Talk:Judas Iscariot

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gustave Doré - The Holy Bible - Plate CXLI, The Judas Kiss.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 22, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-04-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Picture of the day

 

Gustave Doré's depiction of the kiss given by Judas Iscariot to Jesus, identifying him as the one whom the soldiers of the high priest Caiaphas are to arrest. The Gospels state that Jesus foresaw and allowed the betrayal because it would allow God's plan to be fulfilled, but most Christians still consider Judas a traitor. Following this event, Caiaphas condemned Jesus for blasphemy, and the Sanhedrin trial concurred with a sentence of death. Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for execution, who carried out the sentence against his own wishes.Restoration: Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

True but I can't find Augustine mentioned in the source. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the Etymology section, there's certain images of Hebrew text. Unfortunately, I can't read these. Can someone please transliterate them, and convert them into unicode? I list them here for your convenience, so please feel free to do that either here or there.

• Hebrew   "Liar or the false one"
• Aramaic   "red color"
• Aramaic   "deliver" (1)
• Aramaic   "deliver" (2)
• Greek-Aramaic   "Iskarioutha, chokiness"

Thanks if you can help. Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon! (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Doug,

I'd like to point out why your deletion of my work on "Judas Iscariot" is not only unjustified, but insulting:

Some of it was what we call copyvio, a copyright violation, with material copied from [1] (unless you copied it from yet another source, which is possible - in any case it appears to be a copyright violation).

As I stated in my contribution to the article, the information provided comes directly from the Lutheran Study Bible, the notes and essays of which were created by a variety of professional theologians and pastors and endorsed by their synod, a body of over two million people. And I've never seen the website to which you refer.

It all appears to be your own analysis/research - take a look at WP:NOR - we have a firm policy against original research, our articles should be based upon what we call reliable sources

A body of professional theologians publishing in their denomination's official Bible is not "reliable"? (And again, I cited the actual text; see the previous point.)

Related to that, if a notable scholar writes " best-informed explanation" you can say "X writes that this is the best-informed explanation", but Wikipedia can't say that in its own voice.

That's fine. How would you say nicely that the previous content is incomplete and misleading?

And finally, I see your edit ended up on a blog without any link or attribution to Wikipedia, which is unfortunate.

No, you were lazy or careless, since the link is provided in the words "an article on Judas Iscariot" at the beginning of the second paragraph.

new users often don't realise quite what it means when Wikipedia states it is an encyclopedia.

That might be true, but in this case, you were careless, prejudicial, and condescending.

Is providing incomplete, gravely-misleading, and factually-incorrect content relevant to the faith of more than two billion people "quite what it means when Wikipedia states it is an encyclopedia"?

You've erred, Doug. The work should be restored.

Regards,

AmillennialistContraMundum (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've got me on the blog, I missed that. I didn't miss though that some of the material you added to the article can be found published on the web earlier than your edit and thus is copyvio unless it can be proven differently. I wouldn't "say nicely that the previous content is incomplete and misleading?", I'd find a reliable source (according to our criteria at WP:RS that said it. I am definitely not going to restore anything I consider to be copyvio or in violation of our WP:NPOV policy. And this should be on the article talk page and I'll copy it there now. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It can be proven differently because it's in the book sitting on my coffee table (and in many other homes, churches, stores, and libraries. That's why I was able to provide specific page numbers. Do any of your sources cite specific page numbers?).

And is not the Lutheran Study Bible a "reliable source"?

AmillennialistContraMundum (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

"The best-informed explanation for this apparent contradiction" can be replaced by "An explanation for this apparent contradiction". Walther's list is unnecessary and makes this too long, this is one view of the issue and shouldn't dominate. And there is the fact that it shows up in an essay by a Lutheran minister at [1]. I don't know where the editor who added it got it from obviously, but it appears to be copyvio. But as I say, I don't think it belongs here. "And if St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly) to impugn the integrity of Scripture, then he should be allowed to speak fully:" doesn't belong at all, it's more original research. If a reliable source uses Augustine concerning the issue, that source can be used. IDougweller (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

"An explanation" suggests that its merit is equal to the other, obviously ill-informed opinions presented. Can you provide a more accurate phrase? (I should have written "alleged error" rather than "apparent contradiction" anyway.)

Is list length a violation of any of Wikipedia's Terms of Use (link, please)? It seems especially inapt as a criticism here, since the list provides the reader with specific evidence for the point being made.

