Judas

Ju'das (Ι᾿ούδας), the Graecized form of the Hebrew name Judah, and generally retained in the A.V. of the Apocrypha and N.T., as also in Josephus, where it occurs of a considerable number of men. SEE JUDA; SEE JUDE.

1. The patriarch JUDAH SEE JUDAH (q.v.), son of Jacob (Mt 1:2-3).

2. One of the Levites who renounced his Gentile wife after the captivity (1 Esdr. 9:23); the JUDAH of Ezr 10:23.

3. The third son of Mattathias, and the leading one of the three Maccabaean brothers (1 Macc. 2:4, etc.). SEE MACCABEES.

4. The son of Calphi (Alphaeus), a Jewish general under Jonathan Maccabaeus (1 Macc. 11:70).

5. A Jew occupying a conspicuous position at Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristobulus (q.v.) and the Egyptian Jews (2 Macc. 1:10). He is thought by some to have been the same with

6. An aged person, and a noted teacher among the Essenes at Jerusalem, famous for his art of predicting events, which was confirmed in a remarkable manner by the death of Antigonus (q.v.) at the order of his brother Aristobulus, as related by Josephus (Ant. 13, 11, 2; War, 1, 3, 5).

7. A son of Simon, and brother of John Hyrcanus (1 Macc. 16:2), murdered by Ptolemaeus the usurper, either at the same time (B.C. cir. 135) with his father (1 Macc. 16:15 sq.), or shortly afterwards (Josephus Ant. 13, 8. 1; see Grimm, ad Macc. l. c.). — Smith.

8. Son of one Ezechias (which latter was famous for his physical strength), and one of the three principal bandits mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 17, 10, 2; War, 2, 4, 1) as infesting Palestine in the early days of Herod. This person, whom Whitson (ad loc.) regards as the Theudas (q.v.) of Luke (Ac 10:36), temporarily got possession of Sepphoris, in Galilee. What became of him does not particularly appear, but it may be presumed. he shared the fate of the others named in the same connection.

9. Son of one Saripheus, or Sepphoris, and one of the two eminent Jewish teachers who incited their young disciples to demolish the golden eagle erected by Herod over the Temple gate, an act of sedition for which the whole party were burned alive (Josephus, Ant. 17, 6, 2-4; War, 1, 33, 2-4).

10. A person surnamed "the Galiloean" (ὁ Γαλιλαῖος, Ac 5:37), so called also by Josephus (Ant. 18, 1, 6; 20, 5, 2; War, 2, 8, 1), and likewise "the Gaulonite" (ὁ Γαυλονίτης, Ant. 18, 1, 1). He was born at Gamala, a fortified city on the Sea of Galilee, in Lower Gaulonitis; and after the deposition of Archelaus, during the thirty-seventh year after the battle of Actium (Josephus, Ant. 18, 2, l), i.e. A.D. 6, he excited a violent insurrection among the Jews, in concert with a well known Pharisee named Sadok, against the Roman government exercised by the procurator Coponius, on occasion of a census levied by the emperor Augustus, asserting the popular doctrine that the Jews ought to acknowledge no dominion but that of God. He was destroyed, and his followers scattered by Cyrenius, then proconsul of Syria and Judaea. We also learn from Josephus that the scattered remnant of the party of Judas continued after his destruction to work on still in secret, and labored to maintain his free spirit and reckless principles among the people (Josephus, War, 2, 17, 7- 19). (See E. A. Schulze, Dissert. de Juda Galiloeo ejusque secta, Frankf. A.V. 1761; also in his Exercit. philosoph. fasc. non. p. 104.) SEE SICARII.

11. Son of Simon (Joh 6:71; Joh 13:2,26), surnamed (always in the other Gospels) ISCARIOT, to distinguish him from the other apostle of the same name. SEE JUDE. In addition to this epithet the Evangelists usually distinguish him by some allusion to his treachery toward his Master.

I. Signification of the Surname. — The epithet Iscariot (Ι᾿σκαριώτης) has received many interpretations more or less conjectural.

