Beyond these facts nothing certain is kno>vn of Barsabbas. It has been suggested that he was a brother of Joseph Barsabbas who was nominated to succeed Iscariot in the early days of the Jerusalem Church {Ac 1^), as Barsabbas is a patronymic son of Sabbas. If this be so, Judas had in all proba- bility, like Joseph, been personally acquainted with Jesus, and a disciple. This would account, to some extent at least, for the influential position he seems to hold at the Council of Jerusalem. Attempts have been made to identify him with others bearing the name Judas, but all such at- tempts must be relinquished. The Apostle Judas 'not Iscariot' was the son of James (Lk 6'® KV), and in the narrative in the Acts Barsabbas is clearly distinguished from the apostles. Some have suggested that he may be the writer of the Epistle that bears his name, but the writer describes himself as the brother of James (Jude'), and this James must either have been the son of Joseph the husband of the Virgin or the son of Alph.'eus (see art. JUDE) — in any case, not the son of Sabbas.
Literature.— R. J, KnowHng:, 'Acts,' in EGT, 1900, p. 326 ; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, ISD.i, p. 174 f. ; T. Zahn, Einleitung in das ST'i, 1906- 07, i. 148 ; artt. in HDB and EBi. \V. F. BOYD.
JUDAS (of Damascus). — In Ac 9^^ the disciple Ananias is told by the Lord in a vision to go to the street called ' Straight ' and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus. Nothing further is known of this Judas.
JUDAS THE GALILEAN.— Judas the Galiltean, a Zealot leader at the time of the census under Quirinius, was probably the son of Hezekiah (Josephus, Ant. XVII. x. 5, BJ II. iv. 1), a leader of a band of robbers (i.e. revolutionists) in Galilee. Herod, while representing his father, had captured and summarily executed Hezekiah with a number of his followers without having recourse to the Sanhedrin or Hyrcanus (BJ I. x. 5, Ant. XIV. ix. 2, 3, xvir. X. 5). If this identification be correct (so Graetz, Schilrer, Goethe ; contra Krenkel, Schmiedel), it enables us to trace the development of the Zealot movement from its origin as the Messianic party favouring 'direct action.' The death of Hezekiah apparently left Judas at the head of a movement against Roman rule similar to that of Mattathias and his body of revolutionaries against the Syrians.
Josephus declares in Ant. xviil. i. 1 that Judas was born in Gamala in Gaulonitis, but in BJ II. viii. 1 and elsewhere he calls him a Galiltean (so too Ac 5^'). This discrepancy may be due to a confusion of a Galilfean Gamala with the better- known town of the same name east of Jordan ; or to the fact that the activities of Judas were largely confined to Galilee ; or to the loose use of the word ' Galilsean ' to describe a Jew born near Galilee.
During the administration of Quintilius Varus (6-4 B.C.) Judas took advantage of the disorders following the death of Herod I., seized and plun- VOL. I. — 42
dered Sepphoris, and armed his followers with weapons taken from the city's arsenal. He is charged by Josephus (Ant. XVII. x. 5, BJ 11. iv. 1) with seeking to make himself king. This accusa- tion, however, like the description of his followers (' of profligate character ') by Josej^hus, is probably to be charged to the bias of the historian. For, when Quirinius undertook to make a census of Juda3a_(see DCG i. 275''), Judas allied himself with a Pharisee named Zadok and raised the signal for a theocratic or Messianic revolt, calling upon the Je\\s to refuse to pay tribute to the Romans and to recognize God alone as their ruler (Ant. XVIII. i. 1, XX. V. 2, BJ II. viii. 1). Whether he suc- ceeded in actually organizing a revolt is not alto- gether clear (Ant. XX. v. 2 is not so reliable as XVIII. i. 1), but in BJ VII. viii. 1 he is said 'to have persuaded not a few of the Jews not to sub- mit to the census.' That he was the centre of actual disturbance is by no means impi-obable in the light of succeeding events ; for from this com- bination of revolutionary spirit and Pharisaism emerged the fourth party of the Jews, the Zealots. From this time until their last stand at Masada, the Zealots were the representatives of a politico- revolutionary Messianism, as distinguished from the eschatological hopes of the Pharisees and Essenes. Judas ('a cunning Sophist' [i^J" II. xvii. 8]) was evidently bent on putting into practice a political programme, and may very likely have undertaken to organize a theocracy without a human ruler. If so, we know nothing as to the actual results of his endeavours except that Josephus (A72t. XVIII. i. 1, 6) attributes to him and his 'philosophy' the violence and miseries culminating in the destruction of the Temple. This philosophy he describes as a compound of Pharisaic beliefs and revolutionist love of liberty.
We have no precise knowledge as to the fate of Judas, but in Ac 5^^ he is said to have 'perished.' From the fact that he is here mentioned after Theudas (q.iK), it has been conjectured that Luke has confused his fate with that of his sons. Too much weight, however, should not be given to this conclusion, for it seems hardly probable that Josephus should have omitted any misfortune com- ing to a man he so cordially disliked.