JUDAS ISCAR'IOT. One of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. and the one who betrayed Him, as the Evangelists are wont to add when they mention his name. Iscariot or Iscarioth means `man of Kerioth,' but the place referred to is uncertain: it may have been in Judah (eL Josh. xv. 25). His father was named Simon (John vi. 71: xiii. 2,26). He was the only one of the Twelve not a Galilean. and his name is put last in all the lists. In the oldest Gospel (Mark) there is no open suspicion against him. or any reference to the position he held among the Twelve. prior to the time of the betrayal. .Just before the Paschal Supper, however, narrates Mark, Judas, one of the Twelve, went off to the high priests to deliver Jesus to them, and when they heard this proposal they rejoiced and promised to give him money, and lie began to seek how he might claweniently deliver him up. At the supper, Jesus predicts that one of the number is to betray him, but no name is mentioned. After Get/Ise:Dam...ludas. at the head of an armed force. comes to Jesus and gives hint a kiss, the traitor's audacious sign by which the crowd identifies Jesus. With this kiss, Judas passes out of history for the oldest narra tive. The other two Synoptists, Luke and Matthew, who here as elsewhere follow in general the narrative of Mark, add, however, at this point new material to the earliest tradition. chiefly of an interpretative character. Luke interprets Mark's promise to give money as an agrr,ment, after consultation with the high priests and temple officers, to which Judas assents; and at tributes the treason, moreover, to the entrance of Satan into him (xxii. 3-6). Matthew likewise in terprets Mark's promise as an agreement, and makes Judas say to the priests: "What will you give me to -betray him to you?" The result of the parleying is that they weigh out or pay him thirty pieces of silver. Both these details, the immediate payment and the exact amount of money. are preserved only in Matthew. At the Paschal Supper..1ndas is named as the traitor in the following words: "Surely it is not I. Rabbi?" Ile says to him. "It is" (xxvi. 23). Coining to the fourth Evangelist, we find that it is Ile alone who indicates any suspicion against Judas More the betrayal. Already, in John vi. i0, Jesus is recorded as saying: "Have T not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" But nowhere is there reference to money in comme Hon with the betrayal, although it is suggested, in passing that Judas was the treasurer of the Twelve (xiii. 29). The Evangelist does. however, distinctly ascribe the act of treason to devilish or Satanic influence (xii. 2. 27). After Jesus has washed the disciples' feet. lie predicts His be trayal at the hands of hint to whom He gives the bread. "And when Jesus had dipped the piece of bread, He took it and gave it to Judas. the son of Simon Iscariot," whereupon Satan entered into him, "and he went out straightway. and it was night" (xiii. 26 sqq.). To the narrative of the arrest of Jesus in a place well known to Judas. the Evangelist adds further details, but omits the traitor's demonstrative kiss. Then for John, as for Mark. Judas passes out of history (xviii.
I-S). Two accounts preserved, one by Luke (Acts i. 16-20) and the other by Matthew (xxvii. 3-10). show the violent death of Judas and the name of the field, Aceldama ; but reveal differences in the matter of the purchase of the land, the land bought. the reason for the name 'Field of Blood.' and the motive of the story. A still later tradi tion is the grewsome tale of Papias, which nar rates that Judas first tried death by hanging. but was rescued: that later he died a horrible death in his own field.
In view of the criticisms both ancient and modern. directed against the historicity of the betrayal by Judas. and in view of the divergences in the Gospel narratives, it may he well to call attention to certain facts. It is generally ad mitted that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the Gospel narratives written by a friend and eompanion of the three prominent Peter (an eye-witness of the betrayal), Paul, and Dataabas. In accord with his usual habit to give facts as he knows them, and not to make infer cnees. Mark gives a simple, circumstantial narrative of the betrayal. with not a word about the motives of Judas. In favor of the essential historicity of Mark's narration, it is to be argued that the story is imbedded in the oldest tradition: that it is narrated object that it accounts for the sudden disappear ance of Judas and the election of Matthias; that it is the kind of story that no Christian would ever think of inventing. The later Evangelists, as is their habit. introduce reflections and in terpretations into their narratives, and give details according to individual inclinations and the purpose they had in view in writing. While Mark states only the facts of the betrayal, with no reflection on the motive. and no emphasis on a money agreement with the priests, the later Evangelists add. along with other details. that there was a definite stipulation for a money eon sideration (Matthew and Luke) ; that the deed was due to Satanic influence (Luke and John), or avarice (Matthew), or both (Luke). Beyond these two hints, the Gospels are silent as to motives. Matthew- alone records the tradithm that exactly thirty pieces of silver were paid, because to him the thirty pieces were the fulfill ment of prophecy (Zech. xi. 13, quoted as if from Jeremiah). Luke is interested in the explanation of the name Aceldanta, and further in the death of Judas as preparing the way for the election of Matthias. The narrative of the death of Judas has at least this amount of fact, that Judas not simply disappeared, but met a violent death.
It has been thought by some that the act of Judas may have been prompted by a desire to place Jesus in a crucial position where lie would be forced to save Himself by the exercise of super natural power. On this view the betrayal was a hold attempt to apply a decisive test to the claim of Jesus as the Messiah. Or it may have been the act of one who firmly believed in Him and expected, as the result, to behold Jesus tri umphantly establish Himself as king—a con summation no doubt ardently desired by many of Jesus' followers.