Whitfield Blocker


Ver. 14.1
Posted: Feb. 28, 2006 Modified: 4/7/2006

The Traditional Translation and Interpretation of the Last Supper: A Betrayal of the Original Text. The Vilification of Judas and the Disciples.


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 either received less support from his fellow Judeans than he had hoped for, or did it not overpower the Roman garrison in Jerusalem. Jesus
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):26
"This is the truth, this is the truth ) 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: christianoriginsoccasionalpapers (at) yahoo (period) com

Keywords:
 Roman origin Christianity Christian origins gospel Judas gospel English mistranslaton Aramaic Greek Jesus martydom Jesus self sacrifice
 Jesus altercation violence Temple Judas friend loyal follower Jesus Herodian Paul Saul Hellenized


FOOTNOTES:


1) Jonathan Klawans, Was Jesus' Last Supper a Seder?; Bible Review, Vol. XVII Number 2, Oct 2001, p.24.
 
2) The Romans and their client kings had very little tolerance for any one who attracted large crowds, encouraged demonstrations or fomented rebellion.
John the Baptist is imprisoned and executed because he has a large audience. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston Translation, 18.5.2.
The Samaritan Prophet's Messianic demonstration at Mount Gerizim is brutally suppressed by Pontius Pilate's cavalry. Ibid.,18.4.1-2.
Theudas� demonstration outside of Jerusalem is broken up, and many are killed or captured. Theudas is executed. Ibid., 20,5,1.
An Egyptian "false prophet" leads a mob against Jerusalem. The mob is dispersed, and many are killed or captured. Flavius Josephus, War of the Jews,
Whiston Translation, Book 2, Chapter 13.

3) Mk 11:15, Mk 14:49, Lk 19:45, Lk 19:47, Mt 21:12, Mt 21:23.

4) After the Hasmoneans were deposed, the High Priest was selected by Herod the Great, then by his sons and then by the Roman administrators of Judea.
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston Translation; Book 20 Chapter 10, 274-251.
Herod and then the Romans (except for the period when Vitellius was governor) maintained control over the Temple cult by holding the High Priests vestments
hostage in the Antonia Fortress. Ibid., Book 18, Chapter 2.1-3.
Quirineus, the governor of Syria, and the procurators of Judea who followed him, deposed and appointed the High Priests at will. Ibid., Book 15, Chapter 4.
With the onset of Roman occupation and Herodian rule of Judea in 37 BCE, both the legitimate Zadokite High Priests and the Hasmonean usurpers were deposed.
The High Priests were subsequently selected from a small group of aristocratic families. During most of this time the Romans exerted further control over
the Temple cult by storing the High Priest�s vestments in the Antonia fortress and only letting the High Priest take temporary possession of them during
festivals. The High Priest derived his powers from the sacred vestments, which the Romans kept hostage. Joachim Jeremias; Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus;
 Part 3, Chapter 8. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

5) The Clementine literature suggests a possible rational for the assault on the Temple. Jesus wanted to drive out the Roman appointed high priests
and eliminate the sacrificial cultus, which the Romans used as a tool to control Judea.
Clementine Recognitions, Book 1, Chapter 37: "... by these things they might be taught that a people who offer sacrifices are driven away and
delivered up into the hands of the enemy, but they who do mercy and righteousness are without sacrifices freed from captivity, and restored
to their native land. But it fell out that very few understood this; for the greater number, though they could perceive and observe these things,
 yet were held by the irrational opinion of the vulgar: for right opinion with liberty is the prerogative of a few."
Clementine Homilies, Homily 3, Chapter 56: "But to those who affirmed that He was in the temple, He said, �Swear not by heaven,
for it is God�s throne; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet.� And to those who supposed that God is pleased with sacrifices,
He said, �God wishes mercy, and not sacrifices� �the knowledge of Himself, and not holocausts."

6) John 11:50, John 18:14.
The Temple Hierarchy also had to balance their fear of roman reprisals against their fear of the Jerusalem mob (Mk 14 1-2).

7) After quelling the Judean revolt following the death of Herod the Great, Varus crucified 2000 rebels.
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston Translation; Book 17, 9-10.
"They (the Romans) make a desert and call it peace"; Caius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-c.117); Agricola, sec. 30.

8) The canonical gospels contain hints of violent disturbances both in the Temple (Luke 13:1) and
elsewhere in the city of Jerusalem (Luke 13:4, Mark 15:7,Luke 23 19). The release of Bar Abbas suggests some participants
in the disturbances were amnestied, though the amnesty may not have been universal. Jesus was crucified alongside "robbers" (Greek: Lestai, Mark 15:27).
Flavius Josephus applied this term (Lestai) to revolutionaries (for a discussion of the vocabulary used to describe Judean revolutionaries,
brigands and bandits see S.G. F Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, NY, NY: Charles Scribner�s Sons, 1967, Chapter 2).

9 ) A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek English Lexicon. Oxford, Impression of 1963.

10 )
Rev. Alfred Marshal with a forward by Canon J.B. Philips; The New International Version/ INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT,
the Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation, p. 426-427; Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
11)
The phrase "Satan entered him" can be deleted from the text without affecting its narrative sense. The implication that Judas is a traitor
is thus removed from the narrative. This short passage might be an interpolation into the original text.
12)
Rev. Alfred Marshal with a forward by Canon J.B. Philips; The New International Version/ INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, the Nestle
Greek Text with a Literal English Translation. Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
13)
The word used in the Greek text is Martyr: to bear witness, to testify or declare, to witness that a thing is. A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell
and Scott's Greek English Lexicon. Oxford, Impression of 1963, p 426. The use of the word in the sense of being "sacrificed for a cause",
 i.e. a martyr (a victim) is a later usage.
14)
"declared and stated" is redundant. Doubling is a common Semitic usage. Its use in a Greek text suggests the Greek
was translated from a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) source.
15) Semitic doubling suggesting the Greek text was translated from an Aramaic or Hebrew
text.
16) The word paradwsei is used in the sense to "hand over" without the pejorative

