{ "entry_id": "TSP-ENT-000306", "slug": "judas-iscariot", "url_path": "/types-symbols/judas-iscariot/", "canonical_name": "Judas Iscariot", "entry_classifications": [ "REPRESENTATIVE_PERSON", "ORDINARY_DESCRIPTION", "MOTIF", "ANALOGY", "TYPE" ], "modules": [ "NARRATIVE_PATTERNS", "APOCALYPTIC" ], "aliases": [], "legacy_present": true, "legacy_raw_wording_public": false, "senses": [ { "sense_id": "TSP-SNS-000716", "label": "Judas as betrayer and “son of destruction”", "classification": "REPRESENTATIVE_PERSON", "definition": "The Gospels explicitly identify Judas as the betrayer, and John 17:12 applies “son of destruction/perdition” to the lost disciple in the Scripture-fulfillment context.", "not_always": "These direct descriptions establish Judas’s role and destiny; they do not automatically establish a later eschatological type relationship.", "scope_note": "These direct descriptions establish Judas’s role and destiny; they do not automatically establish a later eschatological type relationship.", "claims": [ { "claim_id": "TSP-CLM-000716", "statement": "Judas Iscariot is explicitly the betrayer, and John 17:12 identifies the lost disciple as “the son of destruction/perdition”; these are direct canonical descriptions, not evidence by themselves of an Antichrist type.", "asserted_classifications": [ "REPRESENTATIVE_PERSON", "ORDINARY_DESCRIPTION" ], "type_kinds": [], "evidence_grade": 1, "grade_basis": "G1_EXPLICIT_BIBLICAL_INTERPRETATION", "status": "ESTABLISHED", "public_wording_class": "SCRIPTURE_EXPLICITLY_IDENTIFIES", "scope_limitation": "These direct descriptions establish Judas’s role and destiny; they do not automatically establish a later eschatological type relationship.", "strongest_alternative_explanation": null, "residual_uncertainty": "No material residual uncertainty beyond the stated scope limitation.", "theological_intersections": [ "HAMARTIOLOGY" ], "scripture_references": [ { "passage_ref_id": "TSP-PAS-001092", "osis_start": "Matt.26.14", "osis_end": "Matt.26.16", "display_label": "Matthew 26:14–16", "versification_system": "ENGLISH_STANDARD" }, { "passage_ref_id": "TSP-PAS-001091", "osis_start": "John.17.12", "osis_end": null, "display_label": "John 17:12", "versification_system": "ENGLISH_STANDARD" } ], "source_citations": [ { "source_id": "TSP-SRC-000001", "author_editor": null, "title": "Canonical Scripture: MT/LXX/NA28 with NET/ESV comparison", "publication_data": "Text loci verified for TSP-S0F Batch 1", "locator": null, "verification_level": "V4_QUOTATION_VERIFIED", "source_function": [ "CANONICAL_AUTHORITY", "TEXT_ESTABLISHMENT" ], "locator_targets": [] } ], "s8_wording_provenance": null } ] }, { "sense_id": "TSP-SNS-000717", "label": "Shared “son of destruction/perdition” language with man of lawlessness", "classification": "MOTIF", "definition": "John 17:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 use the same “son of destruction/perdition” idiom for Judas and the eschatological man of lawlessness, creating a real verbal/thematic parallel.", "not_always": "Shared wording supports comparison, not identity or formal typological direction by itself.", "scope_note": "Shared wording supports comparison, not identity or formal typological direction by itself.", "claims": [ { "claim_id": "TSP-CLM-000717", "statement": "Judas and the man of lawlessness share the designation “son of destruction/perdition,” giving the legacy comparison a genuine verbal/thematic basis; the shared epithet alone, however, does not identify Judas as the latter figure’s formal type.", "asserted_classifications": [ "MOTIF", "ANALOGY" ], "type_kinds": [], "evidence_grade": 4, "grade_basis": "G4_RECURRENT_CANONICAL_MOTIF_OR_STRONG_THEMATIC_PATTERN", "status": "STRONGLY_SUPPORTED", "public_wording_class": "CANONICAL_MOTIF", "scope_limitation": "Shared wording supports comparison, not identity or formal typological direction by itself.", "strongest_alternative_explanation": null, "residual_uncertainty": "No