In 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, Peter gives a very brief story regarding Jesus’ death. He simply states the facts, ” He died, he was buried, he was raised, and he appeared.” Although Peter narratavised some, his letters largely followed oral tradition as can be seen in his writing. His writing style follows many of the nodes of oral tradition. His briefness and grammatical structure clearly indicated that he was recording an oral tradition rather than attempting to propagate Jesus’s teachings. One of the biggest nodes of oral tradition in which the gospels expanded was on the verb paradidonai. The translation of paradidonai essentially means “to deliver up”. The Gospels repeatedly interpreted this verb as betrayal even though that interpretation is inconsistent with Paul’s original meaning. In fact, Paul regularly uses the word in reference to the death of Jesus rather than his supposed arrest. In this sense paradidonai means Jesus is delivered up to God and not betrayed. (White, 113).

The gospels interpreted paradidonai as betrayal and insists that Judas “hands Jesus over” to the authorities. Mark is the first to narrativise this story as he adds clear intention by Judas and the arrest of Jesus. Mark writes that Judas went to the chief priests in order to betray Jesus and be compensated with money. Judas than leads a crowd of priests, scribes, and elders to arrest Jesus. Mark is the most moderate of the Gospels as he sticks mostly to the story and does not use as much hyperbole as the other Gospel authors.

Matthew and Luke however expand upon Mark’s writing and make Judas more of an enemy to Jesus and even to God.

Matthew expanded much more on the dialogue of Jesus and Judas and their internal feelings. This narrativises the story much more. Matthew also adds a deep felling of guilt and regret by Judas that causes Judas to give back his money and commit suicide for his actions. Although Matthew added more quotes, the beginning of his story is fairly consistent with Mark.

Luke on the other hand blatantly states that Satan entered the body of Judas. The tone of Luke’s writing and some of the events he slightly changed make the story more of a good vs evil/Jesus vs. Judas story. In this sense, Jesus becomes more of a hero. For example, Luke says that the 12 apostles began to openly question each other regarding who would betray Jesus. This is not mention in either MArk or Matthew. Luke also changes the arrest scene. In Mark and Matthew, Judas gives Jesus a kiss which informs the authorities who to arrest. However, in Luke, Jesus openly refuses this kiss and questions Judas’ motives. Luke uses the story of the last supper and the betrayal much more antagonistically than either Mark or Mathew.

John also depicts a Judas that is evil and an enemy of Jesus. John says that the devil was put into the heart of Judas. In the gospel of John, Judas procures soldiers as well as weapons and torches and seizes Jesus. John’s story is shorter but the most violent and antagonistic than the other three.

It is obvious that early christian story tellers found it necessary to create a story involving good vs. evil. They must be able to convince their readers and creating an enemy for Jesus gives meaning to his death and lets him go down as a martyr. The story of Judas as a traitor to Jesus also gives credence to Jesus’s Crucifixion. Ancient readers can at least somewhat understand his death not by judging Jesus as a criminal but as someone who was wrongly accused and truly suffered for us.

The story of Judas is in all four gospels, however the story changes between each of them. However all these stories have the same key plot points essential to the Crucifixion story. But these plot points are expanded upon and narrativized to create a coherent and interesting story. These additions, which were probably added because of the fluid nature of oral tradition, we can call “nodes”.

In the gospel of Mark Judas is portrayed to “give up” Jesus, which is inherently different than intentionally betraying him.  Mark still notes the reward Judas received; White claims Judas did this with no expectation of reward, and possibly did so to pressure Jesus into making a messianic claim.

Matthew expands upon this original story, by directly quoting Judas demanding compensation if he turns in Jesus. The addition seems to only serve for dramatic purposes, so presumably this was a node of oral tradition. Although Matthew portrayed Judas as malicious, he still humanized him. Judas was a greedy friend, but not a source of evil.

Luke furthers this villainization by adding Satan to the story. Judas becomes possessed by the evil spirit in order to capture Jesus. This addition makes for an incredibly compelling story, but contradicts the savior claims made by John. Because, if the Crucifixion and resurrection were essential for Jesus’s ascension into a messianic figure, then Judas’s role was unavoidable.

The Gospel of John depicts an incredibly detailed narrative of the last supper and Judas story. His Gospel is particularly interesting because his use of non-linear story telling. He interrupts his narrative story to explain what Judas will spend the blood money on, and how he will be accidentally killed (in a gruesome way). This addition or “node” is similar to the ones in Luke and Matthew in their discursive frames. Adding dialogue to increase drama and credibility, villainization of Jesus’ betrayer to confirm his benevolence, and tangent stories to exemplify Judas’ maliciousness, all are indicative of oral story telling, which was the foundation for christian belief, before the Gospels were even written.