James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 211 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 211 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

depart. Judas returned to Jerusalem, while Silas
remained and became the companion of St. Paul
on his second missionary journey. The contention
of some critics that Silas returned to Jerusalem
with Judas and that v. 34 is spurious, is met by the
view of Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 174 f.), who holds
that v. 83 simply means that freedom was given
to the two deputies to depart, and that v. 34 was
omitted by a copyist who misunderstood v. 88 (cf.
Zahn, Einleitung, i. 148).

Beyond these facts nothing certain is known 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 I 23 ), as Barsabbas is a patronymic son
of Sabbas. If this be so, Judas had in all proba-
bility, like Joseph, ^)een 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 16 RV),
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 1 ), and this
James must either have been the son of Joseph the
husband of the Virgin or the son of Alphseus (see
art. JUDE) in any case, not the son of Sabbas.

LITERATURE. R. J. Knowlingr, 'Acts,' in EGT, 1900, p.
826 ; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman
Citizen, 1895, p. 174 f. ; T. Zahn, Einleitung in das A'T3, 1906-
07, L 148 ; artt. iaHDB and EBi. W. F. BOYD.

JUDAS (of Damascus). In Ac 9 11 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 GALILJEAN. Judas the Galilsean,
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, Schurer, 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. xvni. i. 1 that Judas
was born in Gamala in Gaulonitis, but in BJ II.
viii. 1 and elsewhere he calls him a Galilsean (so
too Ac 5 37 ). This discrepancy may be due to a
confusion of a Galilsean 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

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 ia
charged by Josephus (Ant. XVII. x. 5, BJ II. iv. 1)
with seeking to make himself king. This accusa-
tion, however, like the description of his followers
(' of profligate character ') by Josephus, is probably
to be charged to the bias of the historian. For,
when Quirinius undertook to make a census of
Judaea (see DCG i. 275 a ), Judas allied himself with
a Pharisee named Zadok and raised the signal for a
theocratic or Messianic revolt, calling upon the
Jews 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 improbable 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 ' [BJ 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 (Ant. xvni. 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 37 he is said to have ' perished. '
From the fact that he is here mentioned after
Theudas (q.v. ), it has been conjectured that Luke
has confused his fate Avith 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.

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.

JUDAS ISCARIOT. The only biblical reference
to Judas Iscariot by name outside the Gospels is
Ac I 18 ' 20 - 28 , and there he is called neither ' Iscariot '
nor 'the traitor' (Trpod6rt]s, as in Lk 6 16 ), nor is his
action spoken of by the term irapaSi56vai. He is
described in v. 17 as the one who 'became guide
(oSriyfa) to them that arrested Jesus,' and in v. 20 as
having ' fallen away (irap4/37i) 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 18 St. Peter attributes it
virtually to the Israelites themselves (6v fytets irap-
eduKare KT\. ; cf. 2 23 ), and so again (2) in 7 52 does St.
Stephen (TOV diKalov 06 vvv fytets irpoddrai /cot <povfis
tytveaOe). (3) In Ro 4P St. Paul, quoting Is 53"
(LXX), says less definitely that Jesus our Lord




ira.peS66ri dia TO. -irapairrdj^Ta. TIH&V ; (4) but in 1 Co II 23
the very act and time of betrayal are alluded to in
connexion with the institution of the Last Supper
(ti> TV) v\iK-rl $ irapeSlSero KT\.). On the other hand,
St. Paul three times describes the betrayal from
the point of view of our Lord's own voluntary sub-
mission, viz. (5) Gal 2 20 : TrapaSii/roj eavrbv virtp tftov ;
(6)Eph5 2 : ir.a.p&wKfVfavTbvvwtpiifi.Giv', (7) v. Zb :iavr6v
ev virtp tKK\r)<rias (cf . 1 P 2 23 : irapedtSov T$

SiKatws, and see Jn 10 17 - 18 17 19 etc.) ; and
once (8) even of the Father Himself (inrtp THJ.&V
iravrtav irap^duicev avrbv, Ro 8 32 ).