As to from where I got Walther's list, I stated in the content you deleted, in the copy of that content preserved at my site (that was prescient!), and in my response to your reversion above that the information came directly from the Lutheran Study Bible. Now, if providing the title of a book, direct quotations from it, and the specific page numbers where I found that information doesn't "prove" that I did the work myself without stealing it from your minister, then what does?

Does your source provide specific page numbers? If so, where, because I just checked, and I don't see them. In fact, it looks like your link's author is quoting a pastor who quoted someone else's essay, but it's hard to tell, since the work is so poorly cited.

All of which means that you're rejecting my work as plagiarism on the basis of a post that is cited less carefully than my own.

With regard to St. Augustine, he is misrepresented by the contributor(s) whose work you let stand as questioning the integrity of Scripture, so his words on the topic are completely relevant. And my source for that passage is again the Lutheran Study Bible, which itself cites Augustine.

Isn't St. Augustine a "reliable source" for . . . St. Augustine?

AmillennialistContraMundum (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• This jumped out at me on first glance: "best informed explanation" and "if St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly)". We can't say these things in Wikipedia's voice. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• A few points come to mind rather quickly.

1) As per our article Lutheran Study Bible, that book is written from a Lutheran perspective, which, honestly, isn't a surprise. But this article, like all articles in wikipedia, is supposed to be written in a neutral, NPOV, more or less "objective" sense. I have serious problems believing any study Bible is written from such a perspective. And, yes, there are any number of Bibles, and study Bibles, written to reflect and perhaps reinforce the opinions of a given denomination. As per policies and guidelines, we are not supposed to prefer any of them over any others.

2) As a source which is, basically, also supposed to reflect the best current research, we also should use the best current research, which, in general, refers to academic sources. Again, I have serious questions whether the Lutheran Study Bible qualifies as one of the best academic sources out there. Nothing against it, but a study Bible is more of a devotional, rather than scientific, work.

3) Regarding Augustine: Augustine wrote a huge body of material. Several sources have a tendency to "cherry-pick" a given quotation which supports their position, while ignoring others. That sort of thing has happened a lot, including in some academic sources. We try to avoid that here. While I do not doubt that Augustine gave the quotation provided, it is harder to know that it is reflective of his thought as a whole. Also, there is the question exactly how much weight as per WP:WEIGHT to give his religious thought in this, which is basically primarily an overview of the entire range of material on the subject of Judas.

4) In general, as a rule of thumb, we like to more or less have content, and sources, which reflect those of the best academic sources on the subject. This includes reference works. If it could be demonstrated that these sources and material reflect those of perhaps the most highly regarded reference works which discuss Judas, that would be very useful. Otherwise, sources from any single denomination or religious tradition, particularly if they reflect the thinking of those denominations or traditions, should receive no more weight in terms of text and sources than any others.

I think it would be a very good idea if some newere editors were to acquaint themselves with all of our policies and guidelines, including WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, etc. John Carter (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The text removed from the article failed to meet Wikipedia's standards in a number of ways in that (a) it evaluated a source: "the best informed ..."; (b) it attributed motives: "carelessly (or dishonestly)..."; (c) the insertion on the essay in TLSB unbalances the section; and (d) the sources quoted are few and inadequately described (no publishing details): is the study Bible "The Lutheran Study Bible" (Concordia) or the "Lutheran Study Bible" (Augsburg Fortress)?

The acceptability of sources for religious articles is a very complicated question. Wikipedia has to be descriptive and afterwards critical. The requirements of contemporary academic (in the narrow sense of university departmental) writing are coming increasingly under fire as both inadequate and irrelevant:

The academy, for historical reasons of self-understanding, is in the modern world committed to a rationality that precludes the density of commitment and passion that I believe necessarily pertains to serious Old Testament theology.[note: the author recognises some exceptions] By such a statement I do not concede that the academy is "objective" or "neutral" or "scientific", for its commitments are as visible and demanding and exclusionary as those of any ecclesial community. They are, however, very different and therefore in its practice of its rationality it is likely that the academy will never move seriously beyond "history of religion" ["an acceptable, legitimate, and needed undertaking"]. ... ... "both enterprises, academic and ecclesial, [should be] recognised as legitimate... To refuse to learn from such ecclesial scholarship because it is not "scientific" enough strikes me as irresponsible and obscurantist."^{[n 1]}

Bibles, whether described as "study" or not, range from straight translations such as the Revised Version (ASB) with only a minimum of cross-references and notes on textual variants produced by well recognised academics to highly POV ones such as the dispensational, premillenial "Scofield" Bible with its definite theological scheme built into the notes. In the middle there are some study Bibles which are produced by teams of scholars, reflect current knowledge and refrain from denominational interpretations.^{[n 2]} Wherever the Study Bible quoted is located on this spectrum, it is I think permissible to use it as a source for one proposal solving the problem.

