I. THE GALILEAN APOSTLES. (continued 13)

For the sources, and for the minuter proofs and illustrations of these views, see Hug’s Introduction, as translated by Wait, Vol. II. §§ 148‒159.

In the immediate consideration of all these present iniquities and coming desolations, he wrote to prepare the believing Jews, in Palestine more particularly, but also throughout the world, for the overwhelming consummation of their nation’s destiny. Terrible as would be this doom, to the wicked, and mournful as would be these national desolations, to all, the righteous should find consolations in the peaceful establishment of the spiritual kingdom of their Lord, over the ruins of the dominion of his murderers,――of those who had “condemned and killed the just One, though he did not resist them.” But in all these awful signs, should the faithful see the forewarned coming of the Son of Man; and as he himself told his chosen apostles, “then should they lift up their heads; for their redemption drew nigh.”

Besides these external troubles, there were others of a different character, arising and existing solely among those who professed the religion of Christ. The instructions given by Paul, in reference to the absolute necessity of faith, and the insufficiency of a mere formal routine of religious duties, had been most grossly perverted into a warrant for the all-sufficiency of a mere belief, as the means of salvation;――an error by no means limited in its mischievous existence, to the days of the apostles, but so comfortable to the minds of mere religious formalists, in all ages of Christianity, that a new revelation, like that here made by James, though directly repeated through every century of the Christian era, would be equally vain, for the prevention or the remedy of this never-dying heresy. All the words of James on the subject of faith and works, are evidently aimed at the refutation of those who had taken advantage of the opinions which Paul had expressed, on the same subjects; but which were expressed with a totally different reference, being stated not generally nor abstractly, but in application to some particular dogmatic errors. James, after distinctly condemning the “unlearned and unstable, who thus wrested to their own destruction the things hard to be understood in the writings of Paul,” next attacks certain persons who, without being authorized or qualified, had assumed the station and responsibility of religious teachers. Many persons taking up the office of instructors in this manner, had caused great confusion, by using their hasty tongues, in mere polemic and denunciatory discourse, condemning and cursing, in unmeasured terms, those who differed from them in opinion. These he rebukes, as thus “giving occasion for offense and error to all;” and sets forth the character of that true wisdom which comes from above, and which is peaceable, “sowing the fruit of righteousness in peace.”

Many teachers. In order to understand this reference, it should be noticed that the word masters in the common translation of chap. iii. verse 1, of this epistle, is not to be taken in the common modern sense, but in that of “religious teachers.” The original is not Κυριοι (Kurioi,) “Lords,” “Masters,”――but διδασκαλοι (didaskaloi,) “teachers.” The translators probably intended it only in the latter sense; for the word “Master” really has that meaning in such connections, in good authors of that age; and even at this day, in England, the same usage of the word is very common, though almost unknown in this country, except in technical phrases.

HIS DEATH.

The epistle was probably the last great act of his life. No record, indeed, of any of his labors, except this living instance, exists of his later years; but there is certain ground for supposing that his residence in Jerusalem was characterized by a steady course of apostolic labors, in the original sphere of action, to which the twelve had first confined themselves for many years. When, by the special calls of God, in providences and in revelations, one and another of the apostles had been summoned to new and distant fields, east, west, north and south, “preaching repentance and remission of sins, in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” and bearing witness of his works, thence, “through Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth,” there was still needed one, who, highly “indued with power from on high,” might remain in that city to which all the sons of Israel, throughout the world, looked as the fountain of religious light. There too was the scene of the first great triumphs of the Christian faith, as well as of the chief toils, the trials, and the death of the great founder himself. All these circumstances rendered Jerusalem still an important post to the apostles; and they therefore left on that station the apostle, whose steady courage in the cause of Christ, and blameless yet jealous conformity to the law of Moses, fitted him at once for the bold maintenance of his Master’s commission, and for the successful advancement of the gospel among the faithful believers of the ancient covenant. Thus James continued at Jerusalem throughout his life, being kept at this important station, perhaps on account of his age, as well as for his fitness in other respects; as there is some reason to think that he was older than those more active apostles who assumed the foreign departments of the work. His great weight of character, as evinced in the council of the apostles, and by the fear which Peter showed of offending him, very naturally gives the idea of a greater age than that of the other apostles; and this notion is furthermore confirmed by the circumstance that the brethren of Jesus, among whom this apostle was certainly included, are mentioned as assuming an authority over their divine relation, and claiming a right to control and direct his motions, which could never have been assumed, according to the established order of Jewish families, unless they had been older than he. It is therefore a rational supposition, that James was one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest, of the apostles; and at any rate he appears to have been more advanced in life than any of those who are characterized with sufficient distinctness to offer the means of conjecture on this point.