As to Judas's grievous end itself, as recorded in
the Acts, it is not necessary here to compare it in
detail with the account given in Mt 27 3ff - ; 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 4 1 9 , so recently quoted by our Lord Himself
(Jn 13 18 ), together with its necessary consequences
as foreshadowed in two other Psalms (69 25 and
109 8 ) : that is, if v. 20 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 vv. 18 - 19 . 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 41 9 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 25 the text is more
exact, but the original figure employed (rj Hirav\is
airruv, not afirov) suggests a nomad encampment of
tents rendered desolate because of the cruel persecu-
tions which their occupants had practised, while
Ps 109 8 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. 18 - 19 , with or without v. 20 (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 3ff -), but to a
less extent, we are inclined to think, than is some-
times hela. 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, fatit per se), which St. Matthew

the chief priest, whilst the horribly graphic de-
scription of his suicide is little more than a
conventional way of representing St. Matthew's
simple direXO&v &-n-trt%a.TO.

(c) For the title Akeldama and its interpretation
see separate article, s.v.

It remains to remark that St. Peter's expression,
as recorded in his address, and the apostolic prayer
of ordination, for which he was probably responsible
and the mouthpiece, breathe much more of the
spirit of primitive Christianity in their restrained
and chastened style than the more outspoken and

** Copyright, 1916, by Charles Scribner's Sons.

almost vindictive statements of yv. 18 - 19 , so that
one would not be altogether surprised to find that
the latter are, as has been suggested, a less genuine
tradition of a later age. C. L. FELTOE.

JUDE, THE LORD'S BROTHER. The list of the

Lord's brothers is given in Mk 6 3 as 'James, and Joses,
and Judas [AV 'Juda'], and Simon,' in Mt 13 55 as
'James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas.' It would
be precarious, even apart from the variation in order,
to infer that Judas was one of the younger brothers
of Jesus; still, this is not improbable, especially
if, as the present writer believes, 'the brethren of
the Lord' were sons of Joseph and Mary. We
know practically nothing of his history. If the
statement in Jn 7 5 can be trusted, that at that time
the brethren of Jesus did not believe in Him, he
cannot be identified with ' Judas, the son of James,'
who is mentioned in Luke's list of the apostles
(Lk 6 16 , Ac I 13 ), and described in Jn 14 22 as 'Judas
(not Iscariot).' We may assume from Ac I 14 that
in the interval between the incident recorded in
Jn 7 3 " 10 and the Ascension, Jude and his brothers
had recognized the Messiahship of Jesus. We
gather from 1 Co 9 5 that 'the brethren of the
Lord' were married to Christian wives, by whom
they were accompanied on missionary journeys.
Presumably these references included Jude. lie
seems to have taken no very prominent position in
the Church, being overshadowed, like Joses and
Simon, by James. The date of his death is un-
certain, but the evidence of Hegesippus, quoted in
Euseb. HE iii. xx., suggests that he died before
Domitian came to the throne. Eusebius informs
us that the grandchildren of Jude were brought
before Domitian, as descendants of David, but
released when the Emperor discovered that they
were horny-handed husbandmen, who were ex-
pecting a heavenly kingdom at Christ's Second
Coming. They survived till the reign of Trajan.
The last statement suggests that a considerable
interval elapsed between the interview with the
Emperor and their death ; and, inasmuch as the
reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) was separated from
that of Trajan (A.D. 98-117) only by Nerva's short
reign of two years (A.D. 96-98), we should probably
place the interview quite early in Domitian's reign.
Since not Jude alone but presumably the father of
these grandsons was apparently dead at the time,
it is hardly likely that the death of Jude occurred
at a later date than the decade A.D. 70-80, when
h,e would be well advanced in years. This has
an important though not decisive bearing on the
question whether the Epistle of Jude is rightly
assigned to him (see following article).


** JUDE, EPISTLE OF. 1. Relation to 2 Peter.
The striking coincidences between this Epistle and
the Second Epistle of Peter, covering the greater
part of the shorter -writing, raise in an acute form
the question of relative priority. It is best, how-
ever, to investigate each Epistle independently
before approaching the problem of their mutual
relations. Since, however, the present writer, in
spite of the attempts made by Spitta, Zahn, and
Bigg to prove the dependence of Jude on 2 Peter,
is convinced, with the great majority of critics,
that 2 Peter is based on Jude, the discussion of
this question is not raised in this article but
postponed to that on PETER, EPISTLES OF.

