FREE ESSAY ON {JUDUS} GENERAL ESSAY

{JUDUS} GENERAL ESSAY

The Apostle who betrayed his Divine Master. The name Judas (Ioudas) is the Greek form of
Judah (Hebrew praised), a proper name frequently found both in the Old and the New
Testament. Even among the Twelve there were two that bore the name, and for this reason
it is usually associated with the surname Iscariot [Heb. a man of Kerioth or Carioth,
which is a city of Judah (cf. Joshua 15:25)]. There can be no doubt that this is the
right interpretation of the name, though the true origin is obscured in the Greek
spelling, and, as might be expected, other derivations have been suggested (e.g. from
Issachar). 
Very little is told us in the Sacred Text concerning the history of Judas Iscariot beyond
the bare facts of his call to the Apostolate, his treachery, and his death. His
birthplace, as we have seen, is indicated in his name Iscariot, and it may be remarked
that his origin separates him from the other Apostles, who were all Galileans. For
Kerioth is a city of Judah. It has been suggested that this fact may have had some
influence on his career by causing want of sympathy with his brethren in the Apostolate.
We are told nothing concerning the circumstances of his call or his share in the ministry
and miracles of the Apostles. And it is significant that he is never mentioned without
some reference to his great betrayal. Thus, in the list of the Apostles given in the
Synoptic Gospels, we read: and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. (Matthew 10:4. Cf.
Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). So again in St. John's Gospel the name first occurs in connection
with the foretelling of the betrayal: Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve;
and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same
was about to betray him whereas he was one of the twelve (John 6:71-2). 
In this passage St. John adds a further particular in mentioning the name of the traitor
Apostle's father, which is not recorded by the other Evangelists. And it is he again who
tells us that Judas carried the purse. For, after describing the anointing of Christ's
feet by Mary at the feast in Bethania, the Evangelist continues: 
Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: 'Why
was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?' Now he said
this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the
purse, carried the things that were put therein (John 12:4-6). 
This fact that Judas carried the purse is again referred to by the same Evangelist in his
account of the Last Supper (13:29), The Synoptic Gospels do not notice this office of
Judas, nor do they say that it was he who protested at the alleged waste of the ointment.
But it is significant that both in Matthew and Mark the account of the anointing is
closely followed by the story of the betrayal: Then went one of the twelve, who was
called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, and said to them: What will you give me, and
I will deliver him unto you? (Matt., xxvi, 14-5); And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve,
went to the chief priests, to betray him to them. Who hearing it were glad; and they
promised him they would give him money (Mark, xiv, 10-1). In both these accounts it will
be noticed that Judas takes the initiative: he is not tempted and seduced by the priests,
but approaches them on his own accord. St. Luke tells the same tale, but adds another
touch by ascribing the deed to the instigation of Satan: And Satan entered into Judas,
who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went, and discoursed with the chief
priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and
convenanted to give him money. And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him
in the absence of the multitude (Luke, xxii, 3-6). 
St. John likewise lays stress on the instigation of the evil spirit: the devil having now
put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him (xiii, 2). The same
Evangelist, as we have seen, tells of an earlier intimation of Christ's foreknowledge of
the betrayal (John, vi, 71-2), and in the same chapter says expressly: For Jesus knew
from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray
him (vi, 65). But he agrees with the Synoptics in recording a more explicit prediction of
the treachery at the Last Supper: When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in
spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me
(John, xii, 21). And when St. John himself, at Peter's request, asked who this was, Jesus
answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread,
he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the morsel, Satan entered into
him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. Now no man at the table
knew to what purpose he said this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the
purse, that Jesus said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival
day: or that he should give something to the poor (xii, 26-9). These last details about
the words of Jesus, and the natural surmise of the disciples, are given only by St. John.
But the prediction and the questioning of the disciples are recorded by all the Synoptics
(Matt., xxvi; Mark, xiv; Luke, xxii). St. Matthew adds that Judas himself asked, Is it I,
Rabbi? and was answered: Thou hast said it (xxvi, 25). All four Evangelists agree in
regard to the main facts of the actual betrayal which followed so closely on this
prediction, and tell how the traitor came with a multitude or a band of soldiers from the
chief priests, and brought them to the place where, as he knew, Jesus would be found with
His faithful disciples (Matt., xxvi, 47; Mark, xiv, 43; Luke, xxii, 47; John, xviii, 3).
But some have details not found in the other narratives. That the traitor gave a kiss as
a sign is mentioned by all the Synoptics, but not by St. John, who in his turn is alone
in telling us that those who came to take Jesus fell backward to the ground as He
answered I am he. Again, St. Mark tells that Judas said Hail, Rabbi before kissing his
Master, but does not give any reply. St. Matthew, after recording these words and the
traitor's kiss, adds: And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come: (xxvi, 50).
St. Luke (xxii, 48) gives the words: Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?

