4 ms·

Money – How much were the 30 pieces of silver (Judas's payment) worth?

hirundo 4y ago
It's a rare gathering that doesn't contain one person who would betray anyone for a half-year's pay. Judas was venal, but not unusually or unexpectedly so. If even Christ can't count on that kind of loyalty we can't either. Meaning that almost any organzation's security can be penetrated by pieces of silver, if the $5 wrench isn't practical. There aren't any state or corporate secrets or private data that we can depend on remaining that way, because the Judas-filter at human resources is reliably unreliable.
- fellowniusmonk 4y ago
  My parents used to tell me that even if you are literally perfect 8% of people will dislike you. Not a bad thought to shut down the tendency towards people pleasing.
- ldx1024 4y ago
  "Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead" - Benjamin Franklin It's generally true even if money is not involved. Another reason I tend to keep my own counsel.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Fear of punishment might be effective. But if the government is doing the bribing. All bets are on someone betraying.
purplepatrick 4y ago
I don’t know what’s going on in this Stack response. Surely, they must have heard of inflation adjusting a monetary figure from the past? Or is there a 2022 Judas incident I haven’t heard about?
ncmncm 4y ago
Just to mention there is no evidence or reason to believe Judas ever existed. So, like everything else, he is a parable that is supposed to have a doctrinal interpretation. Find out the doctrinal interpretation, and you have drained the story dry.
- rospaya 4y ago
  > Just to mention there is no evidence or reason to believe Judas ever existed. Modern historians agree that he probably did exist. Like a lot of subjects from the bible it's not definitive and there are different theories, but it's definitely very far from "no evidence or reason".
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Historians' hypothesis that Judas existed is predicated on an assumption that Jesus existed. That stands on extremely thin ice. There are no reports from anyone who claimed to have seen Him, not even the authors of the Gospels.
    - rospaya 4y ago
      Not sure where you're getting your facts, but there's a consensus among (Christian and non-Christian) historians that Jesus existed. The rest is murky, but he existed as a person. That's not even remotely controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Your "consensus" is not based on evidence, but purely on convenience: something did happen associated with Judea (though not, by any plausible evidence, in it) that is most conveniently accounted for by assuming an actual person did specified things there. That, without any actual evidence that any did, but a monumental volume of very obviously and universally acknowledged wholesale-fabricated evidence, clearly penned decades after any participants would necessarily have died. What the assumption utterly fails to account for is the extraordinary volume of such obvious fabrication, of a magnitude that appears nowhere else in the historical record. If any of its subject matter were true, what would motivate the enormous industry of fabrication and insertion of late alterations into contemporaneous texts? The gradient is toward decreasing adherence to the convenient assumption, and more critical scrutiny.

It's a rare gathering that doesn't contain one person who would betray anyone for a half-year's pay. Judas was venal, but not unusually or unexpectedly so. If even Christ can't count on that kind of loyalty we can't either. Meaning that almost any organzation's security can be penetrated by pieces of silver, if the $5 wrench isn't practical. There aren't any state or corporate secrets or private data that we can depend on remaining that way, because the Judas-filter at human resources is reliably unreliable.

fellowniusmonk 4y ago
My parents used to tell me that even if you are literally perfect 8% of people will dislike you. Not a bad thought to shut down the tendency towards people pleasing.
ldx1024 4y ago
"Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead" - Benjamin Franklin It's generally true even if money is not involved. Another reason I tend to keep my own counsel.
Ekaros 4y ago
Fear of punishment might be effective. But if the government is doing the bribing. All bets are on someone betraying.

purplepatrick 4y ago

I don’t know what’s going on in this Stack response. Surely, they must have heard of inflation adjusting a monetary figure from the past? Or is there a 2022 Judas incident I haven’t heard about?

ncmncm 4y ago

Just to mention there is no evidence or reason to believe Judas ever existed. So, like everything else, he is a parable that is supposed to have a doctrinal interpretation. Find out the doctrinal interpretation, and you have drained the story dry.

rospaya 4y ago
> Just to mention there is no evidence or reason to believe Judas ever existed. Modern historians agree that he probably did exist. Like a lot of subjects from the bible it's not definitive and there are different theories, but it's definitely very far from "no evidence or reason".
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Historians' hypothesis that Judas existed is predicated on an assumption that Jesus existed. That stands on extremely thin ice. There are no reports from anyone who claimed to have seen Him, not even the authors of the Gospels.
  - rospaya 4y ago
    Not sure where you're getting your facts, but there's a consensus among (Christian and non-Christian) historians that Jesus existed. The rest is murky, but he existed as a person. That's not even remotely controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Your "consensus" is not based on evidence, but purely on convenience: something did happen associated with Judea (though not, by any plausible evidence, in it) that is most conveniently accounted for by assuming an actual person did specified things there. That, without any actual evidence that any did, but a monumental volume of very obviously and universally acknowledged wholesale-fabricated evidence, clearly penned decades after any participants would necessarily have died. What the assumption utterly fails to account for is the extraordinary volume of such obvious fabrication, of a magnitude that appears nowhere else in the historical record. If any of its subject matter were true, what would motivate the enormous industry of fabrication and insertion of late alterations into contemporaneous texts? The gradient is toward decreasing adherence to the convenient assumption, and more critical scrutiny.