The final paragraph on Augustine is not relevant now in that I have eliminated the earlier reference because it was a bit of cherry-picking in that, although the words quoted are he goes on to justify the retention of Jeremiah in the text and uses it to draw lessons.

My suggestion is, providing the particular study-bible is properly identified, to add at the end of the preceding paragraph something like.

'One proposed resolution of the controversy is found in the/The Lutheran Study Bible, the passage "Quotes Zechariah 11:12-13, but adds phrases from Jeremiah 19:11 (a potter's field is used for burial) and an allusion to Jeremiah 32:6-11 (Jeremiah's purchase of land)." '

It should be noted that the extensive quotation from the essay is hardly relevant since it is concerned with the custom of 'chaining' quotes from the OT rather than the problem of their erroneous attribution.

References

Jpacobb (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I understand tone. That is something I would change.

The fact that the Lutheran Study Bible contains devotional content does not mean that its theological, historical, or textual scholarship is in any way questionable. That's poor logic.

Also, the text notes and essays contained in the LSB are written and/or compiled by professionals with earned Master's degrees and doctorates. Dismissing highly-educated Lutheran theologians and editors because they're Lutheran is fundamentally dishonest.

And the Evangelist made no "erroneous attribution," which is shown clearly by the material that was deleted.

Finally, Augustine and Luther are quoted/noted to imply error; their own words and heirs ought to be able to add to the discussion. That they're not indicates strongly a profound bias. No wonder Wikipedia has the reputation it does.

AmillennialistContraMundum (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The above editor does not yet seem to grasp the concept of WP:NPOV. No one is dismissing the source, as he claims above, and I believe that claim itself may well qualify as fundamentally dishonest. They are pointing out that the Lutheran Study Bible is clearly and obviously written from a single POV. Everyone is free to have their own POV, but, as I already said, we prefer academic sources which do not have a clear POV behind them. The fact that individuals have degrees also doesn't actually mean much. Many of the weirdest religious theories I have ever read were written by individuals with advanced degrees. I would urge the above editor, once again, to familiarize himself with all the policies and guidelines. Like all articles relating to early Christianity, about which there is actually little if any hard evidence, included in clearly Christian sources, like the Lutheran Study Bible, it is presenting first, last, and foremost that opinion. We do not have the opinions of Anglicans, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Unification Church, or any number of other religious groups in the ariticle either. Adding one would open the door to all being included, and that would be counterproductive. As I said before, we rely first, last, and foremost on sources of a clearly independent academic variety. These would include the Encyclopedia of Religion by Mircea Eliade or Lindsay Jones, Religion Past and Present published by Brill, and any number of books included in the reference sections of academic libraries. If it can be shown that leading reference works which deal with Judas say the same thing, that will be cause for considering changing. However, any information in a clearly denominational study Bible, and not in independent academic sources, would qualify as POV. And, yes, I would say the same thing about my own copies of the Bible, which I as one of the leading editors in religion and Chiristianity have yet to add, or even propose, for addition to articles. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Every source has a point-of-view, and it's either dishonest or naive to pretend otherwise.

And still more absurd ad hominem.

74.100.71.253 (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

66.87.2.151 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Jesus handpicked the Apostles. Matthias was selected by lot. The Bible offers Saul of Taurus (later Paul) as Jesus personal choice.Reply

Of course there's always Acts 22: 9 "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

And your point is? The statement in the text is correct - Matthias replaced Judus among the Twelve - and makes no statement whether his selection was divine or not. Ckruschke (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

The famous reference to "Judas" by a heckler at the Manchester concert in 1966 (released in the Bootleg series in the '90s), slamming Dylan's supposed betrayal of his art and his fans, should be included. This is one of the most (in)famous pieces of heckling of the 20th century, and Dylan's on-the-spot response "I don't believe you: you're a liar!" is one of the most gracefully ironic put-downs by a major artist. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

From the "Modern interpretations" section:

Bart Ehrman, though suggesting that the betrayal by Jesus is "about as historically certain as anything else in the tradition", argues that what was betrayed was not the whereabouts of Jesus, but his private teachings.

