JUDAS
541
JUDAS
with the rejected price of his treachery, might well be
described as indirectly bouglit or possessed by Jutliis,
albeit he did not buy it himself. And St. Peter's
words about the name Haceldamii misht be referred
to the "reward of ini<|uity " as well as to the violent
death of the traitor. Similar ditticullies 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 Eu-
charist and communicated with the other Apostles.
But the balance of authority is in favour of the affirm-
ative. 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 prob- lem presented by the fall and treachery of Judas. In a very true sense, all sin is a mystery. And the diffi- culty is greater with the greatness of the guilt, with the smalluess 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 unintelli- gible of sins. For how could one chosen as a disciple, and enjoying the grace of the Apostolate and the privi- lege of intimate friendship with the Divine Master, be tempted to such gross ingratitude for such a paltry
Crice? And the ditficulty is greater when it is remem- ered that the Master thus Ijasely 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 Apos- tolate.
At the opposite extreme is the strange view held by an early Gnostic sect known as the Cainites described by St. Irenseus (Adv. hier., I, c. ult.), and more fully by Tertullian (Praesc. hseretic, xlvii), and St. Epi- phanius (Hseres., 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 retleemed 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 tem- poral kingdom of the Messias, diil 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
immeiliately repented of what he had done. But, as
Strau.ss remarks, this repentance does not prove that
the result had not been foreseen. For miu-derers, 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 tradi-
tion. However difficult it may be to untlerstand, we
cannot question the guilt of Ju<las. 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.
Tliis 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 his fall. The examples of the saints are lost on us if we think of them as be- ings 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 intel- ligible if we think of it as the outcome of gradual fail- ing in lesser things. So again the repentance may be taken to imply that the traitor had 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 circum- stances 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, x.x.xv).
Chrtsostomus, Horn, de Jwla Proditore; .SIaldon.\tus and other commentators on New Testament; Epiphanius, H(rres., xxxviii; Legends on death of Judas in StJicER, Thesaurus, Mod- em view in Strauss, Das Leben Jesu.
W. H. Kent.
Judas Machabeus, third son of the priest Math- athias who with his family was the centre and soul of the patriotic and religious revolt of the Jews against the King of Syria (I Mach., ii, 4). Various conjectures have been put forth as to the origin of his surname. The name appears to be derived from theSyriac word mnqqaba (a hammer or mallet) and it was bestowed with reference to the crushing prowess displayed by Judas against the enemies of the nation, being equivalent to the name Martel given to Charles Martel. Judas was designated by his dying father as the new leader of the band of guerrilla warriors in the year 167 b. c, and he remained in command until the year 161 . He was ani- mated with a great confidence in the help of the Lord in the good cause. He began his military operations by surprising and burning down many towns which had held out for the enemies of Israel, and when regu- lar armed forces were sent to put a stop to his ravages, he did not refuse to meet them in the field (II Mach., viii, 1-7). He proved himself to be an excellent tac- tician as well as an intrepid warrior. Among his mili- tary exploits are mentioned the defeat and slaying of ApoUonius the recent plunderer of Jerusalem, and the utter rout of the S.\Tian forces led bj' the deputy gov- ernor Seron in an encounter at Bethoron (I Mach., iii, 10-24) . Other SjTian leaders were also vanquished by Judas, viz., Gorgias and Nicanor, Timotheus, Bac- chides and Lysias (I Mach., iii, 10-iv, .35).
These victories afforded a respite during which Judas turned his attention to the condition of the