From the high charge of this great central apostolic station, in which he had, through a course of more than twenty-five years, accumulated the ripe honors of a “righteous” name upon his hoary head, James was now called to end a career, which so much resembled that of the ancient prophets, by a death equally assimilated to the bloody fate to which so many of them had been doomed by the subjects of their reproofs. The fact and circumstances of his death are given on an authority so blameless and disinterested as not to admit of dispute; nor is there any thing in the narrative which can throw the slightest suspicion upon it. The eminent Jewish historian, Josephus, himself a resident in Jerusalem at that time, and an eye-witness of these events, and acquainted by sight and fame, at least, with James, has given a clear account of the execution of this apostle, which can best evince its own merit by being given entire.

The account which Josephus has given, shows that the death of James, must have happened during Paul’s imprisonment, and is delivered in the following words:――“The emperor, being informed of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be prefect of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we said before, was made high priest, was haughty in his behavior, and very ambitious. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who, as we have also observed before, are above all other Jews severe in their judicial sentences. This then being the temper of Ananus, he, thinking he had a convenient opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus was not yet arrived, called a council, and brought before it James, brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, with several others, where they were accused of being transgressors of the law, and stoned to death. But the most moderate men of the city, who were also the most learned in the laws, were offended at this proceeding. They sent therefore privately to the king, and entreated him to give orders to Ananus to abstain from such conduct in future. And some went to meet Albinus, who was coming from Alexandria, and represented to him, that Ananus had no right to call a council without his permission. Albinus, approving of what they said, wrote a very severe letter to Ananus, threatening to punish him for what he had done. And king Agrippa took away from him the priesthood, after he had possessed it three months, and appointed in his stead Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.” From this account of Josephus we learn, that James, notwithstanding he was a Christian, was so far from being an object of hatred to the Jews, that he was rather beloved and respected. At least his death excited very different sensations from that of the first James; and the Sadducean high priest, at whose instigation he suffered, was punished for his offense by the loss of his office.

This translation is taken from Marsh’s Michaelis, (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 287, 288.) The original is in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. (XX. ix. 1.)

This however, is not the statement which the early Christian writers give of the death of James the Just; but from the oldest historian of the church, is derived another narrative, so highly decorated with minute particulars, that while it is made very much more interesting than the concise and simple account given by Josephus, it is at the same time rendered altogether suspicious by the very circumstance of its interesting minuteness. Josephus had no temptation whatever to pervert the statement. He gives it in terms strongly condemnatory of the whole transaction; but the Christian writers, as they have shown in other such instances, are too often disposed to sacrifice truth, for the sake of making a story whose incidents harmonize best with their notions of a desirable martyrdom. The story however, deserves a place here, both for the sake of a fair comparison, and on account of its own interesting character.

“James, the brother of our Lord, surnamed the Just, was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine, nor strong drink; nor ate any creature wherein was life. There never came a razor upon his beard;――he anointed not himself with oil, neither did he use a bath. To him only it was lawful to enter into the holy of holies. He wore no woolen, but only linen garments; and entered the temple alone, where he was seen upon his knees, supplicating for the forgiveness of the people, till his knees became hard, and covered with a callus, like those of a camel. On account of his eminent righteousness, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies ‘the people’s fortress.’ Then, after describing the divisions among the people respecting Christianity, the account states, that all the leading men among the Scribes and Pharisees, came to James, and entreated him to stand up on the battlements of the temple, and persuade the people assembled at the passover, to have juster notions concerning Jesus; and that, when thus mounted on the battlements, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye question me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He even sits in heaven, at the right hand of great power, and will come in the clouds of heaven.’ With this declaration, many were satisfied, and cried ‘Hosanna to the Son of David.’ But the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees, mortified at what they had done, produced a riot; for they consulted together, and then cried out, ‘Oh! oh! even the Just one is himself deceived.’ They went up, therefore, and cast down the Just, and said among themselves, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he did not die with his fall; but turning, he kneeled, saying, ‘I entreat, O Lord God the Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And while they were stoning him, one of the priests, of the sons of Rahab, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, ‘Cease; what do ye? Justus prays for us.’ But a certain one among them, a fuller, took a lever, such as he had used to squeeze garments, and smote Justus on the head. Thus he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him in that place, and his grave-stone yet remains near the temple.”

