�鶹��ý

Originally published as a portion of chapter 6 of A Stranger in Jerusalem: Seeing Jesus as a Jew (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2019), 143–53, the following appendix is adapted from the published version with corresponding original paginations appearing here in square brackets.

A Stranger in Jerusalem deals with the Jewish context of Jesus’s ministry. The book details the daily life of a Jewish boy in first-century Galilee, surveys early Jewish literature to understand the messianic expectations of Jews at the time of Jesus, and explores how Jesus related to his Jewish peers and vice versa. The book also seeks to answer the following questions: why did the Gospel writers portray Jesus and Jews the way they did, and how might have Jews in the first and second centuries interpreted the Jesus traditions upon hearing them or reading them?

James Tissot, Judas and with Him a Great Multitude. Wikimedia Commons.

As explained in chapter 1 about the messianic expectations of Jews at the time of Jesus, a review of early Jewish literature clarifies that Jews did not expect their enemies to humiliate and kill their enemies. [143] Paul acknowledged that Jesus’s death was a “stumbling block to Jews” (1 Cor 1:23)—a skandalon (where we get “scandal”). Peter, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and many other apostles were confused and shaken to the core by Jesus’s death (Matt 16:22, 28:16–20; Luke 24:13–21; Acts 1:6). They simply did not expect it.

The case of Judas may further illustrate that some (or all?) of Jesus’s closest disciples believed him to be the Messiah but did not expect him to die, at least not before fulfilling the messianic expectations of achieving freedom from Rome. Judas is most infamous for handing Jesus over to the Jewish authorities. But why did he do it? According to the author of Matthew, greed compelled Judas to betray Jesus (26:14–16). The Gospels of Luke and John conclude that Satan possessed Judas (Luke 22:3; John 6:70–71, 13:2, 27). Note that greed, satanic influence, and mental imbalance are standard explanations for why people commit horrendous acts difficult to explain.

[144] There is, however, another option for interpretation, considering Jewish messianic expectations. If Judas believed, like most other Jews, in a conquering messiah, then he would have expected Jesus to subdue Israel’s enemies. He would not have expected Jesus to die. The earliest Gospel, Mark, provides no motivation for why Judas handed Jesus over to the authorities. There is no assumption of greed or evil forces influencing Judas. In fact, Mark does not refer to Judas as a betrayer. Many English translations of the Bible use the word betray regarding Judas, but the Greek �貹�����徱��ō���� in its various forms means “to hand over” or “deliver,” but never “to betray.”[1] William Klaussen (scholar at many universities—most recently at Cambridge) explained:

Not one ancient classical Greek text has surfaced in which [this verb] means “betray” or has a connotation of treachery. . . . Josephus, the most prolific historian of the first century, uses [this word] 293 times, but not once can one legitimately translate it employing the word “betray.” . . . There is no linguistic basis—in classical Greek, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, in Josephus or patristic sources—for a translation of “betray” to describe what Judas did.[2]

During the Last Supper, Jesus mentioned that one person in the room would hand him over to the authorities (Mark 14:18), which scandalizes the apostles. According to the author of Matthew, Judas himself wondered whether he would be the one to deliver Jesus (Matt 26:25). The Gospel of John adds that Jesus encouraged Judas to “do quickly what you are going to do” (John 13:27). Given Jesus’s increased discussion near the end of his ministry about an imminent realization of his divine mission, coupled with the pervasive expectations of a conquering messiah, Judas likely thought the time had come for the great messianic battle to be waged.[3] Thus, when Jesus tells Judas during the Last Supper to deliver him, Judas is glad to do it. His rationale may have been, “I’ll be happy to arrange this meeting between the messiah and our enemies; he’ll crush them! It’s about time the messiah fulfills his mission and defeats Rome and our corrupt temple bureaucrats.”