implications of "betray" in the majority of the places it appears in the New Testament.
With but two exceptions, the word paradidomi is translated in the standard English versions of the gospels as "to betray" or "betrayer"
only in the passages that deal with Judas Iscariot or the arrest of Jesus. (R.E.Whitaker and J.R. Kohlenburger III; Wm. B The Analytical
Concordance to the New Revised Standard Version of the New Testament; ; p.67. Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 2000).
The exceptions occur only in the Gospel of Matthew; i.e. Mat 10:21: " Brother will betray brother to death" and Mat 24:10:
" �will fall away and betray one another."
In the first instance the text could be satisfactory translated as "Brother will hand over brother to be put to death",
and in the second instance the text could have just as well been translated as "...will draw apart from each other and give up one another."
Both translations of paradidomi as arrest refer to John the Baptist (Ibid. p.39). Both Mark 1:14 (Now after John was arrested...) and its
parallel Mat 4:12 (Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested...) refer to John being handed over to Herod. There is no tradition of John
having been betrayed and there is no justification to translate paradidomi as betray in this context.
Paradidomi is translated as ripe in Mark 4:29. "As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it..." (Ibid. p.520). This is adequately
 translated "As soon as the ripe grain is handed over (to the workman), he puts the sickle to it". Paradidomi is translated as risked in
Acts 15:26: "...who have risked their lives." (Ibid. p.520). In this context "�who have surrendered their lives" or "�who have given up their
 lives" are more appropriate translations than "risked their lives".
Each appearance of paradimomi and how it is translated into English in the New Revised Standard Version of the New Testament is given below. (Ibid. p. 766).
Hand over: 43 times
Betray: 37

Give up: 8

Hand on: 6

Betrayer: 5

Entrust: 4

Arrest: 2

Commend: 2

Commit: 2

Abandon: 1

Deliver: 1

Give: 1

Give over: 1

Pass on: 1

Put: 1

Ripe: 1

Risk: 1

Transfer: 1

Turn over: 1


The word paradidomi is translated in the majority of its appearances in the New Testament as "to hand over". Only in the context of the arrest of Jesus
is paradidomi translated as "betray". This usage is based on tradition and is not demanded by the context in which the word appears. Even in the
context of Jesus' arrest paradidomi can be and should be understood as "handed over".
A strictly literal translation of paradidimoi rather than one owing to tradition changes the nature of Judas' deed. Judas becomes a reluctant but
 faithful messenger instead of being an avaricious traitor. John13:2 ("...the devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son,
 to betray him.) is probably a later interpolation designed to vilify Judas. The text redactors did not go far enough and did not replace the original
paradidimoi (hand over) with prodotes (betray), allowing the original meaning of the text to be reconstructed.
This line also leads to the conclusion that Mark 14:10-11 and its synoptic parallels Luke
22:3 and Matthew 26:14-16 were not in the original source material. The passages about Judas going to the high priests prior to the Last Supper
are late polemical insertions into the texts. There would have been no reason for Judas to approach the Temple Authorities until after he had been
 appointed to arrange Jesus' surrender.
In John 19:30 the verb paredoce must be understood in the sense that Jesus gave up his spirit or handed over his spirit (to God), and not that he
betrayed himself.
Paul, writing within a generation of Jesus� execution, is unaware of any early tradition of Jesus being betrayed. Instead, in Ephesians 5:2, and by
implication in Romans 8:32, he writes that Jesus gave himself up (paredocev

u) for the good of the community.
17) Another phrase doubling.
18) Wine was the beverage which was most likely have been present at a feast day meal.
19) The Greek text does not make Judas' relationship to Simon clear. The Gospels have

deliberately obscured this information. Most translations presume that Judas is Simon's son, but there is no reason to rule out his being a brother.
Coincidentally there was a Jude or Judas and a Simon among Jesus� brothers (Mk 6:3; "Isn�t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James
(Jacob) and Joses (Jesus?) and Judas and Simon.").
20)
The phrase "Satan entered him" can be deleted from the text without affecting its narrative progression. The sense of Judas being a traitor is
then removed from the narrative. This phrase appears to be a later interpolation into the text.
21)
Note that the use of the first person pleural in the Greek Textus Receptus implies this text was derived from a first person narrative. This
 portion of the text might be related to the so-called "we document", one of the sources of Acts of the Apostles.
It is also possible that most or all of the verse John 13:29 is an interpolation intended to vilify Judas. The entire verse can be deleted
from the text without disrupting the chapter's narrative sequence.
22)
Jerome uses the word "buccelam", (Latin: small mouth-full) to translate psomion in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Greek New Testament.
Jerome understood this text in the same sense as my first hypothesis, that Jesus gave Judas a bit of bread probably dipped in wine.
Jerome's Latin translation of "after the mouthful" can be interpreted as Judas ate the piece of dipped bread that Jesus had proffered him.

Note the similarity between Jesus offering Judas a bit of food dipped in wine and the Eucharist ceremony where the officiating Chistian priest offers
 the congregation bits of bread dipped in wine.
23)
Robert Eisenberg, Boychicks in the 'Hood, Travels in the Hassidic Underground, NY, NY: HarperSanFrancisco/HarperCollins, 1996; p. 128-129.
24)
Martyr: to bear witness, to testify or declare, to witness that a thing is. A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell and Scott's
Greek English Lexicon, p. 426. Oxford, Impression of 1963.
25) "Declared and stated...". A doubling or Semitism.
26) A text doubling.
27) See Footnote (15) above for a discussion of the translation of paradidomi as betray or

