Right after the story of the woman who anointed Jesus, Mark tells us about Judas going to the high priests to παραδίδωμι (pa-ra-di-do-mi) [hand over, betray (literally: give beside)] Jesus. The sentence which starts this passage begins with the word καί (kai). This is the most common word in any Greek manuscript and has several of uses. Most often it means “and.” Slightly less commonly it means “even” or “also.” It is used within sentences to connect clauses and to connect complete sentences with others which concern the same topic. It seems that some Greek writers just throw in a καί at the beginning of every sentence. Significantly, I think, in Smyth’s Greek Grammar entry 2874 says: “καί may mark a result.”
Translations of Mark 14:10, the verse that connects the story of Mary Magdalene’s appointing with the conspiracy of the betrayal, sometimes begin with “And,” sometimes begin with “Then,” and sometimes leave out the καί altogether.
This brings me to the question of what kind of καί is Mark using here. Is the betrayal connected to the anointing or is it just the next thing that happens in the narrative? As a narrative element it is clearly required because the next story element is the Last Supper which culminates in Judas following through with his planned betrayal. But this doesn’t eliminate the anointing incident as a possible motivation for Judas conspire with the Jewish authorities.
Could Judas really have been so angered by Jesus’ casual attitude about “wasting” money that could have been used for “the cause” that he decided he’d had enough? Was the fact that Jesus would not stop associating with the “wrong sort of people” like that “sinful woman” and her leperous father too much for him to bear after the glory of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem?
After the high priests promise Judas money (literally silver), the next sentence also begins with καί. “And (or “then” or “as a result”) he sought how he conveniently (or “in season”) might παραδίδωμι.” Thus the promise of money seems connected to the seeking for a convenient occasion but, again, this could just be Mark’s way of starting a new sentence.
One thing we can be certain of is that Jesus was not subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences which states that each and every purposeful act leads, most definitely, to results, which are unintended and unforeseen, apart from those which were intended. When he admonished the folks at Simon’s house for their attitude toward Mary he knew exactly how they would react. Even if Judas wasn’t among those at the dinner party, he would have heard about it immediately. There must have been something that prompted him to do what he did when he did it.
Thus I’m inclined to believe then that there is a connection here. If I’m right what does this tell us about our reaction to things that seem inappropriate? Things that offend our sense of what is right and should be done? If our God-fearing leaders do something we don’t like should we abandon the cause? If they say something controversial which opposes the conventional wisdom should we walk away? It seems that is what Judas did even though he was hearing the word of Truth on a daily basis and seeing miracles performed before his very eyes.