This story is from Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, to whom alone we owe its preservation,――the works of the original author being all lost, except such fragments, accidentally quoted by other writers. The translation I have taken from the MS. of the Rev. Dr. Murdock, to whose research I am already so much indebted in similar instances.

The comments of Michaelis on these two testimonies, may be appropriately subjoined. (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 288, 291. Marsh’s translation.)

“The account given by Hegesippus, contains an intermixture of truth and fable; and in some material points contradicts the relation of Josephus, to ♦which no objection can be made. It confirms however the assertion, that James was in great repute among the Jews, even among those who did not believe in Christ; and that they paid him much greater deference than we might suppose they would have shown to a Christian bishop, and a brother of Christ, whom they had crucified. Many parts of the preceding account are undoubtedly fabulous, especially that part which relates to the request of the Jews, that James would openly declare from the battlements of the temple, that Jesus was not the Messiah. Indeed, if this were true, it would not redound to his honor; for it would imply that he had acted with duplicity, and not taken a decided part in favor of Christianity, or the Jews could never have thought of making such a request. But that a person, who was the head of the church in Jerusalem, should have acted such a double part as to leave it undecided what party he had embraced, and that too for thirty years after the ascension, is in itself almost incredible. It is inconsistent likewise with the relation of Josephus, and is virtually contradicted both by Paul and by Luke, who always speak of him with the utmost respect, and have no where given the smallest hint, that he concealed the principal doctrines of the Christian religion.”

Thus gloriously ended the steady, bright career of “the second apostolic martyr.” Honored, even by the despisers of the faith and haters of the name of Christ, with the exalted title of “THE JUST,” he added the solemn witness of his blood, to that of his divine brother and Lord, and to that of his young apostolic brother, whose name and fate were equally like his,――a testimony which sealed anew the truth of his own record against the sins of the oppressors, published in his last great earthly work:――“Ye have condemned and killed the JUST; yet he doth not resist you.”

SIMON ZELOTES.

HIS NAME.

The ever-recurring difficulty about the distinctive appellations of the apostles, forms the most prominent point of inquiry in the life of this person, otherwise so little known as to afford hardly a single topic for the apostolic historian. The dispute here indeed involves no question about personal identity, but merely refers to the coincidence of signification between the two different words by which he is designated in the apostolic lists, to distinguish him from the illustrious chief of the twelve, who bore the same name with him. Matthew and Mark in giving the names of the apostles,――the only occasion on which they name him,――call him “Simon the Cananite;” but Luke, in a similar notice, mentions him as “Simon Zelotes;” and the question then arises, whether these two distinctive appellations have not a common origin. In the vernacular language of Palestine, the word from which Cananite is derived, has a meaning identical with that of the root of the Greek word Zelotes; and hence it is most rationally concluded, that the latter is a translation of the former,――Luke, who wrote entirely for Greeks, choosing to translate into their language a term whose original force could be apprehended only by those acquainted with the local circumstances with which it was connected. The name Zelotes, which may be faithfully translated by its English derivative, Zealot, has a meaning deeply involved in some of the most bloody scenes in the history of the Jews, in the apostolic age. This name, or rather its Hebrew original, was assumed by a set of ferocious desperadoes, who, under the honorable pretense of a holy zeal for their country and religion, set all law at defiance, and constituting themselves at once the judges and the executors of right, they went through the land waging war against the Romans, and all who peacefully submitted to that foreign sway. This sect, however, did not arise by this name until many years after the death of Jesus, and there is no good reason to suppose that Simon derived his surname from any connection with the bloody Zealots who did their utmost to increase the last agonies of their distracted country, but from a more holy zeal displayed in a more righteous manner. It may have been simply characteristic of his general conduct, or it may have referred to some particular occasion in which he decidedly evinced this trait of zeal in a righteous cause.