material residual uncertainty beyond the stated scope limitation.", "theological_intersections": [ "ESCHATOLOGY", "HAMARTIOLOGY" ], "scripture_references": [ { "passage_ref_id": "TSP-PAS-001091", "osis_start": "John.17.12", "osis_end": null, "display_label": "John 17:12", "versification_system": "ENGLISH_STANDARD" }, { "passage_ref_id": "TSP-PAS-001093", "osis_start": "2Thess.2.3", "osis_end": "2Thess.2.4", "display_label": "2 Thessalonians 2:3–4", "versification_system": "ENGLISH_STANDARD" } ], "source_citations": [ { "source_id": "TSP-SRC-000001", "author_editor": null, "title": "Canonical Scripture: MT/LXX/NA28 with NET/ESV comparison", "publication_data": "Text loci verified for TSP-S0F Batch 1", "locator": null, "verification_level": "V4_QUOTATION_VERIFIED", "source_function": [ "CANONICAL_AUTHORITY", "TEXT_ESTABLISHMENT" ], "locator_targets": [] } ], "s8_wording_provenance": null } ] }, { "sense_id": "TSP-SNS-000718", "label": "No established Judas-to-Antichrist formal type", "classification": "TYPE", "definition": "No later inspired text explicitly identifies Judas as a designed type of the Antichrist/man of lawlessness; “Antichrist” is also a broader Johannine theological label than the 2 Thessalonians title.", "not_always": "The Judas/man-of-lawlessness comparison may be noted as verbal/thematic analogy, not published as established formal type.", "scope_note": "The Judas/man-of-lawlessness comparison may be noted as verbal/thematic analogy, not published as established formal type.", "claims": [ { "claim_id": "TSP-CLM-000718", "statement": "Scripture does not explicitly identify Judas Iscariot as a formal type of the Antichrist/man of lawlessness; the shared “son of destruction” phrase is insufficient to establish designed person-typology or identity.", "asserted_classifications": [ "TYPE" ], "type_kinds": [ "PERSON_TYPE", "WARNING_TYPE" ], "evidence_grade": 7, "grade_basis": "G7_INSUFFICIENT_BIBLICAL_EVIDENCE", "status": "INSUFFICIENT_BIBLICAL_EVIDENCE", "public_wording_class": "INSUFFICIENT_BIBLICAL_EVIDENCE", "scope_limitation": "The Judas/man-of-lawlessness comparison may be noted as verbal/thematic analogy, not published as established formal type.", "strongest_alternative_explanation": "Shared idiom and analogous betrayal/lawlessness motifs are sufficient to explain the comparison.", "residual_uncertainty": "The thematic parallel is real; formal type status is not established.", "theological_intersections": [ "ESCHATOLOGY", "HAMARTIOLOGY" ], "scripture_references": [ { "passage_ref_id": "TSP-PAS-001091", "osis_start": "John.17.12", "osis_end": null, "display_label": "John 17:12", "versification_system": "ENGLISH_STANDARD" }, { "passage_ref_id": "TSP-PAS-001093", "osis_start": "2Thess.2.3", "osis_end": "2Thess.2.4", "display_label": "2 Thessalonians 2:3–4", "versification_system": "ENGLISH_STANDARD" } ], "source_citations": [ { "source_id": "TSP-SRC-000001", "author_editor": null, "title": "Canonical Scripture: MT/LXX/NA28 with NET/ESV comparison", "publication_data": "Text loci verified for TSP-S0F Batch 1", "locator": null, "verification_level": "V4_QUOTATION_VERIFIED", "source_function": [ "CANONICAL_AUTHORITY", "TEXT_ESTABLISHMENT" ], "locator_targets": [] } ], "s8_wording_provenance": null } ] } ], "lexeme_mappings": [], "canonical_relationships": [ { "canonical_relationship_id": "TSP-S6-R03-P03-REL-0062", "title": "Judas Iscariot", "canonical_statement": "Confirmed in the source-supported contextual sense: Judas Iscariot is explicitly the betrayer, and John 17:12 identifies the lost disciple as “the son of destruction/perdition”; these are direct canonical descriptions, not evidence by themselves of an Antichrist type.", "canonical_action": "PROMOTE_ADJUDICATED_P02_POSITIVE_OR_RECLASSIFIED_GROUP_AS_DISTINCT_CUMULATIVE_CLUSTER", "guardrails": [], "relationship_status": "CONFIRMED_CONTEXTUAL_RELATION" } ], "negative_guardrails": [] }