2. Contents. The writer of the Epistle seems to
have been diverted from the project of a more ex-
tensive composition by the urgent necessity of
exhorting his readers ' to contend earnestly for the
faith which was once for all delivered unto the
saints ' (v. 8 ). Whether he had made any progress
with his work on ' our common salvation,' or, if so,
whether he subsequently completed his interrupted




enterprise, we do not know. In any case, we

Eossess no other work from his hand than this
rief Epistle. The urgency of the crisis completely
absorbs him. His letter is wholly occupied with
the false teachers and their propaganda, which is
imperilling the soundness of doctrine, the purity
of morals, and the sanctities of religion. He does
not refute them ; he denounces and threatens them.
Hot indignation at their corruption of the true
doctrine and loathing for the vileness of their per-
verted morals inspire his fierce invective. The
situation did not seem to him appropriate for
academic discussion; the unsophisticated moral
instinct was enough to guide all who possessed it
to a right j udgment of such abominations. History
shows us their predecessors, and from the fate
which overtook them the doom of these reprobates
of the last time can be plainly foreseen (w. 5 " 7 ' 11 ).
Indeed, it had been announced by Enoch, who in
that far-off age had prophesied directly of the
Divine judgment that would overtake them (v. 14f ).

But, while nothing is wanting to the vehemence
of attack, we can form only a very vague im-
pression as to the tenets of the false teachers.
The writer assumes that his readers are familiar
with their doctrines, and his method doea not
require any exposition of their errors such as would
have been involved in any attempt to refute them.
It is, accordingly, not strange that very divergent
views have been held as to their identity. Our
earliest suggestion on this point comes from
Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii. 2), who taught
that Jude was describing prophetically the Gnostic
sect known as the Carpocratians. Grotius (Prcep.
in Ep. Judce) also thought that this sect was the
object of the writer's denunciation; but, since
he held that Jude was attacking contemporary
heretics, he assigned the Epistle to Jude the last
Bishop of Jerusalem ? in the reign of Hadrian.
This^ view has found little, if any, acceptance ; but
the identification of the^ false teachers with the
Carpocratians has been widely accepted by modern
scholars. There are certainly striking points of

Carpocrates, who lived at Alexandria in the first
half of the 2nd cent, (perhaps about A.D. 130-150),
taught that the world was made by angels who
had revolted from God. The soul of Jesus through
its superior vigour remembered what it had seen
when with God. He was, however, an ordinary
man, but endowed with powers which enabled Him
to outwit the world-angels. Similarly, any soul
which could despise them would triumph over them
and thus become the equal of Jesus. Great stress
was laid on magic as a means of salvation. The
immorality of the sect rivalled that of the Cainites.
It_ was defended by a curious doctrine of trans-
migration, according to which it was necessary for
the soul to go through various human bodies till it
completed the circle of human experience ; but if
all of this including, of course, the full range of
immoral conduct could be crowded into one lif e-
time, the necessity for such transmigration was

The language of the Epistle would quite well
suit the Carpocratians, especially in its reference to
the combination of error in teaching with lasciyi-
ousness in conduct. The railing at dignitaries
with which the writer charges the false teachers
(v. 8 ) would answer very well to the attitude of
Carpocrates towards the angels. But we should
probably rej ect any identification so definite. The
characteristics mentioned by Jude were the mono-
poly of no sect. The indications point to teaching
of a much less developed type. It ia not even
certain that it was Gnostic in character, though
the signs point strongly in that direction. The
Gnostics were wont to describe themselves as

'spiritual,' and the ordinary members of the Church
as ' psychics.' If the false teachers were Gnostics,
we understand why Jude should retort upon them
the accusation that they were 'sensual' (lit.
'psychics'), 'not having the Spirit' (v. 19 ). They
blaspheme that of which they are ignorant. The
charge that they deny the only Master (v. 4 ) may
be an allusion to the dualism of the Gnostics, which
drew a distinction between the supreme God and
the Creator. They are dreamers (v. 8 ), i.e. false
prophets, who speak swelling words (v. 16 ). The
statement that they have gone in the way of Cain
(v. 11 ) reminds us very forcibly of the Ophite sect
known as the Cainites (q.v.). But, while all these
indications point to some rudimentary form of
Gnosticism, it cannot be said that they definitely
demand such a reference. Not only are they very
vague and general; they could be accounted for
without recourse to Gnosticism at all. The problem
in some respects hangs together with that presented
by other descriptions of false teaching which we
find in the NT, especially in the Epistle to the
Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, the Letters to
the Seven Churches, and the Epistles of John
(?..). In the judgment of the present writer, the
identification with a Gnostic tendency seems on the
whole to be probable, but by no means so secure aa
to determine without more ado the question of date.

