14:17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve.
MK 14:18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me--one who is eating with me."
MK 14:19 They were distressed, and one by one they said to him, "Surely not I?"
MK 14:20 "It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the bowl with me.
MK 14:21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
The Translation of Mark 14 v. 17-20 Without Theological Bias
He arrived with the twelve when evening came. While they lay down and ate, Jesus said: "I must honestly tell you that one of you eating
here with me must turn me in." They began to protest, and one by one they said to him: Not me! Then he said to them: (It is) one of the twelve, the one immersing (his hand?) with me in
the bowl. I will do what is expected of me, but have pity on the one who delivers me up. It would have been better for him had he never been born.
The gospel attributed to Matthew, like Johannine text, preserves the disciples' objections to Jesus' announcement that one who had shared a bowl with him would turn him over to the authorities. The Johannine text's report of Jesus' active selection of Judas, had been deleted from the Matthean account. Judas' denial (Matthew 26:25), which is challenged by Jesus, echoes and amplifies the other disciples' questioning of Jesus' judgement (Mathew 26:22). Judas is dismissed without either the benefit of a blessing from his leader (the Blessing Hypothesis), or the consolation of knowing that he had been �chosen by God� (the Lottery Hypothesis). The Matthean text vilified Judas by presenting him as a lying traitor rather than a faithful servant.
The Traditional Translation of Matthew 26:20-25 (46)
MT 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down MT 26: with the twelve. MT 26:21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. MT 26:22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? MT 26:23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the bowl, the same shall betray me. MT 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him (47): but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born. MT 26:25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
An alternate and more literal translation of Matthew 26 v 20-23 follows. It should be kept in mind that the original Greek manuscripts did not have any punctuation or spaces between words.
The Translation of Matthew 26:20-23 Without Theological Bias:
And eating with them he said: In all truth, I tell you that one of you must hand me over.
They were extremely upset, and each one told him: Not I, Lord!
And he said in reply: One who has placed his hand in the bowl with me (48), will be the man who hands me over (49).
I will do what is expected of me, but unfortunate will be the man who must hand me over. He would have been better off had he never been born.
And Judas, the one to turn him in, said:� Not I (literally: �Not I am (50)�), Rabbi.�
He replied: But you have stated (admitted) it.
If anything, this translation is even more damaging to Judas� reputation than the traditional translation since Judas is presented as a deliberate liar.
In the gospel attributed to Luke, Judas was presented somewhat differently, though in the end, he is still vilified.
The Lucan redactor had shifted the Johannine statement �Satan entered into Judas (51)�, from the Last Supper account, to a much earlier meeting with the chief priests (52). In the Lucan account, Judas' malicious actions were premeditated, not spontaneous. Judas had been bribed and demonized well in advance of the Last Supper
The gospel attributed to Luke (53), unlike the two other Synoptic texts, places the account of the Eucharist (Luke 22:19-20) before Jesus� announcement of his impending "betrayal" (Luke 22:21-22). In the other Synoptic accounts, Mark and Matthew, Judas departs before Jesus reveals the mystery of the Eucharist to the remaining disciples. In these texts, Judas is cut off from fellowship with the Christian community since he left before the revelation of Christianity�s most important ritual.
In the Lucan story, Judas� initial act of disloyalty (Luke 22: 1-6) took place prior to his participation in the fellowship ceremony of the Last Supper (Luke 22:19-20). Therefore, Judas not only betrayed his master, but also his comrades and all the subsequent generations of Christians who reenact the Last Supper through the ritual of the Eucharist.
The Lucan redactor did not retain the Johannine text where Jesus selects Judas as his emissary. The Lucan redactor also expunged the protests of the disciples from his Last Supper account. Unlike the other canonical texts, the disciples in do not object when Jesus offhandedly announces that he will be turned in (54). Instead they squabble among themselves about who it would be (55), and who would succeed Jesus once he was gone(56). They appear unconcerned about their master's fate and only interested in themselves.
After the disciple's quarrel, the Lucan story had Jesus predict that Peter will deny his association with him (57).
