Judas left three sons, all of whom were leaders in the Zealot movement. Of these, two — Jacob and Simon — were crucified by Tiberius Alexander the procurator (A.D. 46-48), for leading a revolt (Ant. XX. V. 2), and the third, Menahem (also a ' Sophist ' — a word indicating a propagandist as well as a revolutionist), became a leader of the ex- treme radicals during the first period of the war with Rome. After having armed himself from the Herodian arsenal at Masada, he became for a short time the master of a part of Jerusalem, but was tortured and executed, together with his lieutenants, by Eleazar of the high-priestly party. Shailer Mathews.'
JUDAS ISCARIOT.— The only biblical reference to Judas Iscariot by name outside the Gospels is Ac li«--'"- 25, and there he is called neither ' Iscariot ' nor 'the traitor' (TrpoSorijs, as in Lk e"'), nor is his action spoken of by the term irapadidovai. He is described in v." as the one who 'became guide (6517765) to them that arrested Jesus,' and in v.^" as having ' fallen away (irapip-q) from the ministry and apostleship to go to his own place' (see Place). It is interesting, however, to note the other allusions to our Lord's betrayal in the Acts and in the Epistles. (1) In Ac 3^^ St. Peter attributes it virtually to the Israelites themselves (Si' vfieh wap- eduKare kt\. ; cf. 2'^), and so again (2) in 7^^ does St. Stephen (rod diKaiov o5 vvv vfie'cs irpoSorai. Kai (povels eyeuea-de). (3) In Ro 42-'' St. Paul, quoting Is 53^^ (LXX), says less definitely that Jesus our Lord
658
JUDAS ISCARIOT
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
irape866r] 5td to irapaTrTUfiara ijfxQv ; (4) but in 1 Co 11-^ the very act and time of betraj-al are alluded to in connexion with the institution of the Last Supper (ev T% vvktI fj wapedlSero kt\.). On the other hand, St. Paul thi-ee times describes the betrayal from the point of view of our Lord's own voluntary sub- mission, viz. (5) Gal 2'" ! napadSvTos eavrbv xiirkp ipLov ; (6) Eph.5": TrapidcoKev eavrbv inr^pi]ij.u>v; (7) V.^°: iavrbv ■irap4Sii}K€v vvep iKK\r]crias (cf. 1 P 2*^ : irapeSiSov rep KplvovTL 8iKaia}s, and see Jn 10^^- ^* 17^^ etc.) ; and once (8) even of the Father Himself {vw^p ijtxQv irdvTojv vapedoiKep avrbv^ Ro 8^^).
As to Judas's grievous end itseK, as recorded in the Acts, it is not necessary here to compare it in detail with the account given in Mt 27^*- ; it is sufficient to say that in the present state of our in- formation the two accounts are well-nigh, if not quite, irreconcilable. But various points in the Lucan record remain to be reviewed.
(a) St. Peter in his opening address at the elec- tion of St. Matthias infers that the inclusion of the traitor in the number of the apostles and his obtaining a share in their ministry was a mysterious dispensation by which was fulfilled the prediction of Ps 4P, so recently quoted by our Lord Himself (Jn 13^^), together with its necessary consequences as foreshadowed in two other Psalms (69^^ and 109*) : that is, if v.^" be an original part of St. Peter's speech, and not, as is possible, a part of the Lucan (or later) elucidation of the passage contained in Y\}^- ^'. In any case, all three quotations, but specially for our purpose now, the last two, are of interest as illustrating the free use made of the text of Scripture and its secondary application. In Ps 4P the actual wording bears little likeness to the LXX, being a more literal rendering of the Hebrew, while its original reference is to some treacherous friend {e.g. Ahithophel, the unfaithful counsellor of David). In Ps 69^^ the text is more exact, but the original figure employed (t? IVavXts airrdv, not avrov) suggests a nomad encampment of tents rendered desolate because of the cruel persecu- tions which their occupants had practised, while Ps 109^ has in view one particular official, like Doeg or Ahithophel, who has been false to his trust, and therefore it is, to our modern notions, more ap- propriately and with less strain transferred to the case of Judas.
(b) The passage w.^*- ^^, with or without v.^" (see above), would seem to be an editorial comment inserted in the middle of St. Peter's address either by the author of the Acts himself or, as has been thought, by some later glossator or copyist. Of the latter view there is, we believe, no indication in the history of the text. If, as is more likely, therefore, it is due to St. Luke, he has here adopted an account of the traitor's grievous end which is independent of, and in some details apparently ir- reconcilable with, St. Matthew's (27^"), but to a less extent, we are inclined to think, than is some- times held. For it is not out of keeping with eastern modes of treating facts for St. Luke to speak of the 'field of blood' being acquired by the traitor himself with the price of his iniquity (qui facit per alium, facit per se), which St. Matthew more accurately says was actually purchased by the chief priest, whilst the horribly gi-aphic de- scription of his suicide is httle more than a conventional way of representing St. Matthew's simple (XTreX^cbj' dTT-qy^aro.