at Basel, where after a course in medicine he turned to the study of theology. This change was due to the influence of Zwingli whose colleague at Zürich Jud became after serving for four years (1518–1522) as pastor of Einsiedeln. His chief activity was as a translator; he was the leading spirit in the translation of the Zürich Bible and also made a Latin version of the Old Testament. He died at Zürich on the 19th of June 1542.
See Life by C. Pestalozzi (1860); art. in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie, vol. ix. (1901).
JUDAEA, the name given to the southern part of Palestine as
occupied by the Jewish community in post-exilic days under
Persian, Greek and Roman overlordship. In Luke and Acts the
term is sometimes used loosely to denote the whole of western
Palestine. The limits of Judaea were never very precisely
defined and—especially on the northern frontier—varied from
time to time. After the death of Herod, Archelaus became
ethnarch of Samaria, Idumea and Judaea, and when he was
deposed Judaea was merged in Syria, being governed by a procurator
whose headquarters were in Caesarea.
For a description of the natural features of the country see Palestine; for its history see Jews and Judah. Cf. T. Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, ch. xi.
JUDAH, a district of ancient Palestine, to the south of the
kingdom of Israel, between the Dead Sea and the Philistine
plain. It falls physically into three parts: the hill-country
from Hebron northwards through Jerusalem; the lowland (Heb.
Shĕphelah) on the west; and the steppes or “dry land” (Heb.
Negeb) on the south. The district is one of striking contrasts,
with a lofty and stony table-land in the centre (which reaches
a height of 3300 ft. just north of Hebron), with a strategically
important valley dividing the central mountains from the lowland,
and with the most desolate of tracts to the east (by the
Dead Sea) and south. Some parts, especially around Hebron,
are extremely fertile, but the land as a whole has the characteristics
of the southern wilderness—the so-called “desert” is
not a sterile Sahara—and was more fitted for pastoral occupations;
see further G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. Holy Land, chs. x.–xv.
Life in ancient Judah is frequently depicted in the Bible, but
much of the Judaean history is obscure. In the days of the
old Hebrew monarchy there were periods of conflict and rivalry
between Judah and Israel—even times when the latter incorporated,
or at least claimed supremacy over, the former. Later,
from the 5th century B.C. there was a breach between the Jews
(the name is derived from Judah) and the Samaritans (q.v.).
The intervening years after the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.), and
after the destruction of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), were probably
marked by closer intercourse, similar to the period of union in
the popular traditions relating to the pre-monarchical age.
The course of Judaean history was conditioned, also, by the
proximity of the Philistines in the west, Moab in the east, and
by Edom and other southern peoples extending from North
Arabia to the delta of the Nile. Judah’s stormy history, continued
under Greek and Roman domination, reached its climax
in the birth of Christianity, and ended with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (see Jews, Palestine).
In conformity with ancient methods of genealogy (q.v.), Judah is traced back to a son of Jacob or Israel by Leah and along with other “tribes” (Dan, Levi, Simeon, &c.) is included under the collective term Israel. Thus it shares the general traditions of the Israelites, although Judah appears as an individual in the story of his “brother” Joseph (on ch. xxxvii. seq., see Genesis). Its boundaries in Joshua xv. are manifestly artificial or imaginary; they include the Philistines and number places which are elsewhere ascribed to Simeon or Dan. The origin of the name (Yĕhūdah) is quite uncertain; the interpretation “praised” is suggested in Gen. xxix. 35 (cf; xlix. 8 seq.), but some connexion with allied names, as Yehūd (Yahūdīya, E. of Jaffa), or Ēhūd (a Benjamite clan) seems more probable. That Judah, whatever its original connotation, underwent development through the incorporation of other clans appears from 1 Chron. ii., iv., where it is found to contain a large element of non-Israelite population whose names find analogies or parallels in Simeonite, Edomite and other southern lists.