(1) From Kerioth (Jos 15:25), in the tribe of Judah, the Heb. אַישׁ קרַיּוֹת, Ish-Kerioth', passing into Ι᾿σκαριώτης in the same way as אַישׁ טוֹב— Ish-Tob, "a man of Tob" — appears in Josephus (Ant. 7, 6, 1) as ῎Ιστωβος. In connection with this explanation may be noticed the reading of some MSS. in Joh 6:71, ἀπὸ Καριώτου, and that received by Lachmann and Tischendorf, which makes the name Iscariot belong to. Simon, and not, as elsewhere, to Judas only. On this hypothesis, his position among the Twelve, the rest of whom belonged to Galilee (Ac 2:7), would be exceptional; and this is perhaps an additional reason why this locality is noted. This is the most common and probable opinion. SEE KERIOTH.

(2) From Kartha (A.V. "Kartan," Jos 21:32), in Galilee (so Ewald, Gesch. Israels, 5, 321).

(3) As equivalent to Issacharite, or Ι᾿σαχαριώτης (Grotius on Mt 10:4; Hermann, Miscell. Groning. 3, 598).

(4) From the date trees (καριωτίδες) in the neighborhood of Jerusalem or Jericho (Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabbin. 3, 10; Gill, Comm. on Matthew 10, 4).

(5) From אסקוֹרטיא (=scortea, Gill, 1.c.), a leathern apron, the name being applied to him as the bearer of the bag, and = "Judas with the apron" (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matt. 10:4).

(6) From אסכרא, ascara = strangling (angina), as given after his death, and commemorating it (Lightfoot, 1. c.), or indicating that he had been subject to a disease tending to suffocation previously (Heinsius, in Suicer, Thes. s.v. Ι᾿ούδας). This is mentioned also as a meaning of the name by Origen, Tract. in Matt. 35.

II. Personal Notices. — Of the life of Judas, before the appearance of his name in the lists of the apostles. We know absolutely nothing. It must be left to the sad vision of a poet (Keble, Lyra Innocentium, 2, 13) or the fantastic fables of an apocryphal Gospel (Thilo, Cod. Apoc. N.T., Evang. Infant. c. 35) to portray the infancy and youth of the traitor. His call as an apostle implies, however, that he had previously declared himself a disciple. He was drawn, as the others were, by the preaching of the Baptist, or his own Messianic hopes, or the "gracious words" of the new teacher, to leave his former life, and to obey the call of the Prophet of Nazareth. What baser and more selfish motives may have mingled even then with his faith and zeal we can only judge by reasoning backwards from the sequel. Gifts of some kind there must have been, rendering the choice of such a man not strange to others, not unfit in itself, and the function which he exercised afterwards among the Twelve may indicate what they were. The position of his name, uniformly the last in the lists of the apostles in the Synoptic Gospels, is due, it may be imagined, to the infamy which afterwards rested on his name, but, prior to that guilt, it would seem that he externally differed in no marked particular from the other apostles, and he doubtless exercised the same mission of preaching and miracles as the rest (Mt 10:4; Mt 26:14-47; Mr 3:19; Mr 14:10,43; Lu 6:16; Lu 22:3,47-48; Joh 6:71; Joh 12:4; Joh 13:2,26; Joh 14:22; Joh 18:2-3). A.D. 27.

The germs (see Stier's Words of Jesus, at the passages where Judas is mentioned) of the evil, in all likelihood, unfolded themselves gradually. The rules to which the Twelve were subject in their first journey (Mt 10:9-10) sheltered him from the temptation that would have been most dangerous to him. The new form of life, of which we find the traces in Lu 8:3, brought that temptation with it. As soon as the Twelve were recognized as a body, traveling hither and thither with their Master, receiving money and other offerings, and redistributing what they received to the poor, it became necessary that some one should act as the steward and almoner of the small society, and this fell to Judas (Joh 12:6; Joh 13:29), either as having the gifts that qualified him for it, or, as we may conjecture, from his character, because he sought it, or, as some have imagined, in rotation from time to time. The Galilaean or Judaean peasant (we have no reason for thinking that his station differed from that of the other apostles) found himself intrusted with larger sums of money than before (the three hundred denarii of Joh 12:5 are spoken of as a sum which he might reasonably have expected), and with this there came covetousness, unfaithfulness, embezzlement. It was impossible after this that he could feel at ease with one who asserted so clearly and sharply the laws of faithfulness, duty, unselfishness; and the words of Jesus, "Have I not chosen you Twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (Joh 6:70) indicate that even then, though the greed of immediate or the hope of larger gain kept him from "going back," as others did (Joh 6:66), hatred was taking the place of love, and leading him on to a fiendish malignity. The scene at Bethany (Joh 12:1-9; Mt 26:6-13; Mr 14:3-9) showed how deeply the canker had eaten into his soul. The warm out pouring of love calls forth no sympathy. He utters himself, and suggests to others, the complaint that it is a waste. Under the plea of caring for the poor he covers his own miserable theft.

The narrative of Mt 16; Mr 14, places this history in close connection (apparently in order of time) with the fact of the betrayal. During the days that intervened between the supper at Bethany and the paschal or quasi-paschal gathering, he appeared to have concealed his treachery. He went with the other disciples to and fro from Bethany to Jerusalem, and looked on the acted parable of the barren and condemned tree (Mr 11:20-24), and shared the vigils in Gethsemane (Joh 18:2). At the beginning of the Last Supper he is present, looking forward to the consummation of his guilt as drawing nearer every hour. All is at first as if he were still faithful. He is admitted to the feast. His feet are washed, and for him there are the fearful words, "Ye are clean, but not all." At some point during the meal (see below) come the sorrowful words which showed him that his design was known. "One of you shall betray me." Others ask, in their sorrow and confusion, "Is it I?" He, too, must ask the same question, lest he should seem guilty (Mt 26:25). He alone hears the answer. John only, and through him Peter, and the traitor himself, understand the meaning of the act which pointed out that he was the guilty one (Joh 13:26). After this there comes on him that paroxysm and insanity of guilt as of one whose human soul was possessed by the Spirit of Evil — "Satan entered into him" (Joh 13:27). The words, "What thou doest, do quickly," come as a spur to drive him on. The other disciples see in them only a command which they interpret as connected with the work he had hitherto undertaken. Then he completes the sin from which even those words might have drawn him back. He knows that garden in which his Master and his companions had so often rested after the weary work of the day. He comes accompanied by a band of officers and servants (Joh 18:3), with the kiss which was probably the usual salutation of the disciples. The words of Jesus, calm and gentle as they were, showed that this was what embittered the treachery, and made the suffering it inflicted more acute (Lu 22:48).

What followed in the confusion of that night the Gospels do not record. Not many students of the N.T. will follow Heumann and archbishop Whately (Essays on Dangers) in the hypothesis that Judas was "the other disciple" that was known to the high priest, and brought Peter in (comp. Meyer on Joh 18:15). It is probable enough, indeed, that he who had gone out with the high priest's officers should return with them to wait the issue of the trial. Then, when it was over, came the reaction. The fever of the crime passed away. There came back on him the recollection of the sinless righteousness of the Master he had wronged (Mt 27:3). He feels a keen remorse, and the gold that had tempted him to it becomes hateful. He will get rid of the accursed thing, will transfer it back again to those who with it had lured him on to destruction. They mock and sneer at the tool whom they have used, and then there comes over him the horror of great darkness that precedes self murder. He has owned his sin with "an exceeding bitter cry." but he dares not turn, with any hope of pardon, to the Master whom he has betrayed. He hurls the money, which the priests refused to take, into the sanctuary (ναός) where they were assembled. For him there is no longer sacrifice or propitiation. He is "the son of perdition" (Joh 17:12). "He departed, and went and hanged himself" (Mt 27:5). He went "unto his own place" (Ac 1:25). A.D. 29. See below.

With the exception of the stories already mentioned, there are but few traditions that gather round the name of Judas. It appears, however, in a strange, hardly intelligible way in the history of the wilder heresies of the 2d century. The sect of Cainites, consistent in their inversion of all that Christians in general believed, was reported to have honored him as the only apostle that was in possession of the true gnosis, to have made him the object of their worship, and to have had a gospel bearing his name (comp. Neander. Church Hist. 2, 153; Irenaeus, adv. Hoer. 1, 35; Tertullian, De Proesc. c. 47). For the apocryphal gospel (Epiphanius, Hoer. 38, 1), see Fabricius, Codex Apocr. 1, 352. See GOSPELS, SPURIOUS.

III. Our Lord's Object in his Selection as an Apostle. — The choice was not made, we must remember, without a prevision of its issue. "Jesus knew from the beginning... who should betray him" (Joh 6:64); and the distinctness with which that evangelist records the successive stages of the guilt of Judas, and his Master's discernment of it (Joh 12:4; Joh 13:2,27), leaves with us the impression that he, too, shrank instinctively (Benel describes it as "singularis antipathia," Gnomon N. Test. on Joh 6:64) from a nature so opposite to his own. We can hardly expect fully to solve the question why such a man was chosen for such an office, nor is it our province to sound all the depths of the divine purposes, yet we may, without presumption, raise an inquiry on this subject.

(1.) Some, on the ground of God's absolute foreknowledge, content themselves with saying, with Calvin, that the judgments of God are as a great deep, and with Ullmann (Sundlosig. Jesu, p. 97), that Judas was chosen in order that the divine purpose might be accomplished through him. SEE PREDESTINATION.

(2.) Others, less dogmatic in their views, believe, with Neander (Leben Jesu, § 77), that there was a discernment of the latent germs of evil, such as belonged to the Son of Man, in his insight into the hearts of men (Joh 2:25; Mt 9:4; Mr 12:15), yet not such as to exclude emotions of sudden sorrow or anger (Mr 3:5), or astonishment (Mr 6:6; Lu 7:9), admitting the thought "with men this is impossible, but not with God." Did he, in the depth of that insight, and in the fullness of his compassion, seek to overcome the evil which, if not conquered, would be so fatal? It gives, at any rate, a new meaning and force to many parts of our Lord's teaching to remember that they must have been spoken in the hearing of Judas, and may have been designed to make him conscious of his danger. The warnings as to the impossibility of a service divided between God and mammon (Mt 6:19-34), and the destructive power, of the "cares of this world," and the "deceitfulness of riches" (Mt 12:22-23), the pointed words that spoke of the guilt of unfaithfulness in the "unrighteous mammon" (Lu 16:11), the proverb of the camel passing through the needle's eye (Mr 10:25), must have fallen on his heart as meant specially for him. He was among those who asked the question, Who, then, can be saved? (Mr 10:26). Of him, too, we may say that, when he sinned, he was "kicking against the pricks," letting slip his "calling and election," frustrating the purpose of his Master in giving him so high a work, and educating him for it (compare Chrysostom, Hon. on Matt. 26, 27, John 6).

(3.) But to most persons these will appear to be arbitrary or recondite arguments. Important reasons of a more practical kind, we may be sure, were not wanting for the procedure, and they are not very far to seek. The presence of such a false friend in the company of his immediate disciples was needed, first of all, to complete the circle of Christ's trials and temptations. He could not otherwise have known by personal experience some of the sharpest wounds inflicted by human perverseness and ingratitude, nor exhibited his superiority to the evil of the world in its most offensive forms. But for the deceit and treachery of Judas he would not have been in all things tempted like his brethren. Then thus only could the things undergone by his great prototype David find their proper counterpart. in him who was to enter into David's heritage, and raise from the dust David's throne. Of the things written in the Psalms concerning him — written there as derived from the depths of David's sore experience and sharp conflict with evil, but destined to meet again in a still greater than he — few have more affecting prominence given to them than those which relate to the hardened wickedness, base treachery, and reprobate condition of a false friend, whose words were smooth as butter, but whose actions were drawn swords, who ate of his meat, but lifted up the heel against him (comp. Ps 41:9, with Joh 13:18; and SEE AHITOPHEL ). Other prophecies also, especially two in Zechariah (Zec 10:12,12; Zec 13:6), waited for their accomplishment on such a course of ingratitude and treachery as that pursued by Judas. Further, the relation in which this false but ungenial and sharp sighted disciple stood to the rectitude of Jesus afforded an important reason for his presence and agency. It was well that those who stood at a greater distance from the Savior failed to discover any fault in him; that none of them, when the hour of trial came, could convict him of sin, though the most watchful inspection had been exercised, and the most anxious efforts had been made to enable them to do so. But it was much more that even this bosom friend, who had been privy to all his counsels, and had seen him in his most unguarded moments, was equally incapable of finding any evil in him; he could betray Jesus to his enemies, but he could furnish these enemies with no proof of his criminality; nay, with the bitterness of death in his soul, he went back to testify to them that, in delivering up Jesus, he had betrayed innocent blood. What more conclusive evidence could the world have had that our Lord was indeed without spot and blameless? Finally, the appearance of such a person as Judas among the immediate attendants of Jesus was needed as an example of the strength of human depravity — how it can lurk under the most sacred professions, subsist in the holiest company, live and grow amid the clearest light, the most solemn warnings, the tenderest entreaties, and the divinest works. The instruction afforded by the incarnation and public ministry of the Son of God would not have been complete without such a memorable exhibition by its side of the darker aspects of human nature; the Church should have wanted a portion of the materials required for her future warning and admonition; and on this account also there was a valid reason for the calling of one who could act the shameful part of Judas Iscariot.

IV. Motives of Judas in the Betrayal of his Master. — The Scripture account leaves these to conjecture (comp. Neander, Leben Jesu, § 264). The mere love of money may have been strong enough to make him clutch at the bribe offered him. He came, it may be, expecting more (Mt 27:15); he will take that. He has lost the chance of dealing with the three hundred denarii; it will be something to get the thirty shekels as his own. It may have been that he felt that his Master saw through his hidden guilt, and that he hastened on a crisis to avoid the shame of open detection. Mingled with this there may have been some feeling of vindictiveness, a vague, confused desire to show that he had power to stop the career of the teacher who had reproved him. Had the words that spoke of "the burial" of Jesus, and the lukewarmness of the people, and the conspiracies of the priests, led him at last to see that the Messianic kingdom was not as the kingdoms of this world, and that his dream of power and wealth to be enjoyed in it was a delusion? (Ewald, Gesch. Israels, 5, 441-446). There may have been the thought that, after all, the betrayal could do no harm, that his Master would prove his innocence, or by some supernatural manifestation effect his escape (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 886; and Whitby on Mt 27:4). Another motive has been suggested (compare Neander, Leben Jesu, l.c.; and Whately, Essays on Dangers to Christian Faith, discourse 3) of an entirely different kind, altering altogether the character of the act. Not the love of money, nor revenge, nor fear, nor disappointment, but policy, a subtle plan to force on the hour of the triumph of the Messianic kingdom, the belief that for this service he would receive as high a place as Peter or James, or John — this it was that made him the traitor. If he could place his Master in a position from which retreat would be impossible, where he would be compelled to throw himself on the people, and be raised by them to the throne of his father David, then he might look forward to being foremost and highest in that kingdom, with all his desires for wealth and power gratified to the full. Ingenious as this hypothesis is, it fails for that very reason. It attributes to the groveling peasant a subtlety in forecasting political combinations, and planning stratagems accordingly, which is hardly compatible with his character and learning, hardly consistent either with the pettiness of the faults into which he had hitherto fallen. It is characteristic of the wide, far reaching sympathy of Origen: that he suggests another motive for the suicide of Judas. Despairing of pardon in this life, he would rush on into the world of the dead, and there (γυμνῇ τ᾿ ψυχῇ) meet his Lord and confess his guilt, and ask for pardon (Tract. in Matt. 35; comp. also Theophanes, Hom. 27, in Suicer. Thes. s.v. Ι᾿ούδας). Of the other motives that have been assigned we need not care to fix on any one as that which singly led him on. Crime is, for the most part, the result of a hundred motives rushing with bewildering fury through the mind of the criminal.

V. The question has often been agitated whether Judas was present at the first celebration of the Lord's supper, or left the assembly before the institution actually took place; but with no very decisive result. The conclusion reached on either side has very commonly been determined by doctrinal prepossessions rather than by exegetical principles. The general consensus of patristic commentators gives an affirmative to the question of his partaking of the commemorative meal, that of modern critics a negative answer (comp. Meyer, Comm. on John 13:36). Of the three synoptic evangelists, Matthew and Mark represent the charge of an intention to betray on the part of Judas as being brought against him between the paschal feast and the supper, while Luke does not mention it till both feasts were finished; yet none of them say precisely when he left the chamber. From this surely it may be inferred that nothing very material depended on the circumstance. If Judas did leave before the commencement of the supper, it was plainly not because he was formally excluded, but because he felt it to be morally impossible to continue any longer in such company. As, however, it seems certain, from Joh 13:30, that he left the moment Jesus brought home the charge to him, and gave him the son, and as it is next to certain that the feast then proceeding was not that of the supper, the probabilities of the case must be held to be on the side of his previous withdrawal. The requisitions of time, too, favor the same view; since, if Judas did not leave till so late as the close of both feasts, it is scarcely possible to conceive how he should have had time to arrange with the chief priests for proceeding with the arrest of Jesus that very night. The matter in this shape came alike on him and on them by surprise; fresh consultations, therefore, required to be held, fresh measures to be adopted; and these necessarily demanded time, to the extent at least of some hours.

VI. Alleged Discrepancy as to the Mode of Judas' Suicide. — We have in Acts 1 another account than the above of the circumstances of his death, which some have thought it difficult to harmonize with that given by Matthew. There, in words which may have been spoken by Peter (Meyer, following the general consensus of interpreters), or may have been a parenthetical notice inserted by Luke (Calvin, Olshausen, and others), it is stated,

(1) That, instead of throwing the money into the Temple, he bought (ἐκτήσατο) a field with it. As to this point, it has been said that there is a kind of irony in Peter's words, "This was all he got." A better explanation is, that what was bought with his money is spoken of as bought by him (Meyer, ad loc.).

(2) That, instead of hanging himself, "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." On this we have two methods of reconciliation:

(a) That ἀπήγξατο, in Mt 27:5, includes death by some sudden spasm of suffocation (angina pectoris?), such as might be caused by the overpowering misery of his remorse, and that then came the fall described in the Acts (Suicer, Thes. s.v. ἀπάγχω; Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot, and others). By some this has even been connected with the name Iscariot, as implying a constitutional tendency to this disease (Gill).

(b) That the work of suicide was but half accomplished, and that, the halter breaking, he fell (from a fig tree, in one tradition) across the road, and was mangled and crushed by the carts and wagons that passed over him. This explanation appears, with strange and horrible exaggerations, in the narrative of Papias, quoted by OEcumenius on Acts 1, and in Theophylact. on Matthew 27. It is, however, but a reasonable supposition that (Judas being perhaps a corpulent man), the rope breaking or slipping, he fell (probably from some elevated place, see Hackett, Illustra. of Script. p. 266) with such violence that his abdomen burst with the fall.

(3) That for this reason, and not because the priests had bought it with the price of blood, the field was called Aceldama. But it may readily be supposed that the potter's field which the priests had bought was the same as that in which the traitor met so terrible a death. SEE ACELDAMA.

VII. On the question of Judas's final salvation, it is difficult to see how any dispute could well arise in view of his self murder (comp. 1Jo 3:15). But aside from this, two statements seem to mark his fate in the other world as distinctly a reprobate one.

(1.) His unmitigated remorse, as expressed in Mt 27:5. This passage has often been appealed to as illustrating the difference between μεταμελεία and μετανοία. It is questionable, however, how far the N. Test. writers recognize that distinction (compare Grotius, ad loc.). Still more questionable is the notion that Matthew describes his disappointment at a result so different from that which he had reckoned on. Yet this is nevertheless clearly an instance of "the sorrow of the world that worketh death" (2Co 7:10). SEE REPENTANCE.

(2.) His "going to his own place" (Ac 1:25), where the words ἴδιος τόπος convey to our minds, probably were meant to convey to those who heard them the impression of some dark region in Gehenna. Lightfoot and Gill (ad loc.) quote passages from Rabbinical writers who find that meaning in the phrase, even in Ge 31:55, and Nu 24:25. On the other hand, it should be remembered that many interpreters reject that explanation (compare Meyer, ad loc.), and that one great Anglican divine (Hammond, Comment. on N. Test. ad loc.) enters a distinct protest against it. Similarly Dr. Clarke (Commentary, ad loc.) argues against the whole of our conclusions respecting the violent death of Judas; but his reasoning, as well as that of the other critics named, is far from satisfactory.