I'm guessing that's probably supposed to say either "betrayal by Judas" or "betrayal of Jesus". Can anyone with access to the original source confirm what it ought to be?--Unscented (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some perspectives of the Judas story indeed explicitly state "betrayal by Jesus". For example the song "Stand Up for Judas" by Leon Rosselson, | the song, | lyrics. As for "about as historically certain as anything else in the tradition", tradition alone has limited historical authenticity.--Yohananw (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The phrase 'humanity's alleged salvation', in the opening section, seems to me to be negative and anti-Christian rather than reflecting a neutral point of view. Can anyone suggest an alternative and neutral phrase?

BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This issue was addressed 10 February 2015 - thanks. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have restored my edit of 22 March in this section. I accept that additional references other than scripture are needed but the section is headed 'role as an apostle' and needs to include a brief section covering that role, including how it is handled differently in John's gospel. BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The section in the article entitled 'Role as an Apostle' is a relatively recent (2014) addition to this article, which has a long editorial history. It seems to me that a section with this title has to show that Judas shared in the life and ministry of the twelve during the period from Jesus' calling of the apostles to the prelude to His death, because the gospels clearly include him in the mission and empowerment which Jesus gives to them. Clearly it would be good if there were other primary sources relating to Judas' role as an apostle, but I am not aware of any - is anyone else? Origen's Commentary on John's Gospel reflects on Judas' interactions with the other apostles and Jesus' confidence in him (see Samuel Laeuchli, Origen's Interpretation of Judas Iscariot, Church History, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1953), pp. 253-268, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3161779). I'm intending to restore my previous edit on this point, subject to reaching a consensus. Comments please
BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

IP user 82.81.89.253 has added a meaning to Judas Iscariot = Yehuda Ish Kerayot = Yehuda from Kerayot. This looks good, but is uncited. Looking up Kerayot in WP follows a link to Krayot which is a modern group of cities. According to page Krayot means "townships". Can anyone confirm this interpretation of the name, and if so does anyone know why he was "Yehuda from Townships", or else is/was there a place called "Kerayot"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

According to what I've read of Bart Ehrman, Iscariot could have meant "man from Kerioth", but the meaning is unsure. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Source: Bart D. Ehrman (1 October 2008). The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed. Oxford University Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-19-534351-9. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

p. 92 of Rodolphe Kasser; Marvin Meyer; Gregor Wurst; Francois Gaudard (17 June 2008). The Gospel of Judas, Second Edition. National Geographic Society. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-4262-0415-9.: scholars have long debated what it meant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've added that as a "or possibly" and wikilinked it. On the Kerioth page it is already claimed tentatively. If you @Tgeorgescu: have access to the quoted sources can you check them and add them as citations to the main page please. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

"The character was most likely a Roman fabrication" - this highlighted insertion carries a flag of 'citation needed.' I would suggest, in light of it being a fringe theory of highly dubious scholarship, that it be removed entirely until such citation is both forthcoming and persuasive.Ramseyman (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources because original research is prohibited inside Wikipedia. It is prohibited any use of the Bible, as a WP:PRIMARY source, in order to make points which are not immediately obvious, but rely instead upon interpretation (exegesis). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

E.g. "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold" can safely be verified to the Bible. But "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold, which is bad, because 666 is Devil's number" is not allowed to be verified to the Bible, but its inclusion could only be based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. See WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Peter Bolt is a conservative Anglican. That's why, according to WP:YESPOV, we avoid stating his opinion as if it were uncontested fact. All assertions based upon Sola Scriptura do not comply with WP:OR and therefore they should only be stated as somebody's opinion, always attributed to that person or religious group. I mean: critical biblical scholarship knows very well that the Bible is not a coherent text and upon many issues the Bible does not state only one opinion, but it states many different and contradictory opinions. That's Bible scholarship 101, cannot miss it in any US mainline divinity school or in any US secular university. Critical Bible scholars do not play the harmonization game, they consider it puerile. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

So, if Ehrman states a different view that Bolt, both should be rendered following WP:UNDUE. Who's this Peter Bolt, anyway? Where has he gotten his PhD? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

