Why Did Judas Identify Jesus with a Kiss?
From the January/February 2014 issue of BAR
I’ve been reading a book titled Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem “On the Life and the Passion of Christ”: A Coptic Apocryphon by the Dutch scholar Roelof van den Broek.1 In case it has escaped your attention, it provides a new translation of an eighth-century Gnostic gospel in Coptic from Egypt that has been in the Morgan Library in New York since 1908, a gift of J.P. Morgan.
This text explains why Judas Iscariot identified Jesus with a kiss so that the Roman soldiers could arrest him, as related in three canonical gospels (Matthew 26:48; Mark 14:44; Luke 22:47). According to this late Gnostic gospel, that was the only way the Roman soldiers could be sure they had the right man. The reason was that Jesus could change his features:
“How shall we arrest him,” the Jews ask, “for he does not have a single shape, but his appearance changes. Sometimes he is ruddy, sometimes he is white, sometimes he is red, sometimes he is wheat-colored, sometimes he is pallid like ascetics, sometimes he is a youth, sometimes an old man, sometimes his hair is straight and black, sometimes it is curled, sometimes he is tall, sometimes he is short.” They “have never seen him in one and the same appearance.”
Jesus could also become completely incorporeal. Jesus explains that, if he wished, he could escape crucifixion in this way.
The idea of a shape-changing Jesus is not new. It goes back as far as Origen in the third century. According to Origen, Jesus would appear differently to people who saw him at the same time.
FREE ebook, Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life. Examine fundamental questions about Jesus of Nazareth.
Van den Broek is careful to note that he is not suggesting that Jesus was in fact shape changing but only that some people in early Christian times may have thought he was.
This brings to mind another recent find with an unusual claim about Jesus—that he had a wife! In a papyrus fragment the size of a credit card, Jesus is speaking in the first person and refers to “my wife.” This Coptic fragment appears to have come from a Gnostic gospel of the fourth century and has been studied by Harvard Divinity School’s Karen King, who holds the oldest endowed academic chair in the United States. She has written a lengthy scholarly article on the fragment—dubbed the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”—that was accepted for publication by the prestigious Harvard Theological Review. Like van den Broek, King was careful to state (repeatedly) that this gospel fragment “provides no reliable historical information” as to whether Jesus was married, only that “some Christians depicted Jesus as married.” The claim that Jesus was married “arose over a century after the death of Jesus in the context of intra-Christian controversies over sexuality, marriage and discipleship.”
King was also careful to consider the possibility that the gospel fragment, which came from the antiquities market at least 30 years ago, was a forgery: “We took into serious consideration whether this was a genuine ancient text or a modern forgery,” she wrote. Two leading experts found that it was authentic, and various tests were applied. After her own study, King concluded that “although the authenticity is not absolutely settled beyond any question, we are sufficiently confident to offer our results here.”
After word got out that the fragment referred to Jesus’ wife, the Harvard Theological Review changed its mind about publishing King’s article. It had been scheduled for publication in January 2013. Under what pressure, we do not know, but the fact is that publication was postponed indefinitely—until the results of some unnamed tests by some unknown entities confirm the authenticity of the fragment. The magazine refused to divulge who would be conducting the tests or what they were. They referred to “various reports” that were expected, indicating that more than one test was to be made. The results of the tests, we were told, would be “ready for publication—hopefully early to mid-summer [2013].”a As of this writing, no information about these tests has been released, and the authorities still refuse to divulge who is doing the testing and what the tests are.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
Why the difference between the reaction to King’s article, on the one hand, and van den Broek’s book, on the other? One refers to Jesus’ wife, and the other describes Jesus’ ability to change his appearance drastically. Is one more blasphemous than the other?
Several reasons have been suggested. Perhaps the question of Jesus’ sexuality is a more sensitive topic. Or perhaps the difference is that King’s analysis became public before it was published in the Harvard Theological Review, while the public learned of van den Broek’s shape-changing Jesus only after his book had been published. Or perhaps it was the fact that King’s gospel fragment “contains the first known statement that explicitly claims Jesus had a wife,” while references to Jesus’ shape-changing abilities were widely known previously in the scholarly community. Or maybe it was because there is no question about the authenticity of the document describing the shape-changing Jesus (it was bought from a monastery).
In any event, scholars are advised to step carefully when dealing with certain notions about Jesus held by some early Christians.
The Harvard Theological Review finally published Karen King’s paper on the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife in its April 2014 issue—along with several other articles on the Coptic papyrus fragment. Read about how the scholarly community has responded to recent tests conducted to determine its authenticity as well as why one Coptic manuscripts expert believes he has demonstrated that the gospel is a forgery.
Notes
1. Roelof van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem “On the Life and Passion of Christ”: A Coptic Apocryphon (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Its retail price is $140.
a. See Strata: In Their Own Words: “Stop the Presses: Report on ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ Due Out Mid-Summer,” BAR July/August 2013.
This article first appeared in Bible History Daily on December 24, 2013.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
Is the Harvard Theological Review a Coward or Did Dr. Karen King Do Something Wrong?
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
In Their Own Words: Stop The Presses: Report on “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” Due Out Mid-Summer
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Mar 9
The Nun of the Rings
Mar 8
Deborah in the Bible
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
ARE WE TO expect something dofferent from Hershel Shanks? Hardly. The gnostic gospel is too remote in time from the life of Christ. If Hershel were more interested in comprehending the theologocal foundations of Christianity, he would study the Synoptic Gospels. A good starting point to understamd would be to read the theologians, Barth, McQuarry and especially the amazing scholar, RAYMOND BROWN. If your intent is to search to undermine established religion, then pursue the fringe and far removed interpretations. Sam old saw from Hershel.
It makes me think of the Cherubim, but 4th century Gnostic?
Ray, the article is not about Jesus or the gospels but about first millennium “Christian” communities. I’ve placed the quotation because they themselves considered themselves Christian just like all the other sects and heretics and schismatic churches do and did through time. They all may be irrelevant to your personal belief (which is in itself irrelevant to me, sorry) but they are a genuine and valid object of historical research. They are also relevant to the history of the accepted main stream church because it reacted to and formed around them through time aquiring many otherwise unintelligible traits.
I think explanation could be much more simple. Judas didn`t want to be known as a traitor, so he and soldiers came sneaky and he just came to greet Jesus alone, afterwards soldiers came as he pointed out who is who, but Jesus cleared all by revealing his intentions. About the kiss, Jesus told them to greet each other with a kiss, so no big deal about it. It could be just a joining of last disciple to the rest of group and a greeting kiss.
There is a simple explaination for both of these “stories” (Jesus’ wife, shape shifter Jesus). Consider the work of liberal sycophants today. They make things up to advance their world view and agenda. Examples? Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Misquotes Ambassador Michael Oren on Israel, then denies she said it even though video footage of her statement exists) and Barack Obama (The Lie of the Year 2013, You can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, period). People with these moral values have existed since the beginning of time. Why should anyone be surprised that some of their writings have survived the millenia? Doesn’t make them any more true than Obama’s lie.
I agree with Thomas that the kiss was a standard greeting. But, the kiss for the Romans was to let them know that the one who Judas kissed would be Jesus. This shows that to the Romans, all Jews looked alike. Jesus looked like his brothers in the faith. Many were from the same tribe and a few were relatives. To differentiate and to not look suspicious, a kiss would suffice. BUT, Jesus knew it for what it was, a betrayal.
Kisses could be hypocritical. Absalom, shrewdly seeking power, kissed men who drew near to bow down to him. (2Sa 15:5, 6) Treacherous Joab’s kiss meant death to unsuspecting Amasa. (2Sa 20:9, 10) Also, it was with a deceitful kiss that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ.—Mt 26:48, 49; Mr 14:44, 45.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=judas%20kissed
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273189
I had always figured that the soldiers who were there were not Roman but Temple Police. I tht the Romans showed up after Jesus’ arrest when He was dragged before Pilate by the religious authorities who could not execute Him themselves.
As to blasphemy, Jesus having a wife would not rise to that level; Jesus the shape-shifter would LOL
Every Jew I know says that it is not possible for Jesus not to have a wife, most likely in his early teens, like every other good Jew of the time. There were communities that took vows of celibacy and did not marry, but they were not all that entrenched in the villages and towns, they more or less lived apart. Jesus being married or not is really a moot point. Sex between married partners is not put down anywhere in the Old Testament as being defiling, unless you just live for it to the exclusion of other things (i.e., selfishness = error). The idea of marital sex being a bad thing is a somewhat more recent interlocution in Christianity.
RAY is pointing it: R.E.Brown (RC religious, pavel vi Biblical Pontifical Commision) and others have made alredy classic texbooks: ex.the Birth (DEath ) of the Messiah, P.Meier: A Marginal Jew,…
Plenty of Biblical Dictionaries on Synoptic details. But ..this GEneration is illtarate likein Jesus’s time; he was learning from the same OT fragments as others and what he learned, the rest -not!
What is the value of 5th century apocrypha comparing to Gospels of Paul’s letters or To Hebrew letter. There are already quite exciting details in Gospels that we do not need or only to confirm it.
One the most ….scandalous (for noble theological fools ) is that: Jesus did not claim to be God (Mark 10:18,others)yet; the title, the son of God has a sense because he prayed to God as Father; of course, logical and philosophical background of Trynitarian controversies is a mystery for the debating; why phislosphy? Terms like: God, relation, cause,etc. are of philosophy and a fool on it who maybe heard just sth cannot grasop it; therefore, you have so called “mystery” of Trinity- sure for …hermenutical and bilical foools!