3. Date and authorship. The determination of
the date is closely connected with the problem of
authorship. There can be no reasonable doubt
that the clause 'the brother of James' (v. 1 ) is
meant to identify the author aa Jude^the Lord's
brother. If the conclusions reached in the pre-
ceding article are correct, this Jude was probably
dead at the latest by A.D. 80. The question
whether the Epistle can have been written so early
is not easy to decide. The author not only dis-
tinguishes himself from the apostles, which the
Lord's brother would naturally have done, but he
looks back on their age as one which has already
passed away (v. 17 ), and is conscious that he is living
in ' the last time,' when their prophecy of the
coming of 'mockers' ia being fulfilled (v. 18 ). The
language has a striking parallel in 1 Jn 2 18 , and it
would be easier to understand in the closing decade
of the 1st cent, than twenty years earlier. Such
phrases as 'the faith which was once for all
delivered unto the saints' (v. 3 ), or 'your most holy
faith' (v. 20 ), are also more easily intelligible when
the fluid theology of the primitive age was harden-
ing into a definite creed. The external evidence
can be reconciled with either view._ It is true that
the earliest attestation of the Epistle is late. If
the usual view ia correct, Jude was employed by
the author of 2 Peter ; but, since that work itself
belongs in all probability to a date well on in the
2nd cent., its ^evidence is of little value on thia
point. Jude is reckoned as canonical in the
Muratorian Canon ; it is quoted by Tertullian (de
Cultu Fern. i. 3), Clement of Alexandria (Peed. iii.
8. 44, Strom, iii. 2), and Origen (in Motth. x. 17,
xv. 27, xvii.30) ; not, however, by Irenseus. Eusebiua
(HE iii. 25. 31 ; cf. ii. 23. 25) regards it as one of
the disputed books, and Jerome (de Vir. illustr. iv.)
tells us that in his time it was rejected^ by many.
But the lateness of any quotation of it and the
suspicion entertained of it are of little moment.
Its brevity would sufficiently account for the silence
of earlier writers ;^ the fact that it was not written
by an apostle, or ita reference (w. 9 - 14f -) to Jewish
Apocalypses (The Assumption of Moses and The
Book of Enoch}, would explain its rejection by
those to whom Eusebius and Jerome refer. These
objections simply rest on a theoretical assumption
of what a canonical work ought to be; no his-
torical evidence lies behind them. _

The opening worda of the Epistle, 'Judas, a



servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,'
constitute a weighty argument in favour of the
traditional view that it was written by Jude the
Lord's brother. The attempt to treat this as em-
bodying a false claim deliberately made by the
author is open to grave objections. Apparently
we have to reckon with the deliberate adoption of
a pseudonym by the author of 2 Peter. But this
case is probably solitary in the NT ; and, unless
we are driven to adopt such suggestions, it is de-
sirable to avoid them as far as possible. Apart from
this, however, it is not easy to see why the author
should have hit upon a personality so obscure as
Jude. If he did so because the relationship to
James gave his name prestige, it might be asked
why he should not have attributed it to James
himself. The suggestion that it was sent to
districts where^ Jude had laboured and was held
in high regard is exposed to the difficulty that the
recipients would naturally ask, How is it that we
hear of this letter for the first time now that Jude
has been some years dead? We are then reduced
to the alternatives of admitting the authenticity,
or of supposing that the identification with the
Lord's brother was no original part of the Epistle.
If the preceding discussion has pointed to the
probability that the false teaching assailed was
Gnostic in character, and that other phenomena in
the Epistle make it unlikely that it was earlier
than the closing decade of the 1st cent., the second
alternative must be preferred. In that case the
most probable explanation of the opening words is
that the author's name was really Jude, and that
the phrase ' and brother of James ' was inserted by

Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 211 of 234)