[1] Indeed, underlying the account of the Israelite exodus (q.v.) there are traces of a separate movement of certain clans—apart from the Israelite invasion of Palestine—who are ultimately found in the south of Judah; and the traditions in Chronicles themselves allow the view that the incorporation of these elements began under David, when Judah first occupies a prominent position in biblical history (cf. Cheyne, Ency. Bib., col. 2618 seq., and see Caleb, Jerahmeel, Kenites). But such movements were not necessarily limited to one single period, and the evidence connecting (a) the non-Israelite clans of Judah with Levites, and (b) both with the south, is found in narratives referring to several different ages and might point to an unceasing relationship with the south. On the other hand, clans, which in the traditions of David’s time were in the south of Judah, about five hundred years later (in the exile) are found near Jerusalem (e.g. Caleb), so that either these survived the strenuous vicissitudes of half a millennium or all perspective of their early history has been lost. In Gen. xxxviii. a curious narrative points to the separation of Judah “from his brethren” and his marriage with Shua the Canaanite; two sons Er and Onan perish and the third Shelah survives. From Judah and Er’s widow Tamar are derived Perez and Zerah, and these with Shelah appear in post-exilic times as the three representative families of Judah (Neh. xi. 4–6; 1 Chron. ix. 4–6). This story, amid a number of other motives, appears to reflect the growth of the tribe of Judah and its fluctuations, but that the reference is to any very early period is unlikely, partly because the interest of the story is in post-exilic families, and partly because the scenes (Adullam, Chezib and Timnah) overlap with David’s own fights between Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. xxi. xxiii.; see David, ad fin.).[2] Even David’s conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam. v.) conflicts both with the statement of its capture by Judah many years previously (Judges i. 8), and with the traditions of the Israelite heroes Joshua and Saul. Consequently, the few surviving data are too uncertain for any decisive conclusions regarding the origin of the tribe of Judah. Judah as a kingdom may have taken its name from a limited district, in which case its growth finds a parallel in the extension of the name Samaria from the city to the province. The location of Yehūd and Ēhūd in the light of 1 Kings iv. 8–19 (perhaps the subdivisions of the Israelite kingdom, see Solomon), would necessitate the assumption of a violent separation from the north; this, however, is quite conceivable (see Jews, §§ 11–13). On the bearing of South Judah upon the historical criticism of the Old Testament, see especially N. Schmidt, Hibbert Journal (1908), pp. 322–342, “The Jerahmeel Theory and the Historic Importance of the Negeb, with some account of personal exploration of the country”; also Jews, § 20. (S. A. C.)
JUDAS ISCARIOT (Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης or Ἰσκαριώθ), in the
Bible, the son of Simon Iscariot (John vi. 71, xiii. 26), and one of
the twelve apostles. He is always enumerated last with the
special mention of the fact that he was the betrayer of Jesus.
If the generally accepted explanation of his surname (“man of
Kerioth”; see Josh. xv. 25) be correct, he was the only original
member of the apostolic band who was not a Galilean. The
circumstances which led to his admission into the apostolic
circle are not stated; while the motives by which he was actuated
in enabling the Jewish authorities to arrest Jesus without tumult
have been variously analysed by scholars. According to some
(as De Quincey in his famous Essay) the sole object of Judas was
to place Jesus in a position in which He should be compelled to
make what had seemed to His followers the too tardy display of
His Messianic power: according to others (and this view seems
more in harmony with the Gospel narratives) Judas was an
avaricious and dishonest man, who had already abused the confidence
placed in him (John xii. 6), and who was now concerned only with furthering his own ends.
As regards the effects of his subsequent remorse and the use to which his ill-gotten gains were put, the strikingly apparent discrepancies between the narratives of Matt. xxvii. 3, 10 and Acts i. 18, 19 have attracted the attention of biblical scholars, ever since Papias, in his fourth book, of which a fragment has been preserved, discussed the subject. The simplest explanation is that they represent different traditions, the Gospel narrative being composed with more special reference to prophetic fulfilments, and being probably nearer the truth than the short explanatory note inserted by the author of the Acts (see Bernard, Expositor, June 1904, p. 422 seq.). In ecclesiastical legend and
- ↑ See especially Wellhausen, De gentibus et familiis Judaeorum (Göttingen, 1869), the articles on the relative proper names in the Ency. Bib., and E. Meyer, Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme, pp. 299–471 (much valuable matter).
- ↑ For the principle of the Levirate illustrated in Gen. xxxviii., see Ruth. Lagarde (Orientalia, ii.) ingeniously conjectured that the chapter typified the suppression of Phoenician (viz. Tamar, the date-palm) and the old Canaanite elements (Zerah = indigena) by the younger Israelite invaders (Perez = “branch”). For other discussions, apart from commentaries on Genesis, see B. Luther in Meyer, op. cit., pp. 200 sqq.
