Of ' Judas the brother of James ' as an individual we know nothing ; but account should be taken of what is said collectively of our Lord's brothers. He was probably a son of Joseph and Mary, and a younger brother of Jesus (cf . ' Brethren of the Lord ' in Hastings' DB) ; he misunderstood the popularity of Jesus (Mt 12''8if-), who was, in his estimation, a foolish enthusiast (Mk 3-') ; before the resurrection of Jesus he did not acknowledge his Brother as the Messiah (Jn V-), but after the resurrection he is found ' in prayer ' in the upper room (Ac l") ; his doubts, like those of his brother James (1 Co 15^), may have vanished in the presence of the risen Lord. The distinct mention of the brothers of Jesus (Ac 1") after the Eleven have been named, is another reason for rejecting the tradition which identifies 'Judas the brother of James' with Judas ThaddiEus the Apostle.
The authorship of the Epistle of Jude is much disputed. Harnack regards the words ' brother of James ' as an interpola- tion added towards the end of the 2nd cent, to enhance the value of the Epistle 'as a weapon against Gnosticism.' But 'the simplest interpretation of the salutation, which identifies the writer . . . with the brother of the Lord, is the best' (Chase, Hastings' DB ii. 804i>).
Eusebins (HE iii. 19. 201-*. 32) quotes from Hegesippus the ttion brought against the grandchildren of
descended from whosf name \\as Judas'; it is hiH horiif fp«timonv before
Judas ; they ar called brothers of t further said that ' Domitian in behalf of every church as - 'Judas the brothci city where he live<i. Epistle. Mrs. Lc\vii
ment in Jn 7' that our Lord's brothers did not believe that He was the Messiah (cf. ExpT xiv. 398 ; also Eendel Harris, The Dioscuri in the Christian Lefjt^ndt;).
3. Judas Iscariot.— See following article.
J. G. Taskkr. JUDAS ISCARIOT.-
i. The NT sources, ii. Name and Designations :
(a) Judas.
(6)1
(c) One of the Twelve.
(0 A devil. ('/) Son of pel )thfr NT refen
(0) The Satan incarnate theory ;
(c) The mingled motives theory ; he was (a) covet- ous, (p) ambitious, (y) jealous, v. References to Judas in post-Biblical literature :
(a) Apocr\-phal works ;
(b) Early Christian writings.
(c) Folk-lore.
Literature.
i. The NT sources.— The basis of any satisfac- tory solution of the fascinating and perplexing problem of the personality of Judas must be a comprehensive and careful study of the words of Jesus and the records of the Evangelists. Interest in his life and character may have been unduly sacrificed to dogmatic discussions of ' tix'd fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,' but the reaction in favour of psychological methods of study may be carried to excess. Conclusions arrived at by the use of these methods are not always consistent with the historical data furnished by the Gospels. In psychological as well as theological investigations, speculation may prove an unsafe guide ; at least it should always move in a path made by prolong- ing the lines laid down in the documents which are the main sources of our information. Theories framed by induction from a critical comparison of the narratives may claim to be attempts to untie the knot, but theories involving excisions from, and conjectural emendations of, the text of the Gospels and Acts are mere cuttings of the knot. A frank acknowledgment that there are dif- ficulties at present inexplicable is preferable to the adoption of such violent methods of removing them. The NT material available for the investi- gation of the subject in its manifold aspects is found in the following passages :
1. The lists of the Apostles : Mk 3i6if-, Mt lOSiT-, Lk 6I3ir..
2. Early allusions to Judas : Jn e^if- 12-'«'- 1712, Lk 223 (cf. Mk 14"-, Mt 268f).
3. The narratives of the Betrayal : Mk 14iof-, Mt 26"ff., Lk 22''«f- ; Jn 13'iff- ; Mk 14i8ir-, Mt •262iir-, Lk 222iff-, Jn IS^nr- ; Mk 14«lf-, Mt 26«ff-, Lk 22-1"-, Jn 182ir..
— • of the death of Judas : Mt 273«'-, Ac li6ir..
From this classification it will be seen that, with the exception of Lk i-I^, the Synoptists say nothing about Judas before the Betrayal ; their account of the Betrayal also difi'ers in many details from that given in the Fourth Gospel. Some divergent tra- ditions it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to harmonize ; assumptions that the one is an inten- tional modification of the other, or that tliey are contradictory, must be carefully examined ; sug- gestions that they are supplementary, or mutually explanatory, must be fairly considered. State- ments in the Fourth Gospel which are said to show John's bias against Judas will be investigated in due course.
ii. Name and Dksk:x atkins. f«) J>i(hrs.—ln
all the lists of theTwrlvr il,i, i, tl,r „; f the
Apostle mentioned lii>t. AhhIIhi .\|«i^tlo. (see preoed. art. No. 1) bore tlii> lomiiKin .Jewish name, but 'Judas' now means the Betrayer of Jesus. His sin has stamped the word with such evil significance that it has become the class-name of perfidious friends, who are ' no better than Judases' (cf. 'Judas-hole,' ' Judas-trap,' etc.).
'Uiiois is the Or. form of the Heb. Judah (.Tiin;), which in On 2936 is derived from the verb ' to praise ' (ni;), and is taken as meaning ' one who is the subject of praise ' (cf. On 498). Xhe etymology' is disputed, but in its popular sense it suggests a striking paradox, when used of one whose name became a synonym for shame.