An editor's own analysis of the text of the Greek New Testament is prohibited by WP:OR. What matters according to WP:VER is what scholars have stated about the discussed issue. See? What top scholars say counts, what you yourself found by analyzing the Greek text doesn't. I didn't say that IP's research would be bad research, I simply state that Wikipedia does not work that way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tgeorgescu: I don't have a problem with attributing the opinion to whoever stated it. My problem is that it is attributed to "conservative Anglicans" without a shred of evidence that Bolt speaks for conservative Anglicans. It should be attributed to Bolt, or backed up with a source stating that it is the position of "conservative Anglicans", or left out entirely. Sundayclose (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is published upon the website of a conservative Anglican divinity school. Isn't that enough? But I agree that if it cannot be shown that Bolt's view is notable, it should be deleted. It is not me who put it in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, it is written by Bolt, and as far as I know it is not endorsed by any Anglican group, nor does Bolt claim to speak for conservative Anglicans. If a Catholic theologian writes an article that is on a Catholic website, he does not speak for Catholics. I favor deleting the sentence entirely. Sundayclose (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have removed it for now. It could be reinserted through citing a top conservative Evangelical scholar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Judas Iscariot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220115126/http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl83/Comm10.html to http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl83/Comm10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060408052440/http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline.html to http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111214130717/http://rt.com/all-about-russia/literature/mikhail-bulgakov/the-master-and-margarita/how-the-procurator-tried-to-save-judas-of-karioth/ to http://rt.com/all-about-russia/literature/mikhail-bulgakov/the-master-and-margarita/how-the-procurator-tried-to-save-judas-of-karioth/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515064643/http://www.equinoxpub.com/equinox/books/showbook.asp?bkid=430 to http://www.equinoxpub.com/equinox/books/showbook.asp?bkid=430&keyword=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I find it peculiar this article relates to Judas as a character from the bible rather than word of mouth or a known personage of history.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Judas Iscariot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904052930/http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&chapter=10 to http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&chapter=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216070514/http://press.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/index.jsp?pageID=pressReleases_detail&siteID=1&cid=1196944434958 to http://press.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/index.jsp?pageID=pressReleases_detail&siteID=1&cid=1196944434958
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918095822/http://hellandjustice.com/romans_josephus.htm to http://www.hellandjustice.com/romans_josephus.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Any reason why this page is still locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.185 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's semi-protected because of persistent, high levels of vandalism. Your available options are as follows:

• Use {{Edit semi-protected}} on this talk page to request a specific edit, giving exact details in a "change X to Y" format, and provide reliable sources
• Register an account and wait until your account is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, then make the edit(s) yourself, providing reliable sources
• Ask the protecting admin (Materialscientist) on their talk page to lift protection (unlikely to be done unless vandalism levels have reduced significantly and they judge the risk acceptable)
• Ask at WP:RFPP to lift protection - only after asking the protecting admin - (unlikely to be done unless vandalism levels have reduced significantly and they judge the risk acceptable)

Thank you -- Begoon 03:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is there a need to add a section 'Antisemitism' given the immense historical place of the Judas story in Jew-hatred?^[1] The entry currently touches on anti-Jewish uses of Judas Iscariot with links to Antisemitism in Christianity and Burning of Judas.-Yohananw (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "The obvious discrepancy between the two radically different accounts of Judas's death in Matthew 27:1–10 and Acts 1:18 has proven to be a serious challenge to those who support the idea of Biblical inerrancy."

to: "The discrepancy between the two different accounts of Judas's death in Matthew 27:1–10 and Acts 1:18 has proven to be a serious challenge to those who support the idea of Biblical inerrancy." HeyMrScott (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Done {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 18:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the 2.1 'Life' section about Judas, it says that Judas is called Judas in Matthew, Mark, and John, but then says that Luke's gospel is the only one, where Judas is called the son of James. In all due respect to whoever made that edit, along with whoever moderates the Judas page, the text from the King James Bible reads, "Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot the traitor." I see how someone could've made that mistake, but considering the importance of the Judas page be it if or if not anyone really believes in Jesus or he, the entry needs to be changed to correct it. Thank you. 50.4.188.203 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Betrayal of Jesus," second paragraph, one of the claims is completely unsubstantiated by its reference: "Another is that Jesus was causing unrest likely to increase tensions with the Roman authorities and they thought he should be restrained until after the Passover, when everyone had gone back home and the commotion had died down."