hand over.
28)
Psomion: Diminutive of Psomos: A morsel, a crumb. Psomos :A bit, morsel, especially of meat of bread. A Lexicon Abridged from
Liddell and Scott's Greek English Lexicon, p. 799. Oxford, Impression of 1963.
Psomion: a diminutive of psomos, a morsel, denotes a fragment... John 13:26 (twice), John 27.30. W.E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and
New Testament Words, p. 1064. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.; 1997).
Psomion: Dim. of Psomos, a morsel a crumb. Psomos , a bit , a morsel a scrap,... The Classic Greek dictionary in two parts, New York City, NY: Hinds
and Noble Publishers, Cooper Institute; 1901).
29)
Draw out: A translation of Bapto (Greek): dip in, dip under, immerse, to fill by dipping in (Author's note: as in: "tofill my hand with").
"to draw out (i.e. scoop out,) and present to him".
This translation assumes that the Greek text was originally translated from an Aramaic original. The Greek redactor either did not fully
 understand what was occurring or wanted to disguise what was occurring from his Hellenic readers. He translated the Aramaic word for drew or
pulled out with the more neutral Greek word for dipped. He may have done the same with the word psomion, selecting a neutral word for small
piece often associated with foodstuff, rather than using a word like chip or shard (i.e. ostrakon) to indicate that Jesus was drawing a marker
out of the bowl.
30)
The Greek text does not make relationship of Judas to Simon clear. The Gospels have deliberately obscured this information. Most translations
presume that Judas is Simon's son, but there is no reason to rule out his being a brother. There was a Jude or Judas and a Simon among Jesus�
 brothers (Mk 6:3; "Isn�t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James (Jacob) and Joses and Judas and Simon.").
31)
At this point in the Greek text a verb is essential for demonstrating exactly how Jesus handed over the unknown bit of material to Judas or
what Judas did with it. Since the verb is missing it is unclear if Jesus "handed over" something to Judas, or if Judas swallowed a morsel of
bread or pocketed (or more properly pursed or pouched) an ostrakon. The omission of the verb may have been the deliberate action of an early
redactor or copyist in order to keep what originally transpired at the Last Supper hidden from later readers who had not been fully
 initiated into the Christian mysteries.
32)
The phrase "Satan entered him" can be deleted from the text without affecting its narrative progression.
The sense of Judas being a traitor is then removed from the narrative. This short phrase might be a later interpolation into the text.
33)
Note that the use of the first person pleural in the Greek Textus Receptus implies this text was derived from a first person narrative.
This portion of the text might be related to the so-called "we document" which is one of the sources of Acts of the Apostles. It is also
 possible that most or all of the verse John 13:29 is an interpolation intended to vilify Judas. The entire verse can be deleted from the
text without disrupting the chapter's narrative sequence.
34)
Nicholas Rescher, Luck, the Brilliant Randomness of Everyday Life, p, 115; New York: Farrar Strauss Giroux; 1995; citing Thomas Gataker,
Of the Nature and Use of Lots, 1619. Gataker's book contains an extensive discussion of the role chance and use of drawing lots in the Torah.
The daily priestly duties in the Temple were assigned by drawing lots. M Yom ii. 1-5, Tamid 1, 2; 2, 5; 3, 1; T. Yoma 1, 10 .
The ritual objects "Urim and Thummin" attached to the High Priests breastplate (Exodus 28:30) were used to perform divination
(cast lots in order to determine God�s will)(Levitcus 167:10, Numbers 26:55, Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 14:41).
35)
1) Choosing a priest to burn incense. Luke 1:8-10.
2) The division of Jesus' garments by the Roman soldiers guarding him. Matthew 27:35,
Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19: 23-24.

Note on the possible significance of the "seamless tunic":

Jesus' tunic was described as being seamless (John 19:23) which was a requirement for
the High Priest�s tunic (Exodus 28 31-32 and Exodus 39 27-31 and Flavius Josephus, The
Antiquities of the Jews, 3.7.4)
The High Priest's ritual garments were held by the Roman garrison in Jerusalem and only
released to the High Priest during festivals (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews,
Whiston Translation; Book 15, Chapter 4).
If John 19:23 is from an original source rather than a later interpolation, it implies that
Jesus had usurped the sartorial privileges of the High Priest. This was a declaration that
he was replacing the Roman appointed High Priest, and that he was freeing the Temple
cultus from the Romans who held the priestly vestments hostage.
3) A new apostle was selected by drawing lots. Acts of the Apostles 1:23-26.