St. Matthew is the only Evangelist to mention the sum paid by the chief priests as the
price of the betrayal, and in accordance with his custom he notices that an Old Testament
prophecy has been fulfilled therein (Matt., xxvi, 15; xxvii, 5-10). In this last passage
he tells of the repentance and suicide of the traitor, on which the other Gospels are
silent, though we have another account of these events in the speech of St. Peter: Men,
brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the
mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: who
was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath
possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the
midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of
Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that it to say,
the field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become
desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take
(Acts, I, 16-20). Cf. Ps., lxviii, 26; cviii, 8). Some modern critics lay great stress on
the apparent discrepancies between this passage in the Acts and the account given by St.
Matthew. For St. Peter's words taken by themselves seem to imply that Judas himself
bought the field with the price of his iniquity, and that it was called field of blood
because of his death. But St. Matthew, on the other hand, says: Then Judas, who betrayed
him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of
silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent
blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of
silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter. After this
the Evangelist goes on to tell how the priests, who scrupled to put the money in the
corbona because it was the price of blood, spent it in buying the potter's field for the
burial of strangers, which for this cause was called the field of blood. And in this St.
Matthew sees the fulfillment of the prophecy ascribed to Jeremias (but found in Zach.,
xi, 12): And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized,
whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave them unto the potter's field,
as the Lord appointed to me (Matt., xxvii, 9, 10). 
But there does not seem to be any great difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. For
the field, bought with the rejected price of his treachery, might well be described as
indirectly bought or possessed by Judas, albeit he did not buy it himself. And St.
Peter's words about the name Haceldama might be referred to the reward of iniquity as
well as the violent death of the traitor. Similar difficulties are raised as to the
discrepancies in detail discovered in the various accounts of the betrayal itself. But it
will be found that, without doing violence to the text, the narratives of the four
Evangelists can be brought into harmony, though in any case there will remain some
obscure or doubtful points. It is disputed, for instance, whether Judas was present at
the institution of the Holy Eucharist and communicated with the other Apostles. But the
balance of authority is in favour of the affirmative. There has also been some difference
of opinion as to the time of the treachery. Some consider that it was suddenly determined
on by Judas after the anointing at Bethania, while others suppose a longer negotiation
with the chief priests. 
But these textual difficulties and questions of detail fade into insignificance beside
the great moral problem presented by the fall and treachery of Judas. In a very true
sense, all sin is a mystery. And the difficulty is greater with the greatness of the
guilt, with the smallness of the motive for doing wrong, and with the measure of the
knowledge and graces vouchsafed to the offender. In every way the treachery of Judas
would seem to be the most mysterious and unintelligible of sins. For how could one chosen
as a disciple, and enjoying the grace of the Apostolate and the privilege of intimate
friendship with the Divine Master, be tempted to such gross ingratitude for such a paltry
price? And the difficulty is greater when it is remembered that the Master thus basely
betrayed was not hard and stern, but a Lord of loving kindness and compassion. Looked at
in any light the crime is so incredible, both in itself and in all its circumstances,
that it is no wonder that many attempts have been made to give some more intelligible
explanation of its origin and motives, and, from the wild dreams of ancient heretics to
the bold speculations of modern critics, the problem presented by Judas and his treachery
has been the subject of strange and startling theories. As a traitor naturally excites a
peculiarly violent hatred, especially among those devoted to the cause or person
betrayed, it was only natural that Christians should regard Judas with loathing, and, if
it were possible, paint him blacker than he was by allowing him no good qualities at all.
This would be an extreme view which, in some respects, lessens the difficulty. For if it
be supposed that he never really believed, if he was a false disciple from the first, or,
as the Apocryphal Arabic Gospel of the Infancy has it, was possessed by Satan even in his
childhood, he would not have felt the holy influence of Christ or enjoyed the light and
spiritual gifts of the Apostolate. 
At the opposite extreme is the strange view held by the early Gnostic sect known as the
Cainites described by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., I, c. ult.), and more fully by Tertullian
(Praesc. Haeretic., xlvii), and St. Epiphanius (Haeres., xxxviii). Certain of these
heretics, whose opinion has been revived by some modern writers in a more plausible form,
maintained that Judas was really enlightened, and acted as he did in order that mankind
might be redeemed by the death of Christ. For this reason they regarded him as worthy of
gratitude and veneration. In the modern version of this theory it is suggested that
Judas, who in common with the other disciples looked for a temporal kingdom of the
Messias, did not anticipate the death of Christ, but wished to precipitate a crisis and
hasten the hour of triumph, thinking that the arrest would provoke a rising of the people
who would set Him free and place Him on the throne. In support of this they point to the
fact that, when he found that Christ was condemned and given up to the Romans, he
immediately repented of what he had done. But, as Strauss remarks, this repentance does
not prove that the result had not been foreseen. For murderers, who have killed their
victims with deliberate design, are often moved to remorse when the deed is actually
done. A Catholic, in any case, cannot view these theories with favour since they are
plainly repugnant to the text of Scripture and the interpretation of tradition. However
difficult it may be to understand, we cannot question the guilt of Judas. On the other
hand we cannot take the opposite view of those who would deny that he was once a real
disciple. For, in the first place, this view seems hard to reconcile with the fact that
he was chosen by Christ to be one of the Twelve. This choice, it may be safely said,
implies some good qualities and the gift of no mean graces. 
But, apart from this consideration, it may be urged that in exaggerating the original
malice of Judas, or denying that there was even any good in him, we minimize or miss the
lesson of this fall. The examples of the saints are lost on us if we think of them as
being of another order without our human weaknesses. And in the same way it is a grave
mistake to think of Judas as a demon without any elements of goodness and grace. In his
fall is left a warning that even the great grace of the Apostolate and the familiar
friendship of Jesus may be of no avail to one who is unfaithful. And, though nothing
should be allowed to palliate the guilt of the great betrayal, it may become more
intelligible if we think of it as the outcome of gradual failing in lesser things. So
again the repentance may be taken to imply that the traitor deceived himself by a false
hope that after all Christ might pass through the midst of His enemies as He had done
before at the brow of the mountain. And though the circumstances of the death of the
traitor give too much reason to fear the worst, the Sacred Text does not distinctly
reject the possibility of real repentance. And Origen strangely supposed that Judas
hanged himself in order to seek Christ in the other world and ask His pardon (In Matt.,
tract. xxxv). 
Bibliography
Judus is the person who killed Jesus with a kiss.