The Cananite.――In respect to this name, a most absurd and unjustifiable blunder has stood in all the common versions of it, which deserves notice. This is the representation of the word in the form, “Canaanite,” which is a gross perversion of the original. The Greek word is Κανανιτης, (Kananites,) a totally different word from that which is used both in the New Testament, and in the Alexandrian version of the Old, to express the Hebrew term for an inhabitant of Canaan. The name of the land of Canaan is always expressed by the aspirated form, Χανααν, which in the Latin and all modern versions is very properly expressed by “Chanaan.” In Matthew xv. 22, where the Canaanitish woman is spoken of, the original is Χαναναια, (Chananaia,) nor is there any passage in which the name of an inhabitant of Canaan is expressed by the form Κανανιτης, (Cananites,) with the smooth K, and the single A. Yet the Latin ecclesiastic writers, and even the usually accurate Natalis Alexander, express this apostle’s name as “Simon Chananaeus,” which is the word for “Canaanite.”

The true force and derivation of the word is this. The name assumed in the language of Palestine by the ferocious sect above mentioned, was derived from the Hebrew primitive קנא (Qana or Kana,) and thence the name קנני (Kanani) was very fairly expressed, according to the forms and terminations of the Greek, by Κανανιτης, (Kananites.) The Hebrew root is a verb which means “to be zealous,” and the name derived from it of course means, “one who is zealous,” of which the just Greek translation is the word Ζηλωτης, (Zelotes,) the very name by which Luke represents it in this instance. (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13.) One of these names is, in short, a mere translation of the other,――nor is there any way of evading this construction, except by supposing that Luke was mistaken in supposing that Simon was called “the Zealot,” being deceived by the resemblance of the name “Cananites” to the Hebrew name of that sect. But no believer in the inspiration of the gospel can allow this supposition. Equally unfounded, and inconsistent with Luke’s translation, is the notion that the name Cananite is derived from Cana the village of Galilee, famous as the scene of Christ’s first miracle.

The account given in the Life of Matthew shows the character of this sect, as it existed in the last days of the Jewish state. Josephus describes them very fully in his history of the Jewish War, (iv. 3.) Simon probably received this name, however, not from any connection with a sect which arose long after the death of Christ, but from something in his own character which showed a great zeal for the cause which he had espoused.

HIS HISTORY.

No very direct statement as to his parentage is made in the New Testament; but one or two incidental allusions to some circumstances connected with it, afford ground for a reasonable conclusion on this point. In the enumeration which Matthew and Mark give of the four brothers of Jesus, in the discourse of the offended citizens of Nazareth, Simon is mentioned along with James, Juda and Joses. It is worthy of notice, also, that on all the apostolic lists, Simon the apostle is mentioned between the brothers James and Juda; an arrangement that can not be accounted for, except by supposing that he was also the brother of James. The reason why Juda is distinctly specified as the brother of James, while Simon is mentioned without reference to any such relationship, is, doubtless, that the latter was so well known by the appellation of the Zealot, that there was no need of specifying his relations, to distinguish him from Simon Peter. These two circumstances, incidentally mentioned, may be considered as justifying the supposition, that Simon Zelotes was the same person as Simon the brother of Jesus. In this manner, all the old writers have understood the connection; and though such use is no authority, it is worth mentioning that the monkish chroniclers always consider Simon Zelotes as the brother of Juda; and they associate these two, as wandering together in eastern countries, to preach the gospel in Persia and Mesopotamia. Others carry him into much more improbable wanderings. Egypt and Northern Africa, and even Britain, are mentioned as the scenes of his apostolic labors, in the ingenious narratives of those who undertook to supply almost every one of the nations of the eastern continent with an apostolic patron saint. All this is very poor consolation for the general dearth of facts in relation to this apostle; and the searcher for historical truth will not be so well satisfied with the tedious tales of monkish romance, as with the decided and unquestionable assurance, that the whole history of this apostle, from beginning to end, is perfectly unknown, and that not one action of his life has been preserved from the darkness of an utterly impenetrable oblivion.

JUDA.