Since Judas, according to my analysis , was not a traitor, he most likely did not commit suicide shortly after Jesus was executed,
 and he did not need to be replaced (see footnote (84)). The author of Acts may have been trying to hide the real reason Jesus�
survivors performed an election by lot: they were choosing a new leader. "Luke�s" intended audience may have of an election so he had to include it
in his narrative, but he
disguised its rationale.
36)
1) Josephus and his companions, when besieged by Vespasian's troops, drew lots to determine the outcome of a suicide pact.
Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, translated by William Whiston, Book 3, Chapter 8:3.
2) After they wrested control of the Temple Mount from the Roman appointed High Priest in 66 CE, the Zealots used a lottery to "elect" a new High Priest.
Phineas was one of a group of priests eligible for the High Priesthood. Phineas was "elected by God " to serve as the revolutionaries' High Priest
when his lot was drawn. Ibid., Book 4, Chapter 3:7.
3) According to Josephus the defenders of Masada committed mass suicide rather than let themselves be taken alive by the Romans.
They drew lots to choose the men who would slay their companions. Ibid., Book 7, Chapter 9:1.
The archaeologist, Yigel Yadin, claims to have discovered the ostrakons used by the defenders to draw lots. Yigel Yadin, Masada,
Herod's Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand; p.201. NY, NY: Welcome Rain; 1998.
37)
Flavius Josephus claimed that Judean revolutionaries or Zealots would rather commit suicide than allow themselves to be captured by the Romans:
Revolutionary throws his sons out of a cave and then leaps to his death. War of the Jews, Whiston Translation, Book 1, Chapter 16, 4.
Survivors of the seige of Jotapata kill themselves rather than allow themselves to be killed or taken by the Romans. Ibid., Book 3, Chapter 7, Section 35 ( Line 331).
Josephus enters a suicide pact. Ibid., Book 3, Chapter 8, Section 7.
Some of the inhabitants of Joppa commit suicide rather than drown or face the Romans. Ibid., Book 3, Chapter 9, Section 3 (425)
Mass suicide at Gamala rather than submit to Romans. Ibid, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 10 (79-80).
Some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem throw themselves off the Temple wall to escape the Idumeans. Ibid Book 4, chapter5, Section 1 (311-312).
Suicide pact at Masada. Ibid., Book 7, Chapter 9.
38)
Matthew 20:28. Mark 10:45. These passages should be read literally and not as religious allegory.
39)
Carthage razed in 146 BCE. Polybius, The Histories, Books XXXVI-XXXXIX Mass crucifixion of rebellious slaves
following Third Servile War in 71 BCE. Encyclopedia Britannica, entry on Spartacus Pompey�s army kills 12,000 Judeans
and captures Jerusalem in 63 CE. Flavius Josephus, War of the Jews, Whiston translation; Book 1, Chapter 7. After quelling the Judean revolt
following the death of Herod the Great, Varus crucified 2000 rebels. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston Translation, Book 17, 9-10.
King Agrippa�s arguments against rebellion against Rome. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Translated by G.A. Williamson and revised by
E.M. Smallwood, p 156-162. Penguin Books; 1981.
"They (the Romans) make a desert and call it peace"; Caius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-c.117); Agricola, sec. 30.
40)
John 14 through 17, John 18:1.
41)
Luke 22:34, Matthew 6:34, Mark 14. 30.
42)
John Chapters 14 through 17. Had Jesus actually been prescient and able to foresee his resurrection, these detailed instructions would have been unnecessary.
He would have known that he could resume teaching following his post-mortem return.
43)
The officiating priest at the Eucharist giving the communicant a bit of bread dipped in wine parallels Jesus giving Judas a bit of bread dipped in wine.
This suggests that the Eucharist commemorates the blessing Jesus gave Judas as a reward for his unquestioning loyalty and obedience and for
the steadfastness required to hand his leader over to the hated authorities.
Paul took the Last Supper events out of their Judean context and turned Jesus� blessing into a symbol of blood sacrifice like those found in
Mithraic and other pagan rituals. The Pauline usurpers of the Jesus sect did not adhere to the Judean dietary tradition (See sub footnote a).
The symbolic consumption of Jesus� blood and living flesh would be a direct affront to Judean sensibilities since their sacred texts and traditions
prohibited the consumption of blood, the blood of sacrifices or flesh torn from animals (i.e. flesh containing blood) ( See sub footnote b).
These dietary prohibitions were adhered to by Jesus� immediate successors and were a prerequisite for converts (See sub footnote c).
Paul created a religion for non-Judeans that deliberately excluded observant Jews from its ranks. The symbolic consumption of blood
would prevent Jews from participating in Christianity�s central ritual.
The foregoing argues in favor of the Blessing Hypothesis as the correct explanation of the Last Supper.
If the Lottery Hypothesis is correct, the creation of the Eucharist ritual from the Last Supper events requires an additional step.
First the drawing of lots was disguised as the handing over a morsel of food when the text was translated from Aramaic to Greek.
Next the act of dipping the morsel in wine was added in order to introduce symbolic blood sacrifice.
I originally wrote this essay with only the Lottery Hypothesis in mind. When I later conceived the Blessing Hypothesis
extensive rewriting of the introductory portion of the essay was required. While the Lottery Hypothesis is still an attractive explanation,
I now tend towards the validity of the Blessing Hypothesis since it offers a simpler explanation of how the Eucharist ritual evolved.
a) Galatians 2:12.
I Corinthians 8:8. b) Genesis 9:4 "But the flesh which is the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
Leviticus 17:10
Leviticus 17:12-15. "12 �No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall
any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood�"
Leviticus 20:26.
Deuteronomy 12: 15,16,23-25. c) Acts 15:18-20. " 18 Known to God from eternity are all his works, 19 therefore I judge that we should
 not trouble those among the Gentiles who are turning to God 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from
sexual immorality, from things strangled and from blood."
Galatians 2:12.
44)
Mark 14:33-41. This episode which further denigrates the disciples has no counterpart in the Johannine gospel.
45)
Rev. Alfred Marshal with a forward by Canon J.B. Philips; The New International Version/INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, the
Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation, p. 202-202. Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
46)
Ibid., p. 118-119.
47)
Note the similarity of Matthew 26:24 to John 13:27. In John 13:27 Judas has been ordered to do what his leader expects of him without delay.
In Matthew 26:24 Jesus says he will do what is expected of a messianic claimant who wishes to fulfill the demands of prophetic texts. Both
passages occur in the same place in the Last Supper narrative and both refer to someone being expected to carry out his obligations. In the current
Matthean text the sentence is awkwardly split into two clauses, one about Jesus meeting his obligations, the other about Judas being cursed for his actions.
It is possible that there was prototype text where the entire passage referred sympathetically to Judas, which would result both in a smoother text
 and one which is in better agreement with John 13:27.
The hypothetical Mattean prototype text would read as follows "Do what you have been told to do and do it expeditiously.
Unhappy is the man (or have pity on the man) who must hand me over." The text was later changed to meet the demands of
 orthodox Christian polemic.
48)
Either to share food from the bowl or to place his marker for drawing lots in the bowl.
49)
Translation based on drawing lots: The one dipped by my hand from the bowl will be the one who must turn me in.
50)
The Greek text of Judas reply is even more damning than can be expressed in a grammatical English translation.
The Greek text reads "Not I am" which is both a denial of being a traitor and a denial God�s name (Exodus 3:14).
In one phrase the Matthean redactor has Judas doubly damn himself. The reader sees that he is both a liar and a blasphemer who negates God�s name.
51) John 13:27. This might be a later interpolation of a marginal gloss into the body of the
text.
52) Luke 22: 1-6.
53) Rev. Alfred Marshal with a forward by Canon J.B. Philips; The New International

Version/INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, the Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation, p. 336-339.
Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
54)
Luke 22:22.
55)
Luke 22: 23.
56)
Luke 22:24. "And there was also strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest." They were arguing about who was to succeed Jesus.
57) Luke 22:34.
58) Luke 22:34.
59) Luke 22:24. Matthew 20:20-28. Mark 10:35-45.
60) John 11:48. "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will

come and take away both our place and our nation."
This passage voices the very real concerns of Jesus� contemporaries who had managed to accommodate themselves to the Roman
occupation of Judea. They viewed Jesus as a political subversive who threatened the status quo and increased the risk of the Romans using force to
reestablish their authority.
In 66 CE, the Judeans who wanted independence from Rome finally managed to seize the Temple, slaughter the Roman garrison and appoint their own High Priest.
 They initiated a four year long war that resulted in the destruction of the temple cult and made Judea the personal property of the Imperial Flavian family.
See Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War.
61)
John 11:49-50. "�consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not�."
62)
John 18:14. "Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people."
63)
John 17:12, John 18:9 (�of them which thou gavest me I have lost none�), and possibly John 6:39.
64)
John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 18:8 "I told you that I am he, so, if you seek (want) me, let these men go (free)." (Additional words in parenthesis
added by author of this essay to clarify the translation from the Greek.)
The Gospel of John, to a much greater extent than the synoptic gospels (see this and the four preceding footnotes),
emphasizes that Jesus turned himself over to the authorities in order to protect his followers.
Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 have Jesus state that he will give his life as a "ransom for many".
There is no parallel in Luke. It is also of note that in the preceding verse (Mark 10:42, Matthew 20:25),
Jesus makes an ironic and derogatory remark about Gentile rulers' usurpation of power, which the Lucan text (Luke 22:25)
 turns into an offhand compliment: "�those in authority over them are called benefactors".
65)
Matthew 26:36, Mark 14:32, Luke 22:39, John 18:1.
66)
Mark 14:35-36, Luke 22:44, Matthew 26:37-39. Luke presents the most elaborate dramatic account of the "Agony in the Garden".
Most early manuscripts do not contain Luke 22:43-44 (a) suggesting it is a late interpolation into the canonical texts.
(a)
From footnote F483, NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE�, The Lockman Foundation, PO Box 2279, La Habra, CA 90631,
Copyright � 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995.

