Talk:Judas Iscariot

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

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

message: 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  "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)
thread_title:  Hebrew in images: please transliterate + unicodify! 

message: "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)
thread_title: Further comments

message: 66.87.2.151 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "His place among the Twelve Apostles was later replaced by Matthias." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Betrayal by Jesus"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Humanity's alleged salvation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Role as an Apostle 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Source:  Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

text: p. 92 of : scholars have long debated what it meant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that as a "or possibly" and wikilinked it.  On the Kerioth page it is already claimed tentatively. If you  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)
replies: text: Ok, done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why we prefer secondary sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conservative Anglicans 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Antisemitism section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done  Can I Log In's  (talk) page 18:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Will the Real Judas Stand up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hypothesis stated as fact, "The Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Death of Judas according to the Gospel of Nicodemus 

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Judas Iscariot's historical existence is generally widely accepted among secular historians" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Double agent? 

message: 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). 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)
thread_title:  Hebrew romanization internal and external consistency