HIS NAME.

The number of instances, among the men of the apostolic age, of two persons bearing the same name, is very curious, and seems to show a great poverty of appellatives among their parents. Among the twelve there are two Simons, two Jameses, and two Judases; and including those whose labors were any way connected with theirs, there are three Johns, (the Baptist, the Apostle, and John Mark,) and two Philips, besides other minor coincidences. The confusion which this repetition of names causes among common readers, is truly undesirable; and it requires attention for them to avoid error. In the case of this apostle, indeed, the occasion of error is obviated for the most part, by a slight change in the termination; his name being generally written Juda, (in modern versions, Jude,) while the wretched traitor who bears the same name, preserves the common form terminating in S, which is also the form in which Luke and John express this apostle’s name. A more serious difficulty occurs, however, in a diversity noticed between the account given by the two first evangelists, and the forms in which his name is expressed in the writings of Luke and John, and in the introduction to his own epistle. Matthew and Mark, in giving the names of the apostles, mention in the tenth place, the name of Thaddeus, to whom the former evangelist also gives the name of Lebbeus. They give him a place before Simon Zelotes, and immediately after James, the son of Alpheus. Luke gives the tenth place to Simon Zelotes, in both his lists, and after him mentions “Judas, the brother of James”; and John speaks of “Judas, (not Iscariot,”) among the chosen disciples. Juda, in his epistle also, announces himself as “the brother of James.” From all these circumstances it would seem to be very fairly inferred, that Judas, or Juda, the brother of James, and Lebbeus or Thaddeus, were all only different names of the same apostle. But this view is by no means universally received, and some have been found bold enough to declare, that these two sets of names referred to different persons, both of whom were at different times numbered among the twelve apostles, and were received or excluded from the list by Jesus, from some various circumstances, now unknown;――or were perhaps considered such by one evangelist or another, according to the notions and individual preferences of each writer. But such a view is so opposed to the established impressions of the uniform and fixed character of the apostolic list, and of the consistency of different parts of the sacred record, that it may very justly be rejected without the trouble of a discussion.

Another inquiry still, concerning this apostle, is, whether he is the same as that Judas who is mentioned along with James, Joses and Simon, as the brother of Jesus. All the important points involved in this question, have been already fully discussed in the life of James, the Little; and if the conclusion of that argument is correct, the irresistible consequence is, that the apostle Jude was also one of these relatives of Jesus. The absurdity of the view of his being a different person, can not be better exposed than by a simple statement of its assertions. It requires the reader to believe that there was a Judas, and a James, brothers and apostles; and another Judas and another James, also brothers, and brothers of Jesus, but not apostles; and that these are all mentioned in the New Testament without anything like a satisfactory explanation of the reality and distinctness of this remarkable duplicate of brotherhoods. Add to this, moreover, the circumstance that Juda, the author of the epistle, specifies himself as “the brother of James,” as though that were sufficient to prevent his being confounded with any other Judas or Juda in this world;――a specification totally useless, if there was another Judas, the brother of another James, all eminent as Christian teachers.

There is still another question connected with his simple entity and identity. Ancient traditions make mention of a Thaddeus, who first preached the gospel in the interior of Syria; and the question is, whether he is the same person as the apostle Juda, who is called Thaddeus by Matthew and Mark. The great majority of ancient writers, more especially the Syrians, consider the missionary Thaddeus not as one of the twelve apostles, but as one of the seventy disciples, sent out by Jesus in the same way as the select twelve. Another confirmation of the view that he was a different person from the apostle Jude, is found in the circumstance, that the epistle which bears the name of the latter, was not for several centuries received by the Syrian churches, though generally adopted throughout all Christendom, as an inspired apostolic writing. But surely, if their national evangelizer had been identical with the apostle Jude who wrote that epistle, they would have been the first to acknowledge its authenticity and authority, and to receive it into their scriptural canon.