67)
There is remarkable literary resemblance between the Agony in the Garden (Luke 22:44) and the arrest of Jesus, the failed Messiah (Luke 22:50),
and the Agony in the Palace and the arrest of Vitellius the failed Emperor (see below, Tacitus, Histories, 3. 84. See also Suetonius,
The Twelve Ceasars, Vitellius 16-17). Both suffer misgivings and fear after their enterprises fail, both are eventually deserted
by their followers, both are captured by a tribune leading a cohort, and their captor's ear is cut off. Jesus one ups the Roman
emperor by rebuking the assailant and healing the ear. Both Jesus and Vitellius were stripped of their clothing and then lead away
to be mocked and killed. Both summon up a final dignity and die with a memorable quotation on their lips.
This suggests the Lukan author or redactor was trying to address two audiences. An unsophisticated audience would hear only of Jesus'
 noble suffering, while the sophisticated Roman reader would see the deliberate parallel drawn with the ignominious capture of Vitellius.
Would it be going too far to say that this was a subtle warning to well informed members of the upper levels of Roman society not to take
 the Christian tale too seriously?


Tacitus , Histories:

[3. 84] When the city had been taken, Vitellius caused himself to be carried in a litter through the back of the palace to the Aventine,
to his wife's dwelling, intending, if by any concealment he could escape for that day, to make his way to his brother's cohorts at
Tarracina. Then, with characteristic weakness, and following the instincts of fear, which, dreading everything, shrinks most from
what is immediately before it, he retraced his steps to the desolate and forsaken palace, whence even the meanest slaves had fled,
 or where they avoided his presence. The solitude and silence of the place scared him; he tried the closed doors, he shuddered in the
empty chambers, till, wearied out with his miserable wanderings, he concealed himself in an unseemly hiding-place, from which he was
 dragged out by the tribune Julius Placidus. His hands were bound behind his back, and he was led along with tattered robes, a revolting spectacle,
amidst the invectives of many, the tears of none. The degradation of his end had extinguished all pity. One of the German soldiers met the party,
 and aimed a deadly blow at Vitellius, perhaps in anger, perhaps wishing to release him the sooner from insult. Possibly the
 blow was meant for the tribune.
He struck off that officer's ear, and was immediately dispatched.
[3.85] Vitellius, compelled by threatening swords, first to raise his face and offer it to insulting blows, then to behold his own
statues falling round him, and more than once to look at the Rostra and the spot where Galba was slain, was then driven along till
 they reached the Gemoniae, the place where the corpse of Flavius Sabinus had lain. One speech was heard from him shewing a spirit not
utterly degraded, when to the insults of a tribune he answered, "Yet I was your Emperor." Then he fell under a shower of blows, and the
 mob reviled the dead man with the same heartlessness with which they had flattered him when he was alive.
68)
Centuries of received orthodox interpretation and the subsequent mistranslation of the Greek Johannine text into
vernacular texts concealed the Roman participation in the arrest of Jesus. The terms used to refer to Roman commander and cohort
are unequivocally translated when they appear in the Book of Acts. Furthermore, the context shows the Romans are being referred to.
In most English versions of the Gospels these words have been translated using ambiguous synonyms which conceal the participation of a
Roman tribune and cohort in the arrest and imply a greater degree of Judean involvement.
John 18:12. "Then the band (speira)(A) and its captain (chiliarchos) (B) and the officers (huperetes)(C) of the Jews took Jesus and bound him.
In Acts 21:31 (�a report went up to the commanders (chiliarchos) of the cohort (speira)...) the same italicized Greek words unequivocally
refer to the Roman garrison in Jerusalem�s Antonia fortress.
Acts 23:10,15. 17,19,22,26; 24:7 uses Chiliarchos to refer to a leader of a cohort.
The word speira (speira) is used in Matthew 27:27, Mark 15:16, Acts 10:1, and Acts
27:1 to describe a Roman military unit.
Based on the usage above and the definitions below, John 18:12 is more accurately translated as follows: "Then the cohort
and its Tribune and its Judean servants(assistants/underlings) took Jesus and bound him" or "Then the cohort and its Tribune
and its Judean auxiliary troops took Jesus and bound him."
(A)
speira: a body of soldiers, the Roman Manipulus,= two centuries: but also a cohort. Liddell and Scott GREEK_ENGLISH LEXCON abridged,
25th edition, p.664. Chicago,Il.: Follett Publishing Co.; 1934.

(B)
chiliarchos: the commander of a thousand men, used to translate the Roman Tribunus militum, a legionary tribune. Liddell and Scott
GREEK_ENGLISH LEXCON abridged, 25th edition, p. 783.

(C)
huperetes: Any laborer: an assistant, servant, inferior officer� 2. The servant who attended each heavily armed soldier. Liddell and Scott
 GREEK-ENGLISH LEXCON abridged 25th edition. p. 736.


Artemidorus lists different kinds of slaves in what appears to be in order of ascending status: servers (theraontes),
underlings or helpers (huperetai), stewards (oikonomoi) and financial managers (hoi kata ton oikon tamias).
(The interpretation of dreams (Artemidorus Oneirocritica, 1.74), as cited by Dale B Martin in Slavery as Salvation,
the metaphor of slavery in Pauline Christianity, p. 34. New Haven: CT Yale University Press; 1990).
The Jews who accompanied the cohort that arrested Jesus were therefore not of high status.
The only other literature with any claim to antiquity that contain a detailed description of Jesus� capture is the assortment of documents
lumped under the name "Toldoth Jesu". There is not enough space here to join in the acrimonious debate about the origin of these texts.
The Toldoth Jesu texts attribute the capture of Yeshu to Jews acting at the behest of the "elders" or priests.
If these Jewish texts are early (compiled prior to the Christianization of the Roman Empire), their authors
might have been trying to curry favor with their Roman overlords by showing how they took the initiative to remove a
 dangerous radical from their midst.
If the Toldoth Jesu is a late work, its authors would have drawn on Christian traditions which placed the responsibility
 for the arrest on the Judean leadership. The authors' motivation would have been to take literary revenge on the founder of the religion
which was now oppressing them.
The Wagenseil text of the Toldoth Jesu says: "The people of Jerusalem, who were armed and well-equipped, seized Yeshuh." This is a veiled
reference to the Roman garrison, since ordinary Judeans were not allowed arms, and the Temple police only had staves.
69)
Matthew 26:47. "�a great multitude with swords and staves from the chief priests and the elders of the people." Mark 14:43.
"�a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders."
Luke 22:52. "�the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders which were come out to him�"
The Roman appointed High Priests did not have popular support. The Romans had granted them the control of the Temple cult.
 They used this as an opportunity to enrich themselves by exploiting the ordinary Judeans.
Josephus recorded that the High Priests appropriated the tithes intended to support the legitimate hereditary priesthood and used
the funds to curry favor with the Romans and to increase their own hoards of money
 (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston translation, 20.9.2).
The Talmud contains similar memories of the malfeasance by the Roman appointed High Priests:
"At first did they bring the hides of holy things to the room of bet hap parvah and divide them in the evening to each
(priestly) household which served on that day. But the powerful men of the priesthood would come and take them by force.
They ordained that they should divide it on Fridays to each and every watch. But still did violent men of the priesthood come
and take it away by force�Beams of sycamore were in Jerico and strong fisted men would come and take them by force, until their
 owners consecrated them to Heaven (i.e. donated them to the Temple)." T.Men. 13.18-19, cf. tZeb. 11:16-17, b Pes. 57a.
"Abba Saul ben Betnith and Abba Jose ben Johanan of Jerusalem say:
-- "Woe to me from the house of Boethus! WWoe to me from their rods!"
-- "Woe to me from the house of Qadros (i..e. Kantheros)! Woe to me from their pens!"
--"Woe to me from the house of Elhanan ( iin Greek: Ananus or Annas)!
Woe to me from their house of whispers!
" -- "Woe to me from the house of Elisha! Woe to me from their pens!" --
"Woe to me from the house of Ismael ben Phiabi! For they are high priests and their sons treasurers(of the temple) and their sons-in-law
officers(of the temple)!" "And their servants come and beat us up with staves!".
Tosefta, Menachoth 13.21; cf b. Pes 57a; see also t Zeb 11 16-17; y.Ma�as Sh 5:15.
For readily accessible English language translations from the Talmud see:
Hayim Nahman Bialik and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky, "The Book of Legends, Sefer Ha-Aggadah,
Legends from Talmud and Midrash, translated by Walter G. Braude", B Pes. 57a. New York: Schocken books; 1992.
Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, editor, The Babylonian Talmud, translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices,
Pesachim 57a, p.284-285. London: Soncino Press; 1978.
Since the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate cannot be left out of the narrative, he is transformed into a weak willed pawn of the
"Jewish mob" (Matthew 27:24, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:24, John 19:12).
The historical Pilate was ruthless apparatchik who had no compunction about using his troops to massacre insubordinate Judeans.
Pilate�s disguised cohorts savagely quell a riot. Jewish Wars 2 175-177 and Jewish Antiquities 18.60-62.
Pilate�s cavalry and cohorts slaughter the followers of a Samaritan messianic pretender in 36 CE. Pilate is removed from office
 and sent to Rome by Lucius Vetellius (governor of Syria and father of Aulus Vitellius, who became emperor in 69 CE)
 to answer for his excessive use of force. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18:85-89.
 (This raises the question what was considered excessively brutal in a culture that staged the mass butchery of men and animals in the
 arena for entertainment.)
The contemporary author Philo wrote that Pilate was characterized by "his venality, his violence, his assaults, his abusive behavior,
his frequent executions of untried prisoners and his endless savage ferocity (Embassy to Gaius, 302)."
70)
John 18:8-9.
71)
John 18:8-11. Jesus identifies himself to the arresting party, and asks that his followers be left alone.
Peter attacks the High Priest�s representative. Jesus orders Peter to stop resisting, and states he (Jesus)
has accepted his fate and will not contest his arrest. Jesus is bound and led away, and no further mention is made of the disciples.
Mark 14:43-47. Judas identifies Jesus to the arresting party so that "he may be led away safely." One of the disciples attacks the
high priest�s representative. Peter is not specifically named as the assailant. Jesus reprimands the arresting party for
cowardice since it had not taken him into custody at an earlier time in a more public venue. The disciples are depicted as abandoning
their leader and fleeing, when Jesus was taken away.
Luke 22:50. Jesus reprimands Judas for betraying him. The disciples ask if they should resist arrest. Without waiting for a reply, one
 of the disciples attacks a member of the arresting party. Peter is not specifically named as the assailant. Jesus is presented as showing
his disapproval of this action by healing the wound inflicted by his disciple. Except for Peter who denies his association with Jesus,
there is no further mention of the disciples� actions.
Matthew 26: 47-53. Jesus greets Judas when Judas arrives leading the arresting party. Without first asking for approval one of the disciples
lashes out at a member of the arresting party. Peter is not specifically named as the assailant. Jesus is presented as showing his
disapproval of the assault on a representative of the authorities by reprimanding the assailant and by stating that the fate of those who take
 up arms against the Roman authority and its representatives is death. Jesus is presented as disavowing armed revolt in order to distance him
from the revolutionary parties that later initiated the Jewish Revolt in 66 CE. The disciples abandon Jesus and flee. Jesus is led away.
 Peter disavows his association with Jesus.
Only the Gospel attributed to John identified Peter as the disciple who disobeyed Jesus by violently resisting the cohort sent to arrest him.
If the canonical gospels are ordered from the Johannine to the Matthean text a clear progression of increasing vilification of the disciples
and simultaneous condemnation of resistance to Roman authority is demonstrated.
Evan Powell demonstrates a similar progression of the elaboration of themes dealing with supernatural mythologies, eschatology, and moral
issues if the canonical gospels are ordered from John to Matthew (Evan Powell, The Unfinished Gospel; Chapter 7: Gospel Patterns. Westlake
 Village, CA: Symposium Books, 1994).
The canonical accounts of the arrest of Jesus, the man accused of being King of the Jews, bear a striking
resemblance to the accounts of the arrest of Aulus Vitlelius, the would be Emperor of the Romans, implying
 the gospels were composed after 69 CE, the year of three emperors.
Vitellius was abandoned by his companions, initially not recognized by his captors and mocked before his
execution. (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Vitellius Chapter 16-17).
A member of Vitellius� bodyguard cut off the ear of Vitellius� captor, a tribune of the guards. (Tacitus, The Histories, Book 3, Chapter 84).
72)
By taking or "cleansing" the Temple, Jesus was attempting to unseat the Roman appointed High Priest.
Presumably, he planned to install a High Priest more to his liking, possibly a Zadokite or a Davidite.
One of the first actions of the Judean rebels who successfully seized the Temple in 66 CE was to replace the Roman
appointed high priest with one chosen by lot from among the Levites (Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews,
translated by William Whiston, Book 4/Chapter 3:7.
73)
The passages below all document the Judean assumption that a successful revolt indicates God�s approval,
 failure the lack of divine support. The disparity of the sources indicates that knowledge of this belief was widely dispersed.
Acts 5:34-39.
Clementine Recognitions, Book 1,Chapter 65.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book18, Chapter1.

74)
For examples of the Roman�s ruthlessness in eliminating native opposition to their rule see: Flavius Josephus,
The Jewish War, Translated by G.A. Williamson and revised by E.M. Smallwood, Chapter 7. London: Penguin Books; 1981.
75)
Acts 5.14, 6.1, 6.7.
Clementine Recognitions Book 1,Chapter 43.
Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Whiston translation; Book 18 Chapter 3.3.

76)
Clementine Homilies 11:35.
Clementine Recognitions 1.43 and 1.74.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 7:19 and 2.2.
Jerome, Illustrious Men 2.
Gospel of Thomas, Logion 12. Nag Hamadi Documents.

77)
The Lucan gospel and the Matthean Gospel appear to have been composed with different target audiences in mind.
The Lucan nativity is in an Arcadian setting. It is attended by shepherds as is befitting a Greek wise man and miracle worker such as Apollonius of Tyana.
The Matthean gospel has Persian Magi attending the birth of Jesus. Jesus is proclaimed to be a king. He is being imbued
 with the qualities of an Eastern demi-god such as Mithra.
This strongly suggests that the Lucan Gospel was designed for a Hellenized audience. Jesus was presented in the familiar
 guise of a mortal philosopher who used his wisdom to acquire great powers. The similarities between material in the
 surviving works of the Greek philosopher Epitetus to sayings attributed to Jesus in the Lucan text require further
investigation. The Lucan redactor was placing familiar Hellenic concepts into Jesus� speeches.
The Matthean text was addressed to Greek speaking listeners familiar with Eastern or Persian traditions of powerful demi-gods.
The Matthean text�s quotes from the Torah, while the Lucan gospel uses free quotations from the Greek Septuagint. This suggests that the Matthean
text was targeting a Greek speaking Jewish audience that was also familiar with Eastern pagan beliefs. This describes the Jewish community in Alexandria.
Further investigation of this topic is left as an exercise for the reader.
78)
For an early but still informative discussion about the relationship between Jesus and the revolutionary Judean sects see:
 S.G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, Charles Scribner�s Sons, 1967.
79)
The canonical gospels are full of material that is openly contemptuous of the people in Jesus� immediate circle.
Verse after verse describes the disciples� individual ambitions, greed, selfishness, unreliability and stupidity.
The canonical gospels also have passages whose only apparent purpose is to discredit Jesus� close relatives.
This is hardly the material one would expect in the foundation texts of Christianity, particularly when the first
leaders and disseminators of the Jesus movement were his close relatives (Jacob, Simeon and Judas) and his disciples.
The purpose of these texts is to discredit the relatives and original disciples of Jesus, and legitimize Paul as Jesus� true inheritor.
The following is a lengthy but not all-inclusive list of the verses, which denigrate Jesus� close associates.
Luke 2:49-50. Jesus rebukes his parents for their ignorance.
Mark 3: 21. Jesus� family attempts to keep him from public view because of his rumored insanity.
Mark 4:13. Jesus is exasperated by the disciples� slowness to understand him.
Matthew 8:26, Mark 4:40, Luke 8:25. Jesus questions his disciples� lack of faith in him.
Mark 4:40. He accuses the disciples of cowardice.
Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:19-21. Jesus rejects his immediate family.
Matthew 14:24-26, Mark 6:48-50. Jesus� sudden appearance during a storm terrifies the panicky disciples.
Mark 6:52. The disciples do not understand what Jesus accomplished by multiplying the loaves and harden their hearts toward him.
Mark 8:4 "How can anyone provide all these people with bread in this lonely place?" The disciples have no faith in Jesus'
abilities in spite of already having seen him miraculously feed the multitudes (see above).
Mark 8:12 Jesus is annoyed by the Pharisees.
Mark 8:14 The disciples forget to take bread with them when setting off on a voyage.
Mark 8:17-21. The disciples� stupidity and slowness once again frustrate Jesus.
Mark 8:32-33 Peter disagrees with Jesus, and is rebuked by Jesus;"Get behind me Satan."
Mark 9:6. The disciples are terrified (Luke 9:33, Peter babbles stupidly).
Mark 9:18, Matthew 17:16, Luke 9:40. The disciples are impotent and cannot exorcise an unclean spirit.
Matthew 17:20, Luke 17:6. Jesus rebukes the disciples for their lack of faith.
Mark 9:32, Matthew 17:23, Luke 9:45. Another statement of the disciple�s fearfulness and ignorance.
Mark 9:33-37, Matthew 18:1-5, Luke 9:46-48. The disciples argue among themselves about which one of them is the greatest and ask
 Jesus to resolve the dispute. He chides them.
Mark 9:38-41, Luke 9:49-50. The disciples prevent a man from acting in Jesus' name. Jesus rebukes them.
Mark 10:13-16, Matthew 19:13-15, Luke 18:15-17. The disciples are cruel to little children and their parents by not
letting them approach Jesus. Jesus is pained and rebukes the disciples.
Mark 10:28-31, Matthew 19:27, Luke 18:28. Peter expresses doubt.
Mark 10:32. The disciples are bewildered and afraid.
Luke 12:40-48. Peter yet again is puzzled by a parable. Jesus subtly mocks him with a parable that implies his
 future leadership abilities may not be adequate.
Matthew 14: 28-33. Peter displays fear, doubt and lack of faith in his chosen leader.
Matthew 15:15-16. Jesus accuses Peter of stupidity and lack of understanding.
Matthew 16:8-9, Mark 8: 16-21. Further demonstration of the disciples� inability to understand Jesus� teachings.
Matthew 16:23. Jesus compares Peter to Satan, says he is a hindrance and understands only worldly affairs, not
those of God. (See also Mark 8:33, for similar accusation though its phasing is slightly less vituperative.)
John 12:16. The disciples are slow in understanding.
Matthew 20:20-28. The other ten disciples are indignant when they learn that the Zebedee�s mother has demanded they be given special privileges.
Mark 10:35-45, Matthew 20:24-26. The other ten disciples are indignant when they learn that Zebedee�s sons have asked for special privileges.
Mark 11:20-25. Peter displays his obtuseness / Matthew 21:20. Jesus addresses the disciple's lack of faith.
John 11:16. In a single phrase, the impetuous Thomas Didymus, shows his willingness to die a violent useless death
(in contrast to Jesus� later purposeful self sacrifice), and his utter incomprehension of Jesus� intentions and abilities.
John 13:7. Jesus informs Peter of his lack of understanding (i.e. stupidity).
Matthew 26:34, Mark 14:34, Luke 22:34. In spite of Peter�s protestations of loyalty, Jesus prophesies that Peter will
 deny being associated with him by morning.
John 13:38 Jesus predicts that Peter will disown him, but will later have the chance to redeem himself.
This is a more sympathetic treatment of Peter than in the synoptic gospels.
John 14:5. Thomas demonstrates that he is ignorant and spiritually lost.
John 16:14-31. The disciples are very slow to comprehend what Jesus is saying to them.
Luke 22:24-30. The disciples argue among themselves about who is the most important, and presumably which one of them will succeed Jesus.
Matthew 26:43, Mark 14:40. The disciples fail to keep vigil with Jesus.
Matthew 26: 56, Mark 14: 50-51. The disciples abandon Jesus.
Matthew 26: 70-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:55-62, John 18:17, 25-27. Peter denies his association with Jesus.
John 20:9. The disciples do not understand what is obvious to the gospel reader.
(Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 241-11. The empty tomb. Petronius Arbiter's story about the Ephesian matron in the
"Satyricon" may be a satire of the Christian account of the crucifixion and resurrection .)
John 20:19-24. Ten mourning disciples, who meet presumably to keep Kaddish, receive Jesus� post-mortem Apostolic blessing.
Thomas was not with them, an insult to his late master�s memory, and he did not receive the blessing.
John 20:25. Obstinate Thomas.
John 20:29. Jesus subtly rebukes the doubting Thomas (see note immediately below). Jesus gives his blessing to those who
 need no convincing of his return from the tomb, but still withholds it from Thomas.
(There is a similar episode in which a doubting disciple has to be convinced that his resurrected master is a palpable man,
 not a ghost, in The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (8.12). Apollonius was an itinerant wonder worker who was a near contemporary of Jesus.
Philostratus' "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" in two volumes, translated F.C. Conybeare, Loeb Classical library 16
(Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press 1912).)
80)
Acts 23:3 "Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to judge me according to the law,
and command me to be struck contrary to the law?" Acts does not miss the opportunity to have its hero, Paul, condemn the High Priest for hypocrisy.
81)
Acts also satirizes the Roman appointed political leaders of Judea: the Herodian family.
Paul has a meeting with Herod Agrippa II and his frequently married sister Berenice (Acts 2527).
A reader of Josephus, or someone acquainted with Roman gossip would know that Berenice had an incestuous relationship
 with her brother Herod Agrippa II and later became the mistress of Titus, the heir to the imperial throne.
The Herodians were hardly in a position to pass judgment on the chaste Paul. A more detailed discussion
 is in "Josephus and the New Testament", Steve Mason, Hendrickson Publishers, 1992, p99-100.
82)
The "betrayal" of Jesus and the vilification of Judas were not part of the very earliest Christian traditions.
Matthew 19:28 includes Judas as one of the recipients of a heavenly throne.
Matthew 26:50 (Friend, do what you have come here to do) presents Judas not as a traitor,
but faithful follower who has carried out his leader's difficult orders.
Mark 14:44 (�take him and lead him away safely) has Judas acting not as a disinterested mercenary, but as a loyal
follower still expressing concern about his leaders well being.
Paul seemed unaware of any betrayal or any scandal involving Judas in particular, or the disciples in general.
(In Corinthians 15:5, Paul states the Twelve witnessed the resurrected Jesus. This implies Judas was still considered
 a disciple in good standing when Paul wrote his letters. Paul�s epistles were written before the canonical Gospels).
83)
Mk 6:3; "Isn�t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James (Jacob) and Joses and Judas and Simon."
84)
Additional information or myths about most of the personages in the canonical gospels can be found in non-canonical Christian texts,
Josephus or the rabbinical literature. However, there is a strange silence surrounding the "traitor" Judas Iscariot. It is as if he
had no existence outside of the canonical gospels. His appearances in the canonical texts are brief. His character and motivation
were never elucidated. The accounts of his death (Matthew 27 3-10, Acts 1:18-19) are contradictory suggesting that they are fictional.
There is a New Testament Epistle (Jude) attributed to, and a rich non-canonical literature about, Judas the brother of Jesus
 (Mk 6:3) who was also known as Jude, Judas Thomas, Thomas Judas and Thomas. The Gospel attributed to John treats Judas and
 Thomas Didymus as separate individuals but vilifies both of them.
Josephus mentions that a Theudas (possibly a contraction of Th(omas J)udas) was executed for leading a revolt
 during the procuratorship of Fadus (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 20.97-99 (5.1)). Most of the legendary
Judases were martyred during this period of time.
There has been too much loss, fragmentation and censorship of early Christian documents to ever allow
indisputable conclusions to be drawn. It is not impossible that Judas, Jesus' messenger to the authorities, was also his brother.
The identity of "Judas" is discussed at length by Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus; NY, NY: Viking, 1997; Chapter 24 and 26.
See also Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 3941 for additional discussion of Thomas the Twin.

END

Work on the above essay began in late 2003, before its author was aware of the "Gospel of Judas" (The New York Times,
 Friday April 7,2008, Front Page "In Ancient Document, Judas, Minus the Betrayal").  This gospel states that Judas was Jesus' most favored
disciple and that Jesus chose Judas to turn him over to the Roman authorities.  Thus an analysis of the text of the canonical gospels could predict the
content of  newly published gospel and provide motivations for both Jesus' and Judas' actions.