Judas Iscariot

← Encyclopedia

Judas Iscariot was one of the twelve closest followers of Jesus in the Christian Gospels, and the one who delivered him to the authorities who had him killed. His name became, in most of the tradition that followed, a byword for treachery — but the texts that produced that name are fewer, stranger, and more divided than the byword suggests. The figure carried by the word now is a composite, and the seams in it are visible at almost every point where one looks closely.

Even the second name resists fixing. Iscariot, the tag that distinguishes this Judas from the others who bore the most common Jewish name of the period, has no settled meaning. The oldest and most widely held reading takes it from the Hebrew ish Qeriyyot, “man of Kerioth,” a town placed in southern Judea — which would make Judas the one Galilean exception among Galilean disciples. A rival derivation hears in it the Latin sicarius, “dagger-man,” the term for the knife-bearing rebels of the first century, though those rebels are attested only from decades after the events the Gospels describe, and the chronology strains. Still other proposals trace the word to roots meaning “liar” or “ruddy.” The honest position, held by a good number of careful readers, is that the meaning is lost. The name that the whole later weight of meaning hangs upon cannot be translated with confidence.

Four accounts, one act

All four canonical Gospels — gathered, with the Acts of the Apostles and the letters, into the New Testament — list Judas among the Twelve and name him as the one who handed Jesus over. They do not tell the story the same way. The earliest of them, Mark, and the Gospel of Luke that drew on it, describe Judas going to the chief priests and arranging to deliver his teacher; money is mentioned, but vaguely, as something promised rather than counted out. Matthew sharpens the scene. It alone fixes the price at thirty pieces of silver — a figure that rings against a line in the prophet Zechariah about wages weighed out and flung back — and it alone gives the kiss in the garden, the agreed sign by which the arresting party would know which man in the dark was the one they wanted.

John frames the act in the darkest terms of the four. It says that at the supper, after Jesus handed Judas a morsel of bread, Satan entered into him; earlier it had already called him a thief who held and skimmed the common purse. Luke, too, reports that Satan entered into Judas — the phrase is not John’s alone — so that across the Gospels the same handing-over is given at once a human cause, a financial one, and a more-than-human one, with no single account holding all of them together. What every version agrees on is only the bare hinge: one of the Twelve led the authorities to Jesus. Around that hinge the details multiply and diverge.

The two deaths

On the figure’s end the sources do not merely differ in emphasis; they tell incompatible stories. Matthew has Judas seized by remorse, throw the silver back into the temple, and go out and hang himself; the chief priests, unable to return blood-money to the treasury, use it to buy a potter’s field as a burial ground for foreigners, and the field takes the name Field of Blood — named, in Matthew’s telling, for the innocent blood the money had paid for. Acts gives a different end entirely. There Judas himself acquires a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he bursts open in the middle so that all his entrails spill out; and this is why the field is called the Field of Blood, in Aramaic Akeldama — named, in Acts’ telling, for Judas’s own blood and burst body.

The two cannot be smoothly reconciled. In one Judas dies by his own hand and the priests buy the field; in the other Judas buys the field and dies by a fall; in one the field is bloody because of Jesus, in the other because of Judas. The discrepancy is old, and it has not gone unnoticed. Harmonizing readers have proposed that Judas hanged himself and the rope or branch later gave way, the swollen corpse falling and rupturing — a sequence that no single source states and that exists only to make two sources agree. The plainer description is that two early communities preserved two endings for the man, each fitted to its own sense of what such a death should look like.

A third ending survives outside the canon and is older than one might expect. Papias of Hierapolis, writing his Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord early in the second century, gave yet another account, preserved for later readers by the fourth-century writer Apollinaris of Laodicea in his comments on Matthew. In it Judas walked the world as a monstrous example of impiety, his flesh so swollen that he could not pass where a wagon passes freely, his eyes sunk and lost in the bloat, dying at last on his own ground in a place left so foul that none could go by it without holding the nose. The grotesque physical ruin is the point: the body made to bear the shape of the deed. Three traditions, three deaths, and behind them the same silence the canon never fills.

The silence at the center

What the canonical writers leave almost untouched is motive. They report greed, the entry of Satan, the fulfillment of scripture — three answers that do not combine into one, and none of which explains the man. Why one of the inner circle, who had walked the roads and shared the table, would do this is precisely what the texts do not say. The silence has been filled many times over, and the filling tells more about each age than about Judas.

Two problems gathered around the gap and held theologians for centuries. The first was the question of freedom: if Judas’s act was foretold, written into scripture and named in advance at the supper, was it freely chosen at all, and could a man be condemned for performing what prophecy required? The machinery of betrayal seemed to need a betrayer, and the betrayer seemed, on one reading, to have no room to do otherwise — a tension that runs straight into the wider argument over free will and foreordination. The second was the question of the end: whether such a man could be saved, and the long tradition’s hardening answer, which placed him at the very bottom of the cosmos. Medieval legend supplied him with a lurid backstory drawn from older patterns of the cursed life, and the most famous of all the placements set him in the deepest pit of an imagined hell, gripped forever in the mouth of the lord of the underworld. The remorse that Matthew had granted him dropped away; the byword grew harder and flatter the further it traveled from the texts that made it.