Finally, where the Matthean redactor has the remorseful Judas return the 30 silver pieces to the Temple before committing suicide (Matthew 27: 3-5), the Lucan redactor has the unrepentant and irredeemably evil Judas struck dead by a vengeful God (Acts 1:18).
In addition to demonizing Judas, the Lucan gospel utterly discredited the other disciples. They are depicted as being inconstant, cowardly (58), and selfishly concerned about their own welfare and personal status (59). The Lucan Gospel was written as the prelude to Acts of the Apostles, which presents Paul as a new and improved cosmopolitan apostle who will replace the inadequate original Gallilean disciples.
At the beginning of this essay two hypotheses about what actually happened at the Last Supper were proposed. The first hypothesis has Jesus offering Judas a morsel of food from his bowl as a final blessing before sending him out as an emissary to the Temple authorities. The second hypothesis proposes that Judas was chosen by lot. Each hypothesis represents a more authentic translation of the Johannine account than the traditional interpretation. The only difference between the two hypotheses is whether Judas was chosen deliberately or by chance, which does little to change the narrative direction of the reinterpreted Last Supper account.
In spite of the canonical gospels having undergone considerable redaction, the original Last Supper narrative can be recovered. It is presented below.
Jesus and his followers seized control of the Temple courtyard (according to the Synoptic Gospels) or otherwise provoked a confrontation with the authorities (according to the Johannine Gospel).
Jesus and his immediate followers retreated from public view to a private room, after his attempt to take over the Temple failed.
He announced to his inner circle that one of them must turn him over to the authorities.
They protest this announcement and each asks not to be chosen for this task.
Jesus pulled either a token or piece of bread from his bowl and announced that he had selected Judas to approach the authorities on his behalf.
He told Judas to carry out his assignment quickly and Judas departs.
Jesus then discussed who was to succeed him and then went out to await his arrest.
Only the Johannine Gospel implied that Jesus deliberately turned himself over to the authorities who were growing increasingly worried about both his activities and growing number of followers (60). The rationale for Jesus� self sacrifice was first stated in a speech attributed to Caiaphas (61) and then reiterated (62) after Jesus was taken into custody.
The Johannine gospel twice states that Jesus saw to the safety of his followers (63), by taking individual responsibility for his actions (64) and handing himself over to the authorities. However, this was phrased in such oblique language, that casual or unsophisticated reader might thank that Jesus was acting to fulfill prophecy rather than taking deliberate action to save his followers at the expense of his own freedom and life.
Each of the Gospels has an account of Jesus� capture. Jesus leaves Jerusalem with his disciples (65) and awaits his arrest outside the city walls. The historical precedent for the so-called "Agony in the Garden" is suspect since this incident appears only in the Synoptic gospels (66) (67).
The Johannine Gospel clearly states that Jesus was arrested by a Roman tribune leading a cohort accompanied by Jewish auxiliary troops or minor Temple officials (68). The Synoptic gospels concealed the Roman's participation in the arrest, and make it the responsibility of the major Judean religious and political factions instead(69). The Johannine Gospel is also the only canonical gospel where Jesus clearly tells his disciples, that his surrender will assure their freedom (70).
All four canonical gospels show Peter did not accept his leader's decision to turn himself over to the authorities. Peter lashed out at the High Priest�s representative (71). In spite of this act of violent resistance neither Peter, nor any of the other disciples were taken into custody. This implies some prior agreement with the arresting party, since only Jesus was taken away.
Jesus' attempt to seize the Temple (72) ended in abject failure. When a Judean messianic leader failed to achieve his goals, his disillusioned followers usually disbanded since they believed that they no longer had divine sanction (73), or were hunted down and exterminated by the Romans (74). Neither event occurred in the case of the Jesus movement.
The citizens of Jerusalem were forgiven their trespasses against Roman law and spared from death when Jesus handed himself over to the Romans. His sect experienced a posthumous growth in membership, since his martyrdom gained the admiration of those who had initially rejected him. Rather than dwindling away, the Jesus sect started to gain more adherents (75).