[145] The portrait of Judas in Mark, supplemented by a few bits of information in the other Gospels, shows a disciple entrenched within the brotherhood of Jesus’s close circle. The earliest Gospel does not demonize him, as do the later Gospels. When Judas exited the upper room during the Last Supper after being told to deliver Jesus, the other disciples assumed he was leaving to buy food for the feast or to give to the poor (John 13:29–30). There is no hint of tension between Jesus and Judas, nor between Judas and the other apostles. Based on Greco-Roman mealtime customs,[4] the act of Jesus offering food to Judas during the meal suggests a deep friendship, not a ruptured relationship. This interpretation of Judas as a well-meaning individual makes the most sense considering Mark’s portrayal of Judas and first-century messianic expectations.

As explained in my chapter in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, I surveyed the origins of messianic notions of the Israelites and messianic expectations of early Jews in the few centuries prior to Jesus’s birth,[5] Jesus’s role as messiah was unclear to his followers. That Jesus asks his closest disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” and “Who do you think I am?” illustrates this lack of clarity (Luke 9:19–21; Mark 8:28–30; Matt 16:13–20). When Jesus claims at Caesarea Philippi that authorities in Jerusalem would kill him, Peter takes him aside and says, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you” (Matt 16:22). If Judas held a similar expectation of the messiah, then he would have been willing to help Jesus overthrow Israel’s enemies by arranging their meeting.

The problem with a historical reconstruction is that the Gospels themselves are conflicted and unclear on Judas’s motives. This ambiguity has led many interpreters to conclude (1) that Jesus commanded Judas to hand him over as part of a divinely ordained plan, (2) that Judas’s greed led to his betrayal of Jesus, or (3) that Judas was influenced by demons, even Satan himself. All three interpretations, however, seem problematic given the subsequent events.

If Judas was demonic, evil, greedy, and easily compromised by money—as the author of Matthew claimed—then why would he so quickly slip into a depressed and repentant state, return the money, and kill himself after Jesus’s conviction? Why the immediate remorse? Similarly, why would Jesus command Judas to hand him over in order to accomplish a divinely ordained mission if he knew that such a commandment would not exalt Judas—as Abraham was exalted after following the commandment to sacrifice Isaac—but lead to Judas’s disgraced death? Many conservative theologians have argued that Jesus, being all-knowing, called Judas to “the twelve” precisely because he was capable of betraying him. This argument is based on the Gospel of John, wherein Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would hand him over to the authorities, yet he chose him anyway: “Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.’ He was speaking of Judas son of [146] Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him” (John 6:70–71).

This interpretation by the author of John, and by subsequent Christian theologians is highly flawed. The implication is that Jesus unethically concocted a plan to exploit Judas’s weaknesses. How so? He sought Judas precisely because he knew Judas would betray him. He then brought Judas into his closest circle (i.e., the twelve) and strung him along for his entire ministry, pretending to be his friend and mentor. He plotted against Judas by orchestrating a situation where his vulnerabilities were used against himself, thus leading to his disgraced downfall where he would be vilified for millennia. If Jesus really premeditatedly concocted such a plan, then what would this say about Jesus’s character? Could not Jesus just have delivered himself to the authorities? Why destroy a man’s legacy unnecessarily? This interpretation simply makes no sense.

A more realistic explanation is that Judas expected Jesus to fulfill the prevailing messianic expectations. When Jesus was convicted and killed, Judas realized he had made a mistake (albeit an honest mistake) and had misunderstood what his messiah was supposed to have accomplished. Note that once Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to Pilate, Judas immediately returned the money to the chief priests and proclaimed, “I have sinned by handing over innocent blood” (Matt 27:4). The word “sinned” here may not be an admission by Judas of “sin” against God, but may have been placed on Judas’s lips by the author of Matthew; but even if the author of Matthew correctly preserved Judas’s exact words, the Greek word �󲹳������ٲ���ō can also mean “to miss the mark” or “to be mistaken.” It seems that Judas did not expect this outcome of his messiah’s defeat. He was mistaken. For the author of Mark, Judas was the means by which Jesus accomplished his goal, a goal that Judas may have misinterpreted. Jesus knew he would be killed, while Judas expected him to be the victor.