VIII. Literature. — Special treatises on the character of Judas are the following: Zandt, Comment. de Juda proditore (Lips. 1769); Rau, Anmerk. üb. d. Charakter des. Judas (Lemgo, 1778); Schmidt, Apologie d. Judas, in his Exeget. Beitr. 1, 18; 2, 342; Lechtlen, De culpa Judoe (Argent. 1813); Daub, Judas Ischarioth (Heidelb. 1816); Schollmeyer, Jesus und Judas (Lüneb. 1836); Augusti, Theol. Bibl. 1, 497, 520; Ferenczy, De consilio proditionis Judae (Utr. 1829); Gerling, De Juda sacroe coenoe conviva (Hal. 1744); Hebenstreit, De Juda Iscar. (Viteb. 1712); Philipp, Ueb. d. Verräther Judas (Naumb. 1754); Rütz, D. Verrätherei d. Judas (Haag, 1789); Jour. Sac. Lit. July, 1863. On his death, see Casaubon, Exerc. antibar. 16, p. 527; Alberti, Observat. p. 222; Paulus, Comment. 3, 506; Barbatii Dissert. novissima Judoe Iscar. fata (Regiom. 1665); Götze, De suspendio Judoe (Jen. 1661); Riser, De morte Judoe (Viteb. 1668); Neunhöfer, De Juda lapsu extincto (Chemn. 1740); Oldendorp, De Juda in templo occiso (Hannov. 1754). For other monographs, see Volbeding, Index, p. 32, 54; Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 191. SEE JESUS CHRIST.

12. A Jew residing at Damascus in the Straight street at the time of Paul's conversion, to whose house Ananias was sent (Ac 11:11). A.D. 30. "The 'Straight Street' may with little question be identified with the 'Street of Bazaars,' a long, wide thoroughfare, penetrating from the southern gate into the heart of the city, which, as in all the Syro-Greek and Syro-Roman towns, it intersects in a straight line. The so called 'House of Judas' is still shown in an open space called 'the Sheykh's Place,' a few steps out of the 'Street of Bazaars:' it contains a square room with a stone floor, partly walled off for a tomb, shown to Maundrell (Early Trav. Bohn, p. 494) as the 'tomb of Ananias.' The house is an object of religious respect to Mussulmans as well as Christians (Stanley, Syr. and Pal. p. 412; Conybeare and Howson, 1, 102; Pococke, 2, 119)." SEE DAMASCUS.

13. Surnamed BARSABAS, a Christian teacher sent from Jerusalem to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas (Ac 15:22,27,32). A.D. 47. He is supposed by some (see Grotius, Wolf, ad loc.) to have been one of the seventy disciples, and brother of Joseph, also surnamed Barsabas (son of Sabas), who was proposed, with Matthias, to fill up the place of the traitor Judas (Ac 1:23); but others (Augusti, Uebers. d. Kathol. Br. 2, 86) identify him with Judas Thaddeus (but see Bertholdt, 5, 2681). Schott supposes that Barsabas means the son of Sabas, or Zabas, which he fancifully regards as an abridged form for Zebedee, and concludes that the Judas here mentioned was a brother of the elder James and of John. Judas and Silas are mentioned together (in the above deputation of the Church to determine the obligation of the Mosaic law) as "prophets" and "chief men among the brethren" at the metropolis, "perhaps a member of the Presbytery" (Neander, P. and Tr. 1, 123). After employing their prophetical gifts for the confirmation of the Syrian Christians in the faith, Judas went back to Jerusalem, while Silas either remained at Antioch (for the reading Ac 15:34 is uncertain; and while some MSS., followed by the Vulgate, add μόνος Ι᾿ούδαςδὲ ἐπορεύθη, the best omit the verse altogether) or speedily returned thither. SEE PAUL.

14. Son of one Jairus, and leader of a company of Jews during the final siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, from which he escaped by an underground passage; he was afterwards slain while leading the defense of the castle of Machaerus against the Roman troops (Josephus, War, 7, 6, 5).