Jewish Criticisms of the Resurrection: Why Did Jesus Let Judas, the Thief, Have the Purse and not Matthew, the Tax Collector?

Image result for image of matthew the tax collector
Matthew the Tax-Collector

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii[b] and the money given to the poor?” (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) 

–John 12

For several reasons John’s addition that Judas was a one-time thief seems like an artificial embellishment.  First, this highly significant fact that Judas was a thief is omitted from the earlier gospels.  Second, this information has the ring of a literary design to entertain the reader by making Judas a more contemptible and despicable person.  Third, this fact is dubious, given that “that the group included two former tax collectors (Levi and Matthew)” (Osler 2009, 35).  That is, why were these more qualified men not given the responsibility to maintain the group’s finances?  Finally, it was peculiar that Jesus would have selected this one time thief to have been put in charge of the group’s finances, given that Jesus was omniscient and knew in advance that he would also betray the group.

–Jewish author, Michael Alter, The Resurrection, a Critical Inquiry, p. 451

 

Gary:  The author of John was obviously not an eyewitness.  He was a non-eyewitness making up tall tales as he went along, all to spice up his story, all to increase the popularity of his book.

 

 

 

End of post.

One thought on “Jewish Criticisms of the Resurrection: Why Did Jesus Let Judas, the Thief, Have the Purse and not Matthew, the Tax Collector?

  1. The author of John was obviously not an eyewitness. He was a non-eyewitness making up tall tales as he went along, all to spice up his story…

    As an additional compliment here Gary, if I may…

    Of the four Gospels in the Canonical New Testament the gospel attributed as “John” was in all likelihood written by an anonymous author or authors. The majority of modern scholars agree on this. Bart Ehrman disagrees with this consensus. Nevertheless, there is VERY plausible, likely sociopolitical explanations as to why in the later decades of ca. 85-110 CE—when many scholars believe the “gospel” was written—John, Luke, and Matthew were retro-fitted responses, NOT Yeshua’s actual words, to wide spread circulating and rising doubts and confusion/contradiction about exactly what Yeshua did and taught his disciples, in addition to his ultimate purpose: reforming Israel (the lost sheep Matthew 15:24 and John 4:22).

    At this point in the 21st century, Mark is the only pseudo-gospel that reflects factual(?) or reasonable plausibilities of Yeshua’s adult life; that is the short-version of Mark that stops at 16:8. Not the later retro-fitted political-mythological version beyond 16:8.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s