In Mk 14'" the best supported reading (NBCLM) is 6 eh Twv SdideKa, with a note in RVm — ' Gr. the one of the twelve.' Wright {Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, p. 31, cf. p. 147) is of opinion that Mk. distinctly calls Juclas 'the chief of the twelve.' He takes 6 eh as equal to 6 Trpuros, as in tJ /u^ tGiv aa^§6.ru)v (Mk 16°). But the definite article is not found with this phrase in any other passage in the Gospels ; moreover, it is almost impossible to believe that when the Gospels were written the assertion that Judas was ' the chief ' or even primus inter pares had a place in the original text. On the other hand. Field {Notes on the Translation of the NT, in loc.) is scarcely justified in saying ' 6 eh tuv S. can mean nothing but " the first (No. 1) of the twelve," which is absurd.' * The unique reading may, however, preserve a genuine reminiscence of a time in the earlier ministry of Jesus when Judas, the treasurer of the Apostolic company, had a kind of priority. If this were so, there would come a time when, as Wright suggests, the supporters of Judas would become ' jealous of the honour bestowed on Peter.'t Jealousy would account not only for the dispute about rival claim* to be the greatest, but also for the respective positions of Judas and Peter at the supper-table. The most probable explanation of the details given (Mt 26=3, Jn 13=«- =«) is that John was reclining on the right of Jesus ; but Judas ' claimed and ob- tained the chief seat at the table ' next Jesus, and was reclining on His left, whilst ' the lowest place was voluntarily taken by Peter, who felt keenly the Lord's rebuke of this strife for precedence ' (cf. Andrews, The Life ofonr Lord, p. 485 ; Eders- heim, Life and Times, ii. 493). -^
{d) 'A thief — The meaning of the statement that ' Judas was a thief ' ( Jn 12^) is cjuite plain, if the RV correctly renders the following sentence : 'and having the bag, took away {ifiiaTa^ev) what was put therein.' ^aardfu) means (1) to bear, (2) to bear away, as in Jn 20''' (ff- 'cattle-lifting'). Its use in the sense of bearing away secretly or pilfer- ing is established (cf. Field, op. cit. in loc.). In this context the statement tliat Judas carried the money put into the bag which was in his possession seems singularly tame, if it is not mere repetition. On the other hand, to say that Judas had formed the habit of pilfering is a natural explanation of
* Swetc (Com. in loc.) explains the phrase as a contrast with ei Xeiroi, * the rest ' ; Judas was * the only one of the twelve ' who turned traitor.
t There is force in Edcrsheim's remark (Lt'.fe and Timet, ii. 536), that * viewed in its priniar.v elements (not in its develop- ment) Peter's character was, among the disciples, the likest to that of Judas.'
JUDAS ISCAEIOT
JUDAS ISCARIOT
909
linji: that the text word 'thief has 1 I 111:111, and used
the assertion that he had been guilty of theft. Weiss [Lcben Jesu, ii. 443) thinks that 'John had found out thefts committed by the greedy Judas ' ; this does not necessarily imply that the thefts were known to John at the time of Mary's anoint- ing, for they may have come to light after that act, but before the narrative was shaped in this form.
The rendering of e/Jcta-Tafe;' by the neutral word ' bare ' is adopted by some, who hold that John's words do not imply more than that Judas had a thievish disposition. Ainger adopts this interpre- tation in a finely- wrought study of the character of Judas [The Gospel and Human Life, p. 231). It is true in a sense that ' he may have been a thief long before he began to steal,' but this exposition involves the unlikely assumption that the betrayal of Jesus was the ' first act by which he converted his spirit of greed into actual money profit.' If Judas had not formed the habit of pilfering, it is more difficult to understand how the thirty pieces of silver could be a real temptation to him.
Cheyne gets rid of the difficulty by corrupt. In his conjectural enieiuiati place; he reads 'because In- \mi~ ;i
i/3<5i<rT*2;0. 'The statement ;iK I 11 ■ i Ins hypothetical
text is then naively said to li^ .1, 1, credit than it
has sometimes received from ail, ni^il iiii-^ {Kiicy. Bibl. ii. 2625).
(e) 'Betrayer'' or 'traitor.' — In the list of the Apostles given in Lk 6'" there is a variation from the phrase by which Judas is usually described. Instead of 6s /coi TtapiSuK^v avrbv (' who also betrayed him,' lit. ' delivered him up ') St. Luke has 5s iyi- veTo TTpoSbr-qi, well rendered by Field—' who turned traitor ' (cf. Amer. RV ' became a traitor ' ; Wey- mouth, 'proved to be a traitor'). The translation in the EV— 'which was the traitor' — neither brings out the force of yhoimi., nor the significance of the omission of the article.
The statement that Judas 'turned traitor' should be remembered in framing or estimating theories to account for his history ; it confirms what has been said on this subject under (c). From this point of view the various phrases used in the Gospels will rejjay careful discrimination : most frequent is the simple statement of the tragic deed as a historic fact — 'who betrayed him' (Mk 3" wap^duKei') ; but there is also the prophecy, ' The Son of Man is about to be betrayed ' (Mt 17-- /xAXei irapadiSo<reai), and the statement, when the time was drawing nigh, that the process had already begun, ' The Son of Man is being betrayed ' (Mt 26'-' TrapadiSoTai). Similarly, Judas is described as 'he who would betray him' (Jn 6" 6 TapaSua-ioi>), 'he who is betraying me' (Mt 26^'' 6 7ra/)a6i5oi'/s), and as ' he who had betrayed him ' (Mt 27^ o Tropa- SoiJs). In this connexion Jn 6^ deserves special attention : ' Jesus knew from the beginning . . . who it was that should betray him.' Needless difficulties are occasioned when ' from the be- ginning' is regarded as referring to any period before the call of Judas ; the thought seems to be that Jesus perceived ' from the beginning ' of His intercourse with Judas the spirit that was in him. Hence the statement is wrongly interpreted in a fatalistic sense. The rendering, ' Jesus knew who it was that would betray him ' has the advantage of suggesting that Jesiis discerned the thoughts and intents of His unfaithful Apostle, and knew that ' the germ of the traitor-spirit was already in the heart of Judas' (cf. W. F. Moulton in Schaff's Popular Commentary, in loc.).*