It is along that hardening line that the name accumulated its most poisonous freight, as later centuries pressed the figure into service against a whole people. That reception is a fact of the record and a distortion of it; the texts themselves describe an individual among the Twelve, not a nation, and the gap between the two is itself part of what the figure became.

The disciple who understood

A wholly different portrait was already circulating in the second century. Around 180 the bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, cataloguing the movements he set out to refute, described a group who reverenced the rejected and cursed figures of scripture — Cain, the Sodomites, and the rest — and who held that Judas the traitor alone knew the truth as no other did, and so accomplished what Irenaeus called the mystery of the betrayal, by which all things earthly and heavenly were thrown into confusion. They produced, he wrote, a text he treated as a fabrication and named the Gospel of Judas. For most of the centuries that followed, this was all anyone knew of such a reading: a hostile one-paragraph notice from the man refuting it. The whole pre-modern knowledge of a Judas who understood rested on his enemies’ report, and later popular and Theosophical retellings layered their own frames over that thin base — a caution worth carrying into any reconstruction of what the inverted Judas was.

The text itself resurfaced only in the late twentieth century, in a damaged Coptic codex, and was published in 2006 — its manuscript history, its place within the Gnostic currents of the period, and its account of the higher God and the ignorant powers below all belonging properly to the work’s own record rather than to the man’s. What matters for the figure is the reversal. In it Judas is the one disciple who grasps who Jesus truly is, set above the others who worship a lesser god; and the handing-over is reframed not as treachery but as a task assigned, an act of gnosis by which the inner soul is released from the body that clothes it. The deed that the rest of the tradition reads as the lowest of crimes becomes, here, the liberating service that only the enlightened disciple could perform.

Whether the text means even Judas as a saved hero is genuinely contested, and the contest is not a footnote. The first edition read him as the favored disciple raised above the rest. A sharp counter-reading argued that key Coptic terms had been misrendered — that Judas is there called a daimon, a demon, a being bound to the lower world who does a necessary thing without being rescued by it — and that the “good Judas” was partly an artifact of translation and of the way the find was first presented. The debate turns on a handful of damaged and ambiguous lines, and it has not closed. What stays firm beneath it is that a title the early church had condemned proved to be a real document, and one more witness to how unsettled the figure was while the boundaries of Christian scripture were still forming — a question that sits inside the larger history of heresy and apocrypha, the writings ruled outside the canon and the readings ruled outside the faith.

Critical study

The figure has been worked over by textual scholarship on every front. The two canonical deaths are a standing test case in source criticism, since they show two early communities preserving incompatible endings; the Papias fragment, transmitted through Apollinaris of Laodicea’s notes on Matthew, adds a third and is itself disputed as to where Papias stops and his later excerptor begins. On the inverted portrait, the decisive primary witness before the modern recovery is Irenaeus, whose notice in Against Heresies 1.31 is examined line by line against the rediscovered text by Johannes van Oort, “Irenaeus’s knowledge of the Gospel of Judas: Real or false? An analysis of the evidence in context,” in HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2013), art. 1916, which concludes that Irenaeus had genuine first-hand knowledge of the work he condemned (doi.org/10.4102/hts.v69i1.1916). The sharpest revision of the modern reading is April D. DeConick, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says (Continuum, 2007; revised 2009), the source of the demon argument against the “good Judas.” A useful caution governs the older literature: before the 1945 Nag Hammadi discovery, Western knowledge of this whole stratum rested on the heresiologists — Irenaeus above all — and on Theosophically framed popular syntheses such as G.R.S. Mead’s Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (1900; 2nd ed. 1906), valuable as historical reception but unreliable as reconstruction. Irenaeus’s report can be read in the standard public-domain English of Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume I (newadvent.org/fathers/0103131.htm), the very passage on which every pre-modern account of a Judas who understood ultimately depends.

The thin historical core

Under all of it the recoverable history is narrow. That Jesus was handed over by one of his own followers is among the better-attested elements of the whole narrative, and the reason scholars treat it as bedrock is its very awkwardness: a movement building its claims would have had little motive to invent a story in which the betrayal came from inside the chosen circle, the detail that most embarrasses the teller. The Gospels’ visible discomfort — their insistence that Jesus foresaw it, their hurry to explain it — reads less like invention than like a hard fact being managed. Almost everything beyond that bare event — the silver, the kiss, the manner of death, the state of his soul, the meaning of his name — belongs to interpretation rather than record. The figure that the word “Judas” now carries was assembled afterward, out of texts that did not agree with one another about what he was.

→ In the library: Mead — Fragments of a Faith Forgotten: The Gnosis According to its Foes

→ Related: Gnosis · The Shepherd Of Hermas · Epistle Of Barnabas · Gospel Of Judas · Acts Of The Apostles · Jesus Christ · New Testament · Gnosticism · Heresy · Irenaeus · Apocrypha · Soul