So perfectly destitute are the gospel and apostolic history, of the slightest account of this apostle’s life and actions, that his whole biography may be considered completed in the mere settlement of his name and identity. The only word that has been preserved as coming from his lips, is recorded in John’s account of the parting discourses of Jesus to his disciples, on the eve of his crucifixion. Jesus was promising them that the love of God should be the sign and the reward of him who faithfully kept his commandments,――“He that holds and keeps my commandments, is the man that loves me; and he that loves me shall be loved by my Father; and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” These words constituted the occasion of the remark of Judas, thus recorded by John. “Judas (not Iscariot) says to him, ‘Lord! how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us as thou dost not to the world?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him.’” A natural inquiry, aptly and happily suggested, and most clearly and satisfactorily answered, in the plain but illustrative words of the divine teacher! Would that the honest inquirer after the true, simple meaning of the words of God, might have his painful researches through the wisdom of ages, as well rewarded as did the favored hearers of Jesus! And would that the trying efforts of critical thought might end in a result so brilliant and so cheering!

HIS EPISTLE.

The solitary monument and testimony of his apostolic labors, are found in that brief, but strongly characterized and peculiar writing, which bears his name, and forms the last portion, but one, of the modern scriptural canon. Short as it is, and obscure too, by the numerous references it contains, to local and temporary circumstances, there is much expressed in this little portion of the apostolic writings, which is highly interesting to the inquirer into the darker portions of the earliest Christian history.

Several very remarkable circumstances in this epistle, have, from the earliest ages of Christian theology, excited great inquiry among writers, and in many cases have not only led commentators and critics to pronounce the work very suspicious in its character, but even absolutely to condemn it as unworthy of a place in the sacred canon. One of these circumstances is, that the writer quotes apocryphal books of a mystical and superstitious character, that have never been received by Christians or Jews, as possessing any divine authority, nor as entitled to any regard whatever in religious matters. At least two distinct quotations from these confessedly fictitious writings, are found in this brief epistle. The first is from the book of Enoch, which has been preserved even to the present day, in the Ethiopic translation; the original Hebrew having been irrecoverably lost. Some of the highest authorities in orthodoxy and in learning have pronounced the original to have been a very ancient writing;――a forgery, indeed, since it professed to be the writing of Enoch himself,――but made up in the earliest ages of Rabbinical literature, after the Old Testament canon was completed, but before any portion of the New Testament was written,――probably some years before the Christian era, though the means of ascertaining its exact date are wanting. Another quotation, equally remarkable, occurs in this epistle, without any mention being made, however, of the exact source from which the passage has been drawn; and the point is at present a subject of dispute,――as references have been made by different authorities, ancient and modern, to different apocryphal Jewish books, which contain similar passages. But the most valuable authorities, both ancient and modern, decide it to be a work now universally allowed to be apocryphal,――“the Ascension of Moses,” which is directly quoted as authority on a subject altogether removed from human knowledge, and on which no testimony could be of any value, except it were derived directly and solely from the sources of inspiration. The consequence of these references to these two doubtful authorities, is, that many of the critical examiners of this epistle, in all ages, have felt themselves justified in condemning it.

Tertullian (A. D. 200) is the earliest writer who has distinctly quoted this epistle. He refers to it in connection with the quotation from the book of Enoch. “Hence it is that Enoch is quoted by the apostle Jude.” (De cultu feminarum, 3.) Clement of Alexandria also repeatedly quotes the epistle of Jude as an apostolic writing. Origen (A. D. 230,) very clearly expresses his opinion in favor of this epistle as the production of Jude, the brother of Jesus. In his commentary on Matthew xiii. 55, where James, Simon and Jude are mentioned, he says, “Jude wrote an epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of powerful words of heavenly grace, who, at the beginning says, ‘Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.’” Origen thought everything connected with this epistle, of such high authority, that he considered the apocryphal book of “the Ascension of Moses,” a work of authority, because it had been quoted by Jude, (verse 9.) He confesses however, that there were some who doubted the authenticity of the epistle of Jude; and that this was the fact, appears still more distinctly from the account of the apostolic writings, given by Eusebius, (A. D. 320,) who sets it down among the disputed writings. The ancient Syriac version (executed before A. D. 100,) rejects this as well as the second of Peter, and the second and third of John. After the fourth century all these became universally established in the Greek and Latin churches. The great Michaelis however, utterly condemns it as probably a forgery. (Introduction, IV. xxix. 5.)

The clearest statement of the character of this reference to the book of Enoch, is given by Hug’s translator, Dr. Wait. (Introduction. Vol. II. p. 618, note.)

