JUDAS OF GALILEE: The leader of a Jewish insurrection against the Romans, mentioned in Acts v. 37. According to Josephus (Ant., XVIII., i 6; War, II., viii. 1; cf. Ant. XX, v. 2; War, II., xvii. 8), when the taxing of the Jewish people in the governorship of Quirinius (q.v.) under Augustus aroused strong opposition, a certain Judas, born in Gamala but generally called "the Galilean,"

244

with the a Pharisee named Zadok, organized an insurrection which was based on religious motives. The taxation emphasized the loss of Jewish independence under Roman rule and of their theocracy. The two sources (Gamaliel in Acts, and Josephus) agree in viewing the insurrection from a religious standpoint, though differences of another sort appear. Gamaliel reports the destruction of Judas and of his following, of which Josephus says nothing. The latter connects the outbreak with the fermenting zealotism manifested later, in the outbreak under Gessius Florus, and he is corroborated in this by the prominent part taken by the sons of Judas in that outbreak. Of this nothing is manifest in the speech of Gamaliel. The chronological datum is the relation of the insurrection to the taxing, put by Zahn in 4-3 B.C. (Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, iv. 1893, 633-654, and Einleitung in das Neue Testament, ii., Leipsic, 1900, 395 sqq.). The differences in the two accounts prove that the author of Acts was here independent of Josephus and drew from other sources.

(K. SCHMIDT.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: DB, ii. 795-796; EB, ii. 2628-30; JE, vii. 370-371; Schürer, Geschichte, i. 420-421, et passim, Eng. transl., I., ii. 4, et passim.

JUDAS ISCARIOT, is-car'i-et: One of the twelve disciples, and the betrayer of Jesus. The references to Judas in the New Testament are: (1) Mention in the list of the disciples, Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 19; Luke vi. 16. (2) Occasional allusions, John vi. 70, 71, xii. 4, xvii. 12. (3) History of the betrayal, Matt. xxvi. 14-16, 21-25, 46-50; Mark xiv. 10, 11, 18-21, 42-46; Luke xxii. 3-6, 21-23, 47-48; John xiii. 2-11, 18, 21-30, xviii. 2-9. (4) Account of his death, Matt. xxvii. 3-10; Acts i. 16-25. Only John writes the full name, "Judas Iscariot the son of Simon." The ordinary surname is Iscariot (Hebr. Ishkeriyyoth), "Man of [the village] Keriyyoth" (Kerioth, Josh. xv. 25), a place in northern Judea, the modern al-Karyatain, south of Hebron.

The synoptic tradition is limited to a few chief details. It gives nothing from the earlier life of Judas, but begins about the time when the authorities in Jerusalem had determined to kill Jesus, and Judas engaged to betray him into their hands. Matthew and Luke do not imply that the betrayal was induced by anything more than the money offered or that opposition to Jesus was Judas' motive; indeed Judas appears as the instrument of higher powers--notice the words of Luke, "Satan entered into Judas." The event was not unexpected to Jesus, since at the Last Supper he announced his coming betrayal by one of the twelve. While to the twelve this event seemed at the time most improbable, to Jesus it was not so and indeed was in keeping, in his view, with the divine purpose as expressed in the Scriptures and was a necessary means for the accomplishment of the divine plan. Consequently results followed not without the assistance of Jesus himself. While the leaders out of fear of a popular uprising would have let the feast go by, immediately after the Last Supper, at which Jesus had predicted the betrayal, Judas appeared at the head of a force furnished by the authorities. As Judas' question at the supper had been answered with a categorical "yes," it appeared that Judas was fearful that his purpose was fully known to Jesus and, might be thwarted; the action of Judas was therefore hastened, while Jesus went to the place where he would be expected to go (1) . It was then by the cooperation of Jesus that he was delivered to his enemies. The mildness with which Jesus received the betraying kiss suggests that the method of betrayal proceeded not from shameless effrontery, but from fear of an outbreak from Judas' codisciples. Even here Judas appears not as a consummate villain but as one who in consequence of an unhappy frailty was constrained to accomplish a revolting deed.

Compared with the synoptic narrative, the Johannine report seems to have been intended to supplement and add coloring; thus John does not report how Judas came to put himself at the disposal of the enemies of Jesus, but in the account of the anointing of Jesus (x. 1 sqq.) remarks that Judas was a thief. John (xiii. 27) and Luke (xxii. 3) both testify to the entrance of Satan into Judas, but John (xiii. 2) teaches that the way had been prepared though the height of evil conception had not been reached till the supper, that Judas was already predisposed to evil before the actual reception of the Satanic influence. John notes also that when, at the betrayal, Jesus met the force sent against him, Judas stood with that force and was affected as they were at the words of Jesus. John brings out into strong relief the thought that Jesus foreknew the treachery of Judas, that indeed in the choice of Judas as a disciple the fulfilment of Scripture by this means had been in mind, that the loss of this one from those whom the Father had given Jesus was also a matter of fulfilment of prophecy (xvii. 12), and that all this was but the carrying out of the will of God. Similarly John emphasizes the self-surrender of Jesus in his cooperation with the plans of Judas.

The Gospel of Matthew in its interest in Messianic prediction carries the history of Judas further, but fully in accord with the supposition that Judas was not animated with hostility to Jesus, so that he attempted to return the price of the betrayal, and when it was not received, threw it on the ground and went away and hanged himself. This relation is to be brought into connection with the narrative in II Sam, xvii. and with another Old-Testament passage regarded as Messianic. A variant account of the end of Judas is given in Acts i. 18-19, which furnishes one of the problems of New-Testament criticism to be solved by recalling that the central point in the speech of Peter was that a vacancy had occurred in the apostolic college which was to be filled. The essential difference in the two accounts is that in one case the purchase of the field is attributed to Judas, in the other case to the authorities. The narration by Papias of the story of the end of Judas (cf. Zahn in TSK, 1866, pp. 680-689) had as its purpose the reconciliation of the two accounts.

(K. SCHMIDT.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Excellent critical discussions are found in DB, ii. 796 sqq.; EB, ii. 2623-2628.The older literature

245

is given in G. B. Winer. Biblisches Realwörterbuch, i. 635, Leipsic, 1847-48. Consult further: Abraham a Sancta Clara, Judas der Erzschelm, in his Werke, Passau, 1835-1837; Zandt, Commentatio de Juda proditore, Leipsic, 1769; E. Daub, Judas Ischariot, Heidelberg, 1816-18; JE, vii. 371; and the literature on the life and passion of Jesus and commentaries on the Gospels and Acts.