Humanities desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 24

How exactly did Judas betray Jesus? What exactly was the betrayal?

What exactly does it mean when we say that Judas betrayed Jesus? What exactly was the "betrayal"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He identified Jesus. Soldiers of the High Priest Caiaphas were after Jesus, wanting to arrest him. Didn;t know what he looked like. Judas, for 30 pieces of silver, pointed him out to the soldiers, by prior arrangement, with a kiss. Something like that. See Judas_Iscariot#Role_as_an_apostle and Judas_Iscariot#Theology --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) What particularly does Judas Iscariot#Role as an apostle+Judas Iscariot#Betrayal of Jesus, Thirty pieces of silver, [1], Kiss of Judas, Jesus predicts his betrayal, [2] not answer? Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: What kind of a reply is that? I just read (re-read, actually) all of the sections that you cited. They all say -- ad nauseam -- that Judas "betrayed" Jesus. None explained what exactly the "betrayal" was. Which, indeed, was my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Doxxing for the contemporary term. Tevildo (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tagishsimon has the story in a nutshell. It is told in all four Gospels, Luke 22 for example.

4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.... 39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him.... 47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

It does seem a bit odd that Jesus needed pointing out to the authorities in this way, but that's what it says. Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Alansplodge just pointed out with the actual text, Judas Iscariot led the civil authorities to find Jesus (who was on the lam following the events of the prior week, primarily the cleansing of the Temple). The details of how Judas betrayed Jesus and sold him out to the Authorities are all over the Gospels. If you read the Wikipedia article titled Bargain of Judas, you see the details of the deal. Judas himself goes to the Authorities and offers to sell Jesus out. As to why he did so, the usual explanation is that he was upset over the events at the house of Simon the Leper. Judas had been the unofficial treasurer of The Twelve Apostles (see John 13:29 "Judas kept the money-bag...") The ordering of events in especially Matthew 26:6-14 makes it clear the immediate cause, and events, of Judas's betrayal. At the house of Simon the Leper, a woman anoints the head of Jesus with some expensive perfume; some unnamed disciples see her act as wasteful, since they could have sold the perfume and used the money to feed the poor. Jesus rebukes them, and immediately after this rebuke, Matthew states "Then one of the Twelve—the man called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests." Then being used in the sense of "Because of..." rather than merely "After". --Jayron 32 15:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We all imagine that Jesus was a famous man at the time, and everyone would know who he was and what he looked like. But that's not the case. He was one of many "religious extremists", as the Romans and Jewish authorities thought of them. It was standard practice to arrest them, force them to recant their beliefs, or execute them if they refused. In contemporary accounts, there's barely a mention of Jesus, with John the Baptist actually being a bit more famous. The fame of Jesus grew following his death, as a result of his followers spreading the word, and in particular, doing so in written form, and in Europe. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. StuRat's answer gets to the heart of my question. (Thanks, StuRat.) So, Jesus was not "famous" (or "infamous") or a "celebrity"; Jesus would not have been well-known and easily recognizable. So, the arresting authorities, while looking for Jesus, would have no idea who Jesus was, even if they tripped over him. Since they did not/could not recognize Jesus, they needed someone (who did recognize Jesus) to give them a "sign" by which to identify Jesus (who was unknown to the arresting authorities). This is the gist of the story, correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Jesus was a moderately well-known person (though apparently not as famous in his own lifetime as John the Baptist), but in the days before photography and what-have-you, people didn't really know what someone looked like unless they personally had got up close to them. Mistaken identity stories make a lot more sense before photography. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although Luke 20 describes a series of confrontations between Jesus and the chief priests within the Temple precincts, when they tried to find a way to arrest him there "But they were afraid of the people" (v. 19). So it seems that Judas was paid to catch him when he was off guard. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, of note, is that Jesus wasn't being arrested by the same priests who knew him. Luke notes he was arrested "by the the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders", but it doesn't mention how it played out. I can't imagine an elderly religious man showing up first to arrest a spry 33-year old carpenter from the provinces. Among those listed present at the arrest, the "temple guard" seems likely to have been the ones who were prepared to actually physically grab and restrain Jesus; and the actually arrest is pretty violent; there is a clash of arms and one of the guards has an ear cut off by one of Jesus's apostles. Notably, Matthew 26 presents a slightly different, more detailed, series of events. In that one, the priests themselves don't show up to make the arrest, rather "a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people" That is, the people sent were not necessarily the religious leaders who knew what Jesus looked like directly. Though it also seems to imply that the religious leaders showed up on the scene at some point, and that the actual process of arresting him took about an hour. From the several accounts in the Gospels, the series of events seems to be 1) Crowd of Temple Guards show up, led by Judas, who kisses Jesus to identify him 2) Fight ensues, ear cut off, Jesus heals ear and breaks up the fight, rebuking his disciples for violence 3) Priests and elders show up later, whom Jesus addresses in some of his speech, 4) He's taken to the High Priest's house. --Jayron 32 20:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to the canonical gospels, which paint Judas as a betrayer who delivered Jesus to the authorities for crucifixion in exchange for money, the gnostic Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given to him by Christ. AllBestFaith (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was hanging himself part of those instructions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can read for yourself here [3], an English translation that I found using our article that ABF linked. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of it, but I can understand why this story didn't make it into the Gospels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the canonical Bible, Judas's betrayal is an important and preordained part of God's plan to save the entire human race. I don't know if any modern denomination takes that position, but I think many theologians have historically felt that Judas did more for humanity than most people ever do, and doesn't deserve to be condemned for it. Felix culpa is semi-relevant, though it's about Adam and Eve, not Judas. As Jayron mentioned, three of the canonical gospels give Judas a pretty good motive for turning state's evidence (Ointmentgate), which, together with his remorse and suicide, makes him more of a tragic figure than a villain in this story. If Jesus outright asked him to do it, well, all the more so. -- BenRG (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a general problem with predestination, that if God has planned out what everyone will do, then no matter how bad it is, it doesn't seem like anyone can be held responsible for their actions, only God. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to link any one, for fear of appearing to endorse any one particular author or theologian, but this google search deals with theodicy as it pertains to Judas. The concept of theodicy (reconciling evil with a perfectly good God) has long been a subject of Christian discourse, and reconciling Judas's culpability for his actions with God's specific plan that Jesus would be crucified, and with Judas's role in it, is certainly a big part of Christian discourse on the matter. It is not an easy subject that lends itself to a terse, simple answer. --Jayron 32 04:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'll point out that it was not the betrayal of Jesus, for which he could have sought forgiveness, but Judas's suicide which is the reason for his damnation. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we told canonically that Judas was damned and is in Hell? Maybe he repented just before he died. How would anyone know? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, officially it is not ours to presume that God can't save whom he wishes, but suicide is unique in that it is a mortal sin, for which, in most cases, it is not possible to seek priestly absolution. I suppose if he had taken a slow-acting poison.... But the point is that while he could have asked Peter to absolve him for betraying Jesus, confession is a bit hard with a rope around your neck.

Note the last point from the Catholic Encyclopedia, belinked above:

"Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of."
"Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God."
"If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal."
"Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law."
"Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide."
"We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives."

μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... confession is a bit hard with a rope around your neck. Yes, true. But according to dogma, one does not need to attend a church and enter a confessional and kneel and go through the usual "Bless me father for I have sinned" ritual, in order to be forgiven. As long as the sinner is repentant in their heart before the moment of death, they can be absolved. Suicide is a mortal sin, but there are no mortal sins that cannot be forgiven. Nobody could say that Judas never had a moment of repentance before dying. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my last bulleted point above (beginning "we should not") makes the same general point, although Catholicism holds that proper absolution by a priest guarantees the salvation of the sincere penitent. There are also the concepts of lay baptism and final rights which both include the notion of the absolution of sins for which the dying person would have requested under otherwise non-mortal circumstances. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If recess appointments can simply be rescinded, what is the big deal about them? Why the controversy?

So, a US President can make a recess appointment if he wants, when Congress is in recess. However, at some subsequent time, that appointment still needs to be approved by the Senate. So, what exactly is the big deal? If the Senate does not like the recess appointment, they just choose to withhold their "consent". I don't get why this is a big deal. And what exactly is the controversy? In other words, if the Senate can simply "undo" the appointment, why is there always such a big flak when a recess appointment is made? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though in theory the Senate has exactly the same amount of power to approve/disapprove someone's appointment, whether he or she has already started on the job or not, politically speaking, if there is a vacant position, you can justify not approving the person because you are not entirely happy with the person, whereas if the person has already been appointed, you have to justify why you are so unhappy with him or her as to remove them. So politically, the bar becomes different.

It's like how on Wikipedia, if there is an edit war about whether an article should exist or just be a redirect, if you can get an administrator to protect the page at your preferred version, then in practice you get a rhetorical advantage in the subsequent discussion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose another part of it is that the recess appointee has whatever powers come along with the job. When they exercise these powers, they are using powers that are usually allocated by the senate without senate's approval. The intent though is that there are some positions in government agencies that simply must be filled - and if they are in recess and cannot approve someone, there has to be a mechanism to get the job done. Whether you consider this abuse or "what the framers of the constitution intended" (and therefore, perfect and beyond reproach) seems to be a matter of who is being appointed, by whom and to which office. SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a recess appointment is as a fait accompli. That is, while technically the Senate could rescind the appointment, the disruption caused by doing so is likely to make it unwise in all but the most contentious appointments. Presidents usually do avoid making recess appointments where there is anticipated, actionable objection over the actual job performance of the appointee, or where the position is extremely high-level (Supreme Court, Cabinet level, etc.) Where a President faces an obstructionist congress, where candidates are being ignored or where the Senate refuses to consider any appointments at all, recess appointments become a means to put them into a necessary job and get them working. Then it forces the Senate to act, and have an "up or down" vote on the appointment. If the appointment is made while the Senate is in session, they can simply refuse to act on the appointment, that is they can hold up the appointment by basically ignoring the President, i.e. Merrick Garland. Now, at his level, he'd never be a recess appointment. But for lower-level positions (non-cabinet level senior civil servants, lower court judges) recess appointments can be used for similar situations. --Jayron 32 15:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In theory a recess appointment Supreme Court justice could make a decision the Senate doesn't like, before they remove him. For this reason, the Senate has ways of pretending they are in session, when they are not, so no recess appointments can be made. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, removing all political concerns, and just focusing on mechanics and logistics: if Obama does a Supreme Court recess appointment to fill Scalia's seat, the Senate can get rid of that new Justice eventually. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if they have a Republican president, they probably would. But, if they have Democratic president, they might find it better to stick with the moderate they know than risk a liberal. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common or rare for recess appointments to be made and later rescinded? I am not talking about the Supreme Court solely, but all appointments. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE: See Unsuccessful recess appointments to United States federal courts. --Jayron 32 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, BTW, the highest level recess appointment which was rejected, that I can find was Chief Justice John Rutledge, who was rejected by the Senate after service for several months as Chief Justice of the United States. AFAIK, he is the only top-level official (Cabinet Level or Supreme Court) who was so rejected. --Jayron 32 19:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks. But, I have two questions. (1) That list you linked indicates about 30-some unsuccessful appointments. But that has no context, unfortunately. Were there 30 unsuccessful and 10,000 successful? Or were there 30 unsuccessful and 2 successful? Which goes back to my question of whether it is common or rare to rescind the recess appointments. Do we have any idea? Also: (2) Why is Rutledge omitted from the link you offered about unsuccessful appointments? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third question, actually. I just noticed that that link is for unsuccessful appointments to the federal courts only. Do we have any other similar lists for other types of appointments (i.e., other than federal courts)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt one could find one. The number of total Presidential appointed positions numbers in the thousands, according to this the President is responsible for appointing some 7000 people, with an average time of 2.5 years in their position, that means that Obama would have had to appoint the same position some 2-3 times during his presidency. The logistics of managing such appointments means that some large number of them would have been recess appointments. There have literally been hundreds of thousands of presidential appointments, and I don't known that anyone has ever done a complete analysis on them. Very few (even in a contentiously divided government such as the U.S. has now) would have not been approved by the Senate. Most of these are probably managed in batches and voted on with little review. It's only the politically visible appointments that generally become the subject of Senate confirmation hearings, or which become contentious. --Jayron 32 00:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Why is Rutledge omitted from the list you linked above? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is. His name is literally the first words of the section titled "History of use". --Jayron 32 01:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he omitted from that chart/table? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was not rejected for appointment as a U.S. District Court judge. The table is started with the following explanatory sentence: "Rejected recess appointees to the United States district courts are as follows:" The Chief Justice of the United States does not sit on a United States district court. --Jayron 32 03:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That article needs some work. For one, the chart does not match the title of the article. The title is Unsuccessful recess appointments to United States federal courts (not to simply district courts). Also, the heading of that section is misleading (Unsuccessful recess appointments by type). What "type"? Thanks for pointing out the article, though. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note on the broader topic that some may find interesting... In Jefferson's administration, the total number of appointments in the entire executive branch (including all army and navy officers) consisted of less than 1000 people. It was a lot easier for the Senate to give actual "advice and consent" about every appointee in those days. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost admiral

I'm looking for a free-to-use image of Admliral Sir George Augustus (George Augustus) Elliot KCB RN (1813 to 1901) for an article. I had used this one, but although it has the Admiral's name in the "Summary" it is clearly a picture of Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 4th Earl of Minto (who was actually George's cousin) and the image has been correctly deleted from my article, Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom. Can anybody find something to replace it please? Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]