“This manifestly appears to have been the reason why Jude cited apocryphal works in his epistle, viz. for the sake of refuting their own assertions from those productions, which, like the rest of their nation, they most probably respected. For this purpose the book of Enoch was peculiarly calculated, since in the midst of all its ineptiae and absurdities, this point, and the orders of the spiritual world, are strongly urged and discussed in it. It is irrelevant to the inquiry, how much of the present book existed at this time, for that it was framed by different writers, and at different periods, no critic can deny; yet that this was the leading character of the work, and that these were the prominent dogmata of those parts which were then in existence, we have every presumptive evidence. The Hebrew names of angels, &c., such as the Ophanim, plainly indicate it to have been a translation from some lost Jewish original, which was doubtless known both to Peter and to Jude; nor can the unprejudiced examiner of these epistles well hesitate to acknowledge Hug’s explanation of them to be the most correct and the most reasonable.”

The whole defense of the epistle against these imputations, may be grounded upon the supposition, that the apostle was writing against a peculiar class of heretics, who did acknowledge these apocryphal books to be of divine authority, and to whom he might quote these with a view to show, that even by their own standards of truth, their errors of doctrine and life must be condemned. The sect of the Gnostics has been already mentioned in the life of John, as being the first ever known to have perverted the purity of Christian doctrine, by heresy. These heretics certainly are not very fully described in those few passages of this short epistle that are directed at the errors of doctrine; but the character of those errors which Jude denounces, is accordant with what is known of some of the prominent peculiarities of the Gnostics. But whatever may have been the particular character of these heretics, it is evident that they must, like the great majority of the Jews in those days, have acknowledged the divine authority of these ancient apocryphal writings; and the apostle was therefore right in making use of quotations from these works, to refute their very remarkable errors. The evils which he denounced, however, were not merely of a speculative character; but he more especially condemns their gross immoralities, as a scandal and an outrage on the purity of the Christian assemblies with which they still associated. In all those passages where these vices are referred to, it will be observed that both immoralities and doctrinal errors are included in one common condemnation, which shows that both were inseparably connected in the conduct of those heretics whom the writer condemns. This circumstance also does much to identify them with some of the Gnostical sects before alluded to,――more especially with the Nicolaitans, as they are called by John in the beginning of the Apocalypse, where he is addressing the church of Pergamos. In respect to this very remarkable peculiarity of a vicious and abominable life, combined with speculative errors, the ancient Christian writers very fully describe the Nicolaitans; and their accounts are so unanimous, and their accusations so definite, that it is just and reasonable to consider this epistle as directed particularly against them.

Nicolaitans.――An allusion has already been made to this sect in the life of John, but they deserve a distinct reference here also, as they are so distinctly mentioned in Jude’s epistle. The explanation of the name which in the former passage (page 343,) was crowded out by other matters prolonging that part of the work beyond its due limits, may here be given most satisfactorily, in the words of the learned Dr. Hug. (Introduction, Vol. II. note, § 182, original, § 174, translation.)

“The arguments of those who decide them to have been the Nicolaitans, according to my opinion, are at present the following:――John in the Apocalypse describes the Nicolaitans nearly as the heretics are here represented to us, with the same comparison, and with the same vices; persons who exercise the arts of Balaam, who taught Balak to ensnare the children of Israel, and to induce them to partake of idolatrous sacrifices, and to fornicate, (Acts ii. 14: Jude 2: 2 Peter ii. 15.) Even בלעם according to its derivation, is equivalent to Νίκολαος. They also certainly denied the Lord’s creation and government of the world. Alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini ... et eam conditionem, quae est secundum nos non a primo Deo factam, sed a Virtute aliqua valde deorsum subjecta. (Irenaeus L. iii. c. 11.) If now all corporeal and material existence has its origin from the Creator of the world, who is a very imperfect and gross spirit, it flows naturally from this notion, that they could not admit a corporeal resuscitation by the agency of the Supreme Being, or by the agency of Jesus, in a universal day of judgment. With respect to the spiritual world, they also actually taught such absurdities, that it must be said of them δοξας βλασφημοῦσι; for they supposed, Aeones quosdam turpitudinis natos; et complexus, et permixtiones execrabiles, et obscaenas. (Tertullianus in append. ad Lib. de praescript. c. 46.) But, as to their excesses and abominable mode of life, the accounts of the ancients are so unanimous, and the accusations are so constituted, that the two apostolic epistles may have most pertinently referred to them.”

