Jesus Might Not Have Been Judas' Only Victim

Exactly how much the Bible intersects with history has been a matter of debate for a long, long time — and it's a thorny subject, with no easy answers. But still, looking at the intersection can make things very interesting. For example, Judas Iscariot might have been a member of an order of assassins.

The names of the apostles were as common in their day as they are in ours. This leads to some confusion when reading the Bible, as it mentions that Judas is the son of Simon. What, we ask, was the fall-out in the group after Jesus was betrayed not just by one of this followers, but by the son of one of the apostles?

Except that's the wrong Simon. Judas was the son of Simon Iscariot, which is why he is often referred to as Judas Iscariot. Whether he is an "Iscariot" is a important issue. Iscariot is not just a family name, or even a "clan" name. The name marks its bearer as one of the sicarii. The sicarii were nationalists, committed to resisting the Roman occupation by assassinating important political figures. Josephus, a historian who lived in the middle of the first century AD, wrote about their tactics. Putting on long robes and holding short daggers called sicae, they'd wait until a Roman official was walking through a crowded area, get close, stab the offical, and then slip away into the crowd, concealing their small weapon. The order was, apparently, very successful in instilling terror in the local ruling population. They even went after local collaborators who worked with the Roman regime.



http://io9.com/jesus-might-not-have-been-judas-only-victim-1677921987

Very interesting! I always thought the story of Judas hanging himself felt a little "just-so" as well.

Just to chase that thought ... it's kind of funny that any Biblical figure would be made into a villain over the execution of Jesus, since the entirety of the Christian belief system would fall apart if Jesus hadn't been killed

Also, nobody ever accuses Italians of killing Jesus. Jews, on the other hand ...

Sorry, getting on a roll here. So the Bible says that God "sent his only son, Jesus." So Jesus was God's son before being born from Mary. So who was Jesus' real mother? Or does God reproduce asexually like an amoeba?

All joking aside, I think you can't hand-wave away the deliberate and repeated use of the word "son." I may not speak ancient Aramaic but whatever word it was has always been translated as "son." All I can guess is that "son" might have had another connotation that was stronger in those days than the definition "male offspring." Great, I'm going to wonder about this for days ...

considering that there are (as admitted in the bible ) a group of gods.....

darknessss wrote:considering that there are (as admitted in the bible ) a group of gods.....

Good point, there are parts of the Bible that seem to indicate that God (Jehova) recognizes the existence of other gods, but vies for supremacy.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:considering that there are (as admitted in the bible ) a group of gods.....

Good point, there are parts of the Bible that seem to indicate that God (Jehova) recognizes the existence of other gods, but vies for supremacy.

Morning Ben

That is because the Jews first collated their works of their faith within captivity in Babylon, where they clearly plagiarized may stories that can be found in earlier myths.
As seen in the Sumerian myths, there was flesh and blood deities, where Enki went against the other Gods, making the humans out of the blood of another God.
Where you get mistakes occur in the bible like "made in our own image"