Judas’s motives as portrayed in the Gospels are just one problem regarding this enigmatic figure. We also do not know what ultimately happened to Judas. It may be that he did not even commit suicide, as the author of Matthew claimed. The ancient sources disagree on his fate, and we are left to fill in the gaps through scholarship. The earliest Christian writings, for example, do not even mention Judas’s death. In 1 Corinthians, which predates all four Gospels, Paul refers to the night Jesus was “handed over” (paredoken), but he does not mention Judas (11:23). A few chapters later, Paul explains that the resurrected Jesus met with “the twelve” (1 Cor 15:5), which includes Judas. Had Judas really betrayed Jesus and then committed suicide, Paul should have stated that Jesus appeared to the eleven apostles. Further, the earliest Gospel, Mark, does not mention Judas again after Jesus’s arrest. Similarly, the authors of Luke and John say nothing of what happened to Judas after Jesus’s crucifixion. Only in the “M” tradition (i.e., material exclusively contained in Matthew) does Judas commit suicide (Matt 27:3–10). According to the book of Acts, Judas died after taking a fall (1:18–19). An early Christian leader, Papias, wrote a few decades after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that a chariot hit and killed Judas.[6] The Gospel of Judas, a second- or third-century text, claims that the apostles persecuted and stoned Judas to death.[7] That Jesus’s followers within two hundred years of his death were unclear, and in fact contradicted each other, regarding Judas’s fate is apparent.

[147] Some scholars have posited that the demonization of Judas in the Gospels was an unfair portrayal, developed decades later by late first-century followers of Jesus.[8] The authors of Matthew, Luke, and John seem to go out of their way to use Judas as a symbol and microcosm for “Jews,” or at least for a certain influential segment of the Jewish population. The convenient and anti-Jewish portrayal of Judas in the Gospels seems suspicious, indeed. Here, we discuss some examples.

First, the Gospels portray Judas as having been influenced by Satan and his demons (Luke 22:3; John 6:70–71; 13:2, 27). Judas was evil to the core, according to the authors of Matthew, Luke, and John. Similarly, these Gospels portray some Jews as being demonic. For example, in John, Jesus supposedly tells “the Jews” (8:31), “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (8:44).

The Gospel of Matthew strangely describes Jesus in a few places as a non-Jew, an outsider who enters “their” synagogues (12:9), and describes the Pharisees, the popular leaders of Israel, as “evil” (12:34, 39), “children of hell” (23:15), “dead” inside and full of “filth” (23:27), “descendants of those who murdered the prophets” and destined for hell (23:31, 33). In both the Last Supper and Gethsemane episodes, the author of Matthew paints Judas as the worst kind of betrayer, someone who must be wholly in league with Satan. For instance, Judas calls Jesus “Rabbi” during the Last Supper and again in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:25, 49). Such a term is anathema in the Gospel of Matthew. Only in this Gospel does Jesus excoriate Jewish leaders for desiring “to have people call them rabbi. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students” (Matt 23:7–8). The author of Matthew is deliberate in his use of titles. Only two places in this Gospel is Jesus addressed by the negative term (in Matthew’s view) of “rabbi”; on [148] both occasions, his own disciple, Judas, uses the term![9] Here, the author of Matthew provides evidence for Judas’s hostility toward Jesus—Judas calls him the very title that Jesus rejects. In addition, Judas “betrays” Jesus with a kiss of intimate friendship. Again, the author of Matthew was trying to portray Judas as the most evil kind of person, one who displays overt hostility toward a dear friend in order to make a measly profit. Here, Judas dishonors his mentor in the most nefarious way possible, outside of killing him himself. This portrayal of Judas mirrors that of “Jews”; the demonic Judas was a representation of the demonic Jews.

Edward Armitage, The Remorse of Judas. Wikimedia Commons.

Second, the Gospel of Matthew attributes Judas’s “betrayal” to greed (Matt 26:14–16). The Gospel of John also accuses Judas of greed: “[Judas] said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it” (John 12:6). The other Gospels likewise accuse Jews of being greedy. In Luke, Israel’s leaders are charged with being “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14). In Matthew, they are “full of greed and self-indulgence” (Matt 23:25). Jesus criticizes the temple establishment for being extortionists and thieves, making the temple complex a “den of robbers” (Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46). Again, the greedy Judas serves as a symbol for “Jews” in general. The phenomenon of accusing one’s opponents of being motivated by money was common, especially among the competing philosophical schools.[10]

A third example: the Gospels link Judas with the corrupt temple priests. Whereas Jesus hardly speaks to them during his trial, Judas deals directly with them (Luke 22:3–6; Matt 26:15; 27:3). The Jewish populace despised the corrupt chief priests as explained in Chapter 2. [149] Thus, tying Judas to the chief priests by association was a way of illustrating that he was not just a Jew, but a Jew entrenched within the corrupt aristocracy responsible for Jesus’s arrest and death.

Other details contribute to suspicions about Judas’s portrayal in the Gospels being historically reliable. For example, the author of Matthew claims that Judas delivered Jesus for a measly thirty pieces of silver (Matt 26:15; 27:3, 9)—worth about 120 days’ wages. Today the equivalent of this act would be a lower middle-class laborer who makes $40,000 annually betraying and conspiring against his mentor, teacher, friend, and religious leader for a mere $13,000. Judas sells his messiah for the low price of a slave (Exod 21:32); even the bottle of ointment used to anoint Jesus was worth more than double Judas’s betrayal price (Mark 14:5; John 12:3).[11] Who would do such a thing unless he were psychotic?

Matthew also links Judas (named Yehudah in Hebrew) with Judah in the Joseph of Egypt story. All of Joseph’s brothers reject him, but Judah suggests selling him in order to make a “profit” (Gen 37:26–28). Similarly, in [150] Matthew, Jesus’s disciples “deserted him” (26:56), but only Judas is willing to sell him for profit. Suspicion of how the Judas story unfolds in the Gospel of Matthew is warranted because the only two people in all of Jewish and Christian Scripture willing to sell their own brother or beloved teacher into slavery or death row for a measly profit are both named “Judah.” The goal here was to tie the betraying apostle Judah to the Genesis figure Judah in order to blame “Jews” for the death of Jesus. Notice that the name “Jew” comes from “Judah.”

Not only does the author of Matthew shape the Judas story so that Joseph serves as a type for Jesus (Jesus being the antitype of Joseph), but he also makes David a type for Jesus. He infuses elements from the King David narrative into the Judas story. Specifically, Judas’s actions mirror those of David’s counselor, Ahithophel. When David’s son Absalom attempts to steal the throne, Ahithophel joins the “conspiracy” against David (2 Sam 15:12, 31). When the conspiracy fails, Ahithophel “hangs himself” and dies (2 Sam 17:23), just like Judas (Matt 27:5). In fact, these are the only two suicide hangings in all the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Further, Judas’s suicide seems to be directly related to Ahithophel’s suicide as evidenced in the fact that these two literary units are the only unity in the Bible and Greek texts to include both the words aperchomai (“went away”) and apanchomai (“hang oneself”). The authors of the Gospels apparently had Psalm 41 in mind when presenting the Judas episode. The author of John quotes Psalm 41 (see John 13:18), putting words into David’s mouth regarding Ahithophel: “Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me” (Ps 41:9). Likewise, Jesus says, according to John, “The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me” (John 13:18).[12] These details present a strong case that the Gospels of Matthew and John wrote the Judas portion of the story with the Hebrew Bible open so that Jesus and Judas would mirror King David and Ahithophel.

The only other book in the New Testament that mentions Judas’s death is Acts. This passage, however, says nothing about suicide but rather mentions Judas’s fall that results in his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18). Like the author of Matthew, the author of Acts connects Judas’s story with King David, through David’s nephew Amasa, who also participated in Absalom’s conspiracy against David. After Absalom fails in his attempt to obtain the throne, David welcomes Amasa back into his circle, appointing him as a general. Amasa’s rival, Joab, another of David’s generals, becomes jealous. He approaches Amasa wearing a “soldier’s garment,” and while greeting him with the words “my brother,” betrays him with a kiss on his cheek as he stabs him with a sword, making his bowels “pour out on the ground” (2 Sam [151] 20:4–10). The Amasa-Joab episode and the Judas material in the Gospels and Acts contain the same elements: the conspiracy, the betrayal, “soldiers,” the friendly verbal greeting, the kiss, the sword, and death as bowels gushed out on the ground.

All these parallels between Judas and “Jews” and between Judas and David’s conspiratorial counselors have caused some scholars to conclude that the Judas story is either wholly fabricated at worst or grossly embellished at best.[13] The rhetoric and details of the Judas material do seem hyperbolic. Christians accused Jews of the very sins Judas was accused of in the Gospels and Acts—greed, satanic influence, conspiracy, and the murder of Jesus.[14] The Judas case was exhibit A for the nature of Jews, as Kim Paffenroth has explained:

The simplest anti-Semitic use that Judas’s story could serve is one of simple equation: Judas was bad; all Jews are bad. The equation can run both ways: Judas was evil because he was a Jew; Jews are evil, demonstrated by their similarity to Judas. This has certainly been the most frequent anti-Semitic use of Judas’s story through Christian history.[15]

Archbishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407), who referred to Jews as “Christ-killers,”[16] equated Jews with Judas when he wrote:

When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons. But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! . . . Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? The whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things.[17]

The portrayal of Judas’s development from the earliest Gospel (Mark) to the later Gospels is clear. In Mark, the picture of Judas is somewhat neutral. William Klassen observed, “Compared with Peter, . . . Judas comes out relatively well.”[18] By the end of the first century, however, Judas had become a symbol of evil, greedy, conspiratorial Jews. Getting at the historical Judas is [152] difficult because the sources leave us with uncertainty regarding Judas’s role in Jesus’s arrest, his motivation for his actions, and his ultimate fate.

Ambiguity in the sources has led to numerous interpretations by later exegetes.[19] This perhaps alerts us to be cautious with this data. Some of the points regarding Judas are stronger evidence than other points. Some points are also more speculative. However, when all points are viewed together, it is difficult to take the story at face value. It is difficult to conclude that Judas was the villainous traitor that some of the Gospels portray him to be. It is also difficult, however, to conclude that the Judas story was fabricated entirely. Perhaps the authors of the Gospels embellished the story for political and theological reasons, though several historical kernels seem to be embedded in their texts. Most likely, one of Jesus’s apostles did deliver him to the chief priests. This apostle, named “Jew” (i.e., “Judas”) in the story, believed that Jesus was the Messiah and, therefore, was willing to arrange the meeting between the Messiah and his foes. He did not expect Jesus to die. Later authors struggled to make sense of Judas’s actions and attributed to him the worst motives. The revision of Judas’s character by the authors of the Gospels may have been an attempt to deflect their embarrassment that one of Jesus’s own followers had handed him over to the authorities. This act could have provoked some Jews to proclaim throughout the Roman Empire that the Jesus movement was illegitimate: How great can the Jesus movement be when one of Jesus’s own students delivered him to the authorities for the price of a slave? The authors of the Gospels in their various contexts, therefore, may have revised the story to allow the response, “No, Judas was not one of us. Judas, a ‘typical’ Jew, was evil and greedy to the core and had connections to the Jerusalem establishment. He was not really one of us. He was one of you, a quintessential Jew.”

Eilif Peterssen, Judas Iscariot. Wikimedia Commons.

What did we learn here and why does it matter? First, Christians have blamed Jews for two millennia for Jesus’s death. They called Jews “Christ killers,” they accused Jews of murdering Christian children and youths, and they claimed that Jews were inherently evil children of Satan. This accusation has led to the deaths of millions of Jews. Were these accusations, persecutions, [153] and murders warranted? Well, according to Christian ethics based on the teachings of Jesus, the answer is no!

We learned that, regarding the Gospels, things are not so simple—there is usually more to the story. A careful examination of the Judas material reveals that the Gospels’ conclusion that he was an evil betrayer is fraught with ambiguity and contradiction. Our soft conclusion here is that Judas thought Jesus was the Messiah, as did the other apostles. Thus, he did not expect Jesus to die. I call this a “soft conclusion” because we cannot enter the mind of Judas and prove what he did or did not think. We can only go by what the authors of the Gospels related to us. However, if we line up all the data from the four Gospels, and we examine that data critically, we find it extremely difficult to understand what Judas actually did, what his motives were, and what happened to him after Jesus’s death. Since the Gospels lack uniformity on these three main issues, we are left to put the puzzle pieces together. It seems that the only sure detail is that Judas handed Jesus over to the authorities, and that is it. All other details are ambiguous.

In my assessment, only one conclusion makes sense based on the prevalent messianic expectations among many first-century Jews: Jesus’s friend Judas handed him over to the authorities—for reasons we do not fully know—but Judas did not expect Jesus to be killed. After Jesus died, something unfortunate happened to Judas, which, again, is unclear. Was he killed? Did he kill himself? Was he banned and “excommunicated” by the other eleven apostles? We simply do not know. All we have now are several accounts dating to the late first century and the second century wherein early Christians present their understanding of the tragic case of Judas.

Notes

[1] See most English translations of Mark 3:19 and 14:10–11.

[2] William Klassen, Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 48–49, 57.

[3] Other scholars and authors have made similar arguments about Judas. See Kim Paffenroth, Judas: Images of the Lost Disciple (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 86–92.

[4] See Jerome H. Neyrey, “Ceremonies in Luke–Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship,” in The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 361–87; Dennis E. Smith “Greco-Roman Meal Customs,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:651–53.

[5] “Messianism and Jewish Messiahs in the New Testament Period,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, 71–85 (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center BYU; SLC:DB, 2019).

[6] Papias, frag. 3, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Logos Virtual Library, .

[7] Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, trans., The Gospel of Judas: From Codex Tchacos (Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2006), 31.

[8] Hyam Maccoby, Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil (New York: The Free Press, 1992); Klassen, Judas, 1–204.

[9] Ultrich Luz, Helmut Köster, and James E. Crouch, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 360.

[10] See Trevan G. Hatch, A Stranger in Jerusalem: Seeing Jesus as a Jew (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2019), 202–14.

[11] Thirty pieces of silver was approximately the same as 120 Roman denarii. The women who anointed Jesus used a bottle of ointment worth about 300 denarii. See Betlyon, “Coinage,” 1:1076–89, esp. 1086.

[12] For more on the connection between the Judas story and Davidic elements in the Hebrew Bible, see Zacharias, Matthew’s Presentation, 152–70.

[13] Maccoby, Judas Iscariot, 22–168; Klassen, Judas, 1–204.

[14] See Jeremy Cohen, Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion, From the Bible to the Big Screen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Debra Higgs Strickland, Saracens, Demons, and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003); Joshua Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Anti-Semitism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002).

[15] Paffenroth, Judas, 37–38.

[16] See English translation of John Chrysostom’s Logoi kata loudaion i.6 in Wayne A. Meeks and Robert L. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (Missoula, MT.: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature, 1978), 97.

[17] John Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians, trans. P. W. Harkins (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1979), 11, 25–26.

[18] Klassen, Judas, 91.

[19] Paffenroth, Judas, 1–142; Anthony Cane, The Place of Judas Iscariot in Christology (New York: Routledge, 2017); Arie W. Zwiep, Regis Burnett, Roberto Tottoli, Anthony Seindell, Richard R. Viladesau, and Richard Walsh, “Judas Iscariot,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 14:938–58.