Talk:Judas Iscariot

File:Gustave Doré - The Holy Bible - Plate CXLI, The Judas Kiss.jpg to appear as POTD soon
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)

"Various attempts at harmonization have been suggested, such as that of Augustine"
True but I can't find Augustine mentioned in the source. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew in images: please transliterate + unicodify!
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 [[File:HebrewIscariot-1.jpg‎]] "Liar or the false one"
 * Aramaic [[File:HebrewIscariot-2.jpg]] "red color"
 * Aramaic [[File:HebrewIscariot-3.jpg]] "deliver" (1)
 * Aramaic [[File:HebrewIscariot-4.jpg]] "deliver" (2)
 * Greek-Aramaic [[File:HebrewIscariot-5.jpg]] "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)

Copied from my talk page about material I deleted yesterday
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)


 * 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)

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)

Further comments
"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. 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)

A reply to further comments
"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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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:

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. 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 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.""
 * 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.

(which is the case here), and asks of surnames to be  (which is not the case here, I hardly notice any mention of Iscariot in popular language). Even so, if Judas never was a real person, it makes it even more suitable. I get the impression that you're argumenting for Move. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 19:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * References
 * I think the surname for Mr Iscariot is actually fairly often used. Perhaps that's a matter of local societal variation. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:NWFCTM. It would appear to "surely" be the most obvious primary topic for Christians, but not necessarily for non-Christians. Therefore this is a good compromise per WP:NATURAL.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then may I ask what other person/topic called "Judas" that could be more PRIMARY than this? Look at Judas (disambiguation) and mention even one sense that is more notable than this. The word "Judas" has even entered most languages to symbolize a traitor, and that is from all this sense. This is not WP:NWFCTM, this is WP:COMMONNAME. Thank you. Gaioa  (t,c,l) 19:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Aaagh. We really desperately need to fix the surrounding text around WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to stop these kind of RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Judas in Greek can refer to various individuals, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is reasonable here, like Hurricane, but the rule is still Naming conventions (people). In ictu oculi (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Since Judas is already the primary redirect to Judas Iscariot, anyone searching for the 9 other uses of Judas under section header "People" or any other use under "Books", "Film", "Music" ["Albums", "Songs"] or "Other uses", would still have to type Judas and subsequently proceed to Judas (disambiguation). The less-used name, Iscariot, already redirects to Judas, with the relatively brief Iscariot (disambiguation) page listing 6 other uses. Other than moving Judas (disambiguation) back to Judas (see Talk:Judas (disambiguation) from August 2014), Judas would be best served as direct link, rather than as a redirect, in the same manner as Adam, Noah or Jesus (per examples given in Talk:Judas Iscariot), above. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and, 100%. The community has established that this article is the primary topic for both titles in question - the only remaining question is which is the better title for this article. By WP:CRITERIA, including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and of course WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, of course it's clearly the proposed title. No question. --В²C ☎ 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I would say "Judas Iscariot" is the common name. The New Testament itself provides disambiguation (John 14:22). StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as "Judas Iscariot" is his WP:COMMONNAMEjamacfarlane (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose see Judas Thaddaeus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose His proper name is "Judas Iscariot." "Judas" by itself was an extremely common name in first-century Judaea; in fact, it is estimated that around one fifth of the population was named "Judas." Even in the New Testament, Judas Iscariot is far from the only significant person by that name; Jesus's own brother, the (at least putative) author of the Epistle of Jude, was also known by that name (though, in English, we call him "Jude," an Anglicized version of the name "Judas"). The redirect to this page should be kept, per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, but the title should be kept as "Judas Iscariot," per WP:COMMONNAME. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for changing his name. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple New Testament individuals with that name, including fellow Apostle Judas Thaddaeus. Also possible confusion with Judas of Galilee, a Jewish rebel who allegedly founded the Zealots.Dimadick (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Judas Iscariot is easily common enough to be the article title. Judas is already a primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unlock please
Any reason why this page is still locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.185 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's semi-protected because of persistent, high levels of vandalism. Your available options are as follows:
 * Use 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 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)

Antisemitism section?
Is there a need to add a section 'Antisemitism' given the immense historical place of the Judas story in Jew-hatred? 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020
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)
 * Yes check.svg Done &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's (talk) page 18:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Will the Real Judas Stand up
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020
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)Tylerius
 * Yellow check.svg 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)

Add quote
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)

Hypothesis stated as fact, "The Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel"
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)


 * 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)

Death of Judas according to the Gospel of Nicodemus
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)

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

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

Made an edit, deleted
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)


 * WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. No sources, no edits, see WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No sources, no edits. Take it or leave our website. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in the link to this article. In Wikipedia Vasovagalsyncope (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

Paid editors and bots ;
wikipedia has anyone intelligent around ? Vasovagalsyncope (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Judas Iscariot's historical existence is generally widely accepted among secular historians"
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)


 * 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)

Double agent?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Hebrew romanization internal and external consistency
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, (Îš-Qrîyôt)), though in others there is no such transliteration (e.g. איש-שקרים). 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).

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 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)