The source of this claim, located here: https://archive.org/details/jewsgodhistorys00maxi/page/135/mode/2up, does not even reference Judas once, let alone his reasons for betraying Jesus. TyleriusMaximus (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)TyleriusReply

  Partly done: This might be a case of the wrong page number being given. However, the book preview is limited so I cannot verify this. Instead, I have left the content in the article with a tag for verification in case somebody who has access to the full book can verify. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The text in John 13:27-29 is cited in a couple of places, but not quoted. This text is of considerable theological significance, esp. Jesus' "What you are about to do, do quickly", implying his foreknowledge of, if not acquiescence in, his betrayal. Almost every other reference to Judas has a quote; I would suggest all or some of this text be added, partly for balance, but particularly for those less familiar with the Bible. I am not sure where it would best go, however, and others have clearly put a lot of work into this article. Any takers? --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The statement is misleading, the Gospel of Mark is viewed by some scholars as the oldest but there is no definitive evidence of that hypothesis. DukeOfSavoy89 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The academic consensus of mainstream Bible scholars is that it is indeed the oldest gospel. We don't re-litigate here mainstream academic learning. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to this article, the Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pontius Pilate) goes into the death of Judas. When you go to the Gospel’s Wikipedia page, it doesn’t reference it; in the book The Apocryphal Gospels (9780241340561) it has a translation, yet does not mention the death of Judas. Furthermore, according to the translation of https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob10.htm, it does not mention Judas’ death. So why is it in this article? The book cited does not seem to be about Judas or apocrypha, but I haven’t read it so I digress. Preludeineminor (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Иуда- герой. Именно благодаря ему и возникло христианство 188.244.137.58 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Иуда- герой. Именно благодаря ему и возникло христианство 188.244.137.58 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please make me understand how is this disruptive ? It's understanding history rationally and association of events , discussions such as these are routinely done in Universities. This is part of theological theses. Vasovagalsyncope (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vasovagalsyncope: WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. No sources, no edits, see WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

How do you cite sources in a conjecture of theological discussion and rational discussion? Wiki source for a wiki page for a theses? Vasovagalsyncope (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vasovagalsyncope: No sources, no edits. Take it or leave our website. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's in the link to this article. In Wikipedia Vasovagalsyncope (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vasovagalsyncope: I'm not negotiating basic website policy. If you'll do it again, you'll get blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

wikipedia has anyone intelligent around ? Vasovagalsyncope (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The citations don't back up this statement. Two (Stein and Meier) are not of secular sources, but rather from religious leaders explicitly performing apologia. One (Gubar) is of an English professor's examination of the history of the mythological and literary roles played by the character of Judas, and does not concern the historicity of the man. And one (Ehrman) is a single secular scholar's book about the historicity of Jesus, in which the only mention of Judas Iscariot's historicity is a brief and uncited assertion that Judas' betrayal is "about as historically certain as anything else in the tradition" (pg. 216).

Not being a historian of Christianity I don't have a good source for the consensus claimed by this statement in the introduction. Is there a better citation? If not I would advocate for rephrasing or removing the sentence. Henrybrinkerhoff (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ehrman is reliable: he is an atheist, but otherwise academically conservative. He states that almost everything we know about Ancient history are probability judgments about "what probably happened". He thinks that it is probably that someone betrayed Jesus, namely that he secretly called himself the Messiah. If that person's name was Judas can no longer be investigated, we name him Judas for simplicity. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I sometime earlier categorized Judas Iscariot as being among historical Double agents. Does that category no longer apply? - knoodelhed (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Though reasons as to why Judas betrayed Jesus vary, none that I can find state that he was secretly working for the Romans, which is the only possible application of the phrase 'double agent' here. Citation unneeded (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Right, Romans would have wanted people to infiltrate the Saducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes, and so on, but Jesus's movement was a tiny cult (around of 20 believers, the rest were bystanders applauding Jesus's healings for a while, then just minding their own business), so they probably had no reason to want to inflitrate it. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the "Name and background" section, there are multiple uses of Hebrew orthography. In some cases, a transliteration in Roman script is provided (e.g. איש־קריות, (Κ-Qrîyôt)), though in others there is no such transliteration (e.g. איש-שקרים). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) implies the use of such transliterations that reflect the pronunciation and tradition of the relevant Hebrew, though here there is no set standard (at least for Wikipedia; see Romanization of Hebrew#Standards).

Thus there are some roman script transliterations needed here, though which form of transliteration to be used is possibly contentious (and may extend to the rest of the wiki).

As a separate note, the form of transcription cited above doesn't seem to be any sort of standard. For a clear example of this, see the [j] phone on Romanization of Hebrew#Comparative table and compare it to ⟨î⟩ above. This seems to be a widespread issue in the wiki, as can be seen in Textual variants in the Hebrew Bible. Citation unneeded (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply