Judas and the money thing
Michael Halcomb posted today on ‘the poor you will always have with you” (Mark 14:7). I think he’s absolutely right to insist we read this statement firmly in its narrative context (but then I would think that about everything). I also agree that in context this has elements of a critique of those who were mumbling abut the woman’s action (though I disagree that is the main point). However, I both disagree with part of Michael’s methodology, and with his overall conclusion.
First the methodological question. Michael says:
Fourthly, my approach to the text is to read it in its socio-literary context. Such a reading suggests that in this scene, Jesus is criticizing Judas (and other complainers) who was stealing money out of the ministry’s community purse (see Jn. 12.1-8).
This may be to read it in its canonical context, but it is certainly not reading it in its literary context. The idea that Judas was one of the complainers may possibly be inferred from the way the story is framed by the chief priests looking for a way to arrest Jesus, and Judas leaving at the end to offer them his services. It might equally be simply that by this device Mark locates this story at the turning point of the last week.
The idea that Judas is the complainer, like the idea that he is a thief, is peculiar to John. I would see it as part of a developing trajectory that has worse and worse things to say about Judas as time moves forward and away from the actual events. Even if I’m wrong about this, there is no evidence Mark knows of such a view, and I don’t think it can be presumed. What is clear is that in John, Judas is the only bad guy disciple in this narrative. In Mark the complainers are unspecified may-be disciples, and in Matthew the disciples generally. This alone suggests we should be particularly chary of assuming they shared John’s narrative idea at this point.
Because, as I say, I think he has his methodology wrong, it’s not surprising I also disagree with his understanding of the main point. “The poor you will always have with you” is only part of the quotation; it is important to include it all but especially “you will not always have me”. First and foremost this is a defence of the woman, rather than a critique of the complainers. The woman acts as both prophet and care-giver. She both identifies Jesus as one worthy of great and generous love, and (at least as far as Jesus is concerned) the one who understands exactly what the disciples do not, that he is about to give his life as a ransom for many.
It is this act of personal (financial) sacrifice in recognition of Jesus’ coming self-sacrifice that makes her the immediate prophet of the passion, and this is why what she has done will be told throughout the world as part of the gospel. No doubt, as others have noticed, only in an account handed down by men could they have forgotten the name of the one who Jesus says will be perpetually remembered before God in the gospel story. But the point, I think, is the way the action is interpreted by Jesus as recognising his person and calling. Questions of giving and poverty are almost incidental to his defence of her. She understands him. They do not.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
In “Misquoting Jesus}, Bart Ehrman warns of combining all four Gospels into one story. In his reckoning this is creating a new, fifth Gospel. It may be useful and enlightening or even historically accurate but don’t pretend that the four Gospels are one story that can be elided without comment.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:17 am
I do not pretend, at all, to reply to Scott firstly, that the four accounts are one story (that is an unfair characterization–if it is a characterization–of me and my view). By the same token, I do think, however, that there is significant textual evidence that the four accounts are talking about the same event. I do not think these because of some modernist historical philosophy or scriptural doctrine but because that’s where the evidence points.
In response to Doug, I think it is absolutely clear from Mark’s literary and social context that Judas was a thief and doing things in secret!!! How can you say this? Mark couldn’t have made it clearer that Judas was responsible for selling Jesus out and for complaining about the money. Just as well, in the end, I think your theological reasoning (e.g. ransom) does not fit here. Yes, it fits in Mk. 10 but not so much here. The woman is prophetic and she seems to understand that Jesus’ impending death has great significance but she certainly acts as a contrast (a literary foil to some degree) with Judas and the complainers. From a literary perspective, Mark often contrasts women with faith with disciples/men who lack faith/trust, etc. I think you certainly raise some good questions and cautions Doug, but I also think that you miss some things. I am also, at this point, not in agreement with the theological conclusion about ransom (although, if this is a slave woman, that argument could possibly be built on a bit more).
June 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Where does Judas complain about the money or is a thief rather than a betrayer? You are reading John into the text here. I agree with you he same incident is in view, but John’s is different in a great many respects, from venue on. However you are right to pick me up on what I say about the woman. I was careless, and what I meant is that Jesus takes her action as prophetic of his death for the many, whatever she intended: it is his interpretation of her actions that Mark presents here.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
You are surely right that Judas is portrayed in Mk. as a betrayer, that is clear early on from 3.19. But what did he betray Jesus for? Money. In 14.10-11, he goes after the money. It cannot be accidental that Judas’s going after the money fits the literary context, as a contrast, of him complaining about the loss of money (for himself) in 14.4-6. Judas is portrayed as a betraying Jesus out of greed. Given this, I do not feel as though I am reading John into the text. This certainly plays out in the rest of 14 and 15. He is pictured as a thief, even if he isn’t labeled a thief because he did what he did for money (in a limited good society, this would have been very apparent). When you read Mk. and Jesus’ comments about money all the way through, those who do not give but rather take, are considered greedy, which, again, in a LG society, results in being viewed as a thief of sorts. One more thing, the “kai” at the beginning of 14.10, if viewed as a connective (which, since this is one pericope, I take it as such), should not read “Then…” but rather, “And then” or “Likewise…”. In this way, Judas is certainly aligned with the complainers of 4-6 (as he is in the other Gospel accounts). Lastly, while I do not feel as though I am reading John into Mark, I do feel as though it is perfectly legitimate to compare the accounts (same w/Lk and Mt) and draw certain, careful inferences at points. However, I don’t think I need to do that to make my points about what’s going on in Mk., as I just proved. Thanks for conversing w/me Doug. Good stuff.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Okay, I now see that argument, Michael, and it makes sense, though I still think I disagree, and see Matt and Luke-Acts, with their respectively gruesome ends, then John and onwards on a deepening trajectory to demonise Judas, and I see the thief accusation (he regularly helped himself) as part of that.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Doug is right that John’s accusations about Judas are not in the earlier Gospels. In general, we read negativity into the texts about Judas where it does not exist. Mark’s version of Judas is actually very ambiguous or neutral. Mark does not haver Judas going to the priests beforehand asking for money. It id offered afterwards and it could have been for very innocent reasons. Tradition reads betaryal into texts that do not support it. What everyone fails to pay attention to is that Mark is missing every single feature of a story of betrayal: He gives Judas no motive, no conflict with Jesus, and no one curses him out after the deed is done. And the word Marks uses to describe his act, “paradidomi”, does not mean betray, as most scholars now agree. It is a neutral word that has no connotation of betrayal. Mark fails to use the word that definitely means betray, “prodidomi”.
Rational or scientific study of Bible means to let yourself be overwhelmed by the major evidence, and not to read pre-formed beliefs into the texts. Everyone assumes Judas betrayed Jesus, and then they read the assumption into the texts. This is not the way to study the evidence.
Even the demonizing of Judas is a point in his favor. They said the devile made him do it because this was a confession that no one had a good evidentiary case against him. It is a confession of a lack of evidence in Judas’ case. The charge of deomization should have made us suspicious from the start. When sopmeone is reallyu guilty, you do not have to demonize. All you have to do is presnet the evidence. That is missing in Judas’ case. It is all innuendo and vagueness. If you read Mark carefully, you will see that every single detail about Judas is highgly ambiguous and could easily be gioven a positive spin. Why would Mark tell a story like that? There is a ratioan answer to that.
(I apologize for typos, but you comments section does not show up completely on my screen.)
June 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am
I do have one question. Who taught everyone to read the Gospels in the most negative way possible? Everyone seems to choose to read nastiness into verse where you could just as well read something positive. Take Mark 14: 21 where it says that it owuld be better for that man if he had not been born. Everyone assumes that it must mean that Judas did something bad. But that is not the most natural reading.
Remember that the first part should be translated as referring to the one who conveyed Jesus, not betrayed him. Anyway, the wish not to be born more likely means that something bad was done to Judas, not that he did something bad. In Job and Jeremaih, they wish they had never been born because of all the misfortunes visited upon them, not because they did something bad. Jeremiah complains of being mistreated and mocked. When you have been treated unfairly, then elicits the cry that it is better not to heave been born. So in Judas’ case, a natural reading would be that he was faslely accused of betraying Jesus and hence it would be better if he had never beeen born.
With a little compassion in your heart, it is possible to read the Gospels with a mind to the facts and logic and see good things in them about, e.g., Judas. Instead, everyone has been taught to see only nastiness in the Gospels. Everyone read betrayal into the text and then claim they found it there.
A full analysis of all the details concerning Judas willl reveal that for some details, you have to do a lot of mental acrobatics to justify seeing betrayal. But there is another approach one could take and it all makes simple sense without any mental acrobatics. Compassion will go a long way in giving us a more reasonable interpretation of the Gospels. Hatred gives us bad logic.
Leon Zitzer (typing half-blind as usual)