Jesus was transformed from being a defeated insurrectionist and failed messianic pretender into a paradigm of noble behavior and heroic self-sacrifice. His family, led by his brother Jacob, took control of the post-crucifixion Jesus sect (76).
The foregoing arguments suggest that the canonical Gospels' Last Supper narrations were based on earlier source material that did not contain an act of betrayal. Instead Jesus sacrificed himself rather than allow his followers and the citizens of Jerusalem to fall victim to the Roman reprisals against his failed rebellion. Judas, far from being a traitor, acted honorably. He carried out his leader's onerous command that he approach the Temple authorities in order to arrange Jesus' surrender. These were the same authorities whom he had defied only a few days before.
Following the crushing defeat of the Zealots in 70 CE, the Hellenized adherents of the Jesus sect had to distance themselves from the sect�s revolutionary Judean origins. They could no longer afford to be seen as members of a Judean sect that venerated a man who had confronted the Roman Empire. In order to survive, the Jesus sect had to disguise its revolutionary origins. It became less Judean and more like a Hellenic mystery cult (77).
One of the first steps in this process was the creation of a new set of sacred texts. In the new texts, Jesus was not the leader of a liberation movement opposing the Romans and their quisling High Priest (78). Instead, he was presented as a peaceful philosopher who was deserted by his feckless disciples and succumbed to Judean duplicity.
While the dating of the Gospels is controversial, it is generally agreed that they were written after the first Jewish Revolt ended in 70 CE. Though they were written in Greek for the Hellenized populace of the Roman Empire, they probably drew on Aramaic source material. The Gospel writers wanted to present Jesus in a favorable light to an audience that was still harboring anti Judean feelings due to the war Rome had recently waged against the Judean rebels.
The canonical texts were designed to distance Jesus from his Judean environment and downplay any anti-Roman opinions he may have harbored. The Hellenized Gospels had the additional task of supplanting any texts that the messengers ( Greek:apostles) from militant Messianic or Zealot sects had been circulating in Diaspora Judean communities before and during the Jewish Revolt. In all likely hood, the authors of what were to become the canonical gospels wrote hastily. They probably used texts already in circulation as models, and did not expect their efforts to become examples of timeless prose or the foundation documents of a world religion.
The canonical gospel texts, particularly the Synoptic gospels, used the Last Supper as the basis of an anti Judean polemic. Their principle subtext is the disciples' lack of understanding, their short sighted ambitions, and their betrayal and desertion of their leader (79). Roman participation in the capture and execution of Jesus was minimized. The responsibility was shifted to the High Priests (80), who were presented as if they acted on behalf of the Judean populace, rather than the Roman administration that appointed them and kept them in power. The Gospels conceal that the High Priests were actually agents of the Roman government (81). Only the Johannine Gospel addressed the High Priest's fear of being deposed by the Romans if Jesus fomented a major disturbance. The intense strife between religious factions and socioeconomic classes that characterized 1st century CE Judea was downplayed by the canonical gospels.
The redactors of the new gospels created a tale about Judas the traitor (82). Each subsequent version of the canonical gospels, from John to Luke, increased the harshness of the character assassination of Jesus' closest followers. The so-called betrayal in the canonical Gospels was a fiction created by its pro-Roman authors. The tale of the 30 pieces of silver was created in order to provide an Old Testament precedent (Zechariah 11:12-13) for the so-called betrayal of Jesus.
The story about Judas' suicide was created to draw attention away from his subsequent career. The only other individual named Judas associated with Jesus in the non-canonical literature is Judas or Jude the brother of Jesus (83). While there are discrepancies between the surviving stories about this Judas, they agree that he was executed for causing civil unrest (84).
The original Last Supper narrative recorded by the earliest members of the Jesus sect commemorated the self-sacrifice of their leader who saved them from Roman wrath and celebrated Judas' loyalty and obedience to Jesus. The political significance of the Last Supper story was altered and given an eschatological meaning when the Messianic Judaism of the Jesus sect was supplanted by the Hellenized Pauline version of Christianity.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Direct comments and criticism to the author at this email address: