Was Judas a real person?

I have often wondered how so many details about Jesus’s life were so gracefully recounted in the Gospels. How did the Gospel writers know such intimate knowledge of Jesus’s conversations? How was it that “oral tradition” captured the “last words” of a dying man who was crucified alone, abandoned by his fearful disciples? And how did they know so much about Judas and his alleged dastardly acts? Did someone snatch him away for a quick interview after he was spotted in a dark alley counting his thirty pieces of silver?

Of all the characters who take center stage beside Jesus in his final days, none are more intriguing to me than Judas Iscariot—the disciple who betrayed Jesus. I have heard many sermons in my day about Judas, the lost disciple. He is almost always portrayed as a selfish, money-obsessed, traitor who was incapable of trusting Jesus or anyone other than himself. The Gospels tell us next to nothing of his positive contributions, only of his pivotal decision to betray Jesus due to a side hustle of his own making. If Judas was so despicable, why in the world did Jesus choose him as a disciple? If you want to answer by saying, “so he could betray Jesus,” than let me ask it this way: Is it considered a betrayal if Jesus knew it was coming?

There is some disagreement about the verb associated with Judas’ act—does it mean “betray” or “to hand over?” While I am intrigued by which one is more accurate in the telling of this story, the interpretation of the Greek word pales in comparison to my growing suspicion that Judas was a fictional character. Just as the Apostle Paul (whose writing predates the Gospels by decades) never mentions anything about Mary’s virginity nor any details about Jesus's spectacular birthday, neither did Paul say anything about Judas’s involvement in Jesus’s crucifixion. There are zero references to Judas Iscariot in any written Christian source prior to Judas's introduction in Mark’s gospel, an account that wasn’t published until roughly forty years after Jesus died. When Judas is mentioned in the scriptures he is accompanied by a blatant descriptor: “who also betrayed Jesus.” If Judas was indeed the person responsible for handing over the Jesus, you would think that people wouldn’t forget his name. Judas more than qualifies as the quintessential “don’t be that guy.” I could be wrong, but I think that Judas was created to make a theological point and was not in fact, a historical person.

The case for a made-up Judas is compelling. If not a real person, then why was he included? Often it is pointed out that the name Judas sounds like “Jew” and was a way to throw shade on “the Jews” that the Gospels often state subtly and not-so-subtly as responsible for killing Jesus. Judas as a literary creation is also tied to his suspicious introduction as “the son of Simon Iscariot.” That description is important because in that time of history, surnames were not used. One was usually identified as the son of a father or by his place of residence, as in “Jesus of Nazareth,” or “Paul of Tarsus.” Furthermore, the word “Iscariot” is today believed to be a description of Judas’s character, a title that doubled as a spiteful jab in the ancient world because “Iscariot” derived from the word sicarius, which means “political assassin.” Hmmm. Is there any truth at all to Judas’s existence, or was that surname just a coincidence? Was Judas really one of Jesus’s twelve disciples? He is mentioned in all four gospels, after all, and that ought to count for something right? Maybe. It depends on where a person stands on the question of Biblical authority--an issue I believe is mostly in the eye of the beholder. As for me, I am not convinced. It’s time to ditch the Judas dogma.