The passage from Irenaeus relating to this sect, (quoted on page 343,) contains a remarkable Latin word, “vulsio,” not found in any other author, and not explained at all, in the common dictionaries. That miserable, unsatisfactory mass of words, Ainsworth’s Thesaurus, does not contain it, and I was left to infer the meaning from the theme, vello, and it was therefore translated “fragment,”――a meaning not inconsistent with its true sense. Since that was printed, a learned friend, to whom the difficulty was mentioned, on searching for the word in better dictionaries, found it in Gesner’s Thesaurus, distinctly quoted from the very passage, with a very satisfactory explanation of its exact meaning. Gesner’s account of it is as follows: “Vulsio, Irenaeus, iii. 11. Nicolaitae sunt vulsio ejus. i. e. surculus inde enatus, et revulsus, stolo, ἀπὀρρώξ. Secta una ex altera velut pullulavit.” The meaning therefore is a “sucker,” “a shoot or scion, springing out of the root or side of the stock,” and the expression in this passage may therefore be translated, “The Nicolaitans are a slip or sprig of the old stock of the Gnosis.” And as Gesner happily explains it, “One sect, as it were, sprouted up from another.”

The word “scientia” in this wretched Latin translation, is quoted along with the adjacent words from Paul’s second epistle to Timothy, (vi. 20.) where he is warning him against the delusions of the Gnostics, and speaks of “the dogmas of the Gnosis,” (γνωσις,) translated “science,” but the word is evidently technical in this passage. Irenaeus no doubt quoted it in the Greek, but his ignorant translator, not perceiving the peculiar force of the word, translated it “scientia,” losing all the sense of the expression. The common translations of the Bible have done the same, in the passage in 2 Timothy vi. 20.

Another circumstance in this epistle which has attracted a critical notice, and which has occasioned its condemnation by some, is the remarkable coincidence both of sense and words between it and the second chapter of the second epistle of Peter. There are probably few diligent readers of the New Testament to whom this has not been a subject of curious remark, as several verses in one, seem a mere transcript of corresponding passages in the other. Various conjectures have been made to account for this resemblance in matter and in words,――some supposing Jude to have written first, and concluding that Peter, writing to the same persons, made references in this manner to the substance of what they had already learned from another apostle,――and others supposing that Peter wrote first, and that Jude followed, and amplified a portion of the epistle which had already lightly touched in some parts only upon the particular errors which the latter writer wished more especially to refute and condemn. This coincidence is nevertheless no more a ground for rejecting one or the other of the two writings, than the far more perfect parallelisms between the gospels are a reason for concluding that only one of them can be an authorized document. Both the apostles were evidently denouncing the same errors and condemning the same vices, and nothing was more natural than that this similarity of purpose should produce a proportional similarity of language. Either of the above suppositions is consistent with the character of the writings;――Peter may have written first, and Jude may have taken a portion of that epistle as furnishing hints for a more protracted view of these particular points; or, on the supposition that Jude wrote first, Peter may have thought it worth while only to refer generally, and not to dwell very particularly on those points which his fellow-apostle had already so fully and powerfully treated.

The particular churches to which this epistle was addressed, are utterly unknown; nor do modern writers pretend to find any means of detecting the places to which it was addressed in any peculiar passage, except so far as the chief seats of the heretics, against whom he wrote, are supposed to be known. Asia Minor, Syria and the East, were the regions to which the Gnostical errors were mostly confined; and in the former country more especially they were objects of attention, to the ministers of truth, during the apostolic age and in succeeding times. It was probably intended for the same persons to whom Peter wrote; and what has been said on the direction of his two epistles, will illustrate the immediate design of this also.

Its date is involved in the same uncertainty that covers all points in its own history and that of its author; the prominent difficulty being its great brevity, in consequence of which it offers but few characteristics of any kind, for the decision of doubtful points; and the life and works of Juda must therefore be set down among those matters, in which the indifference of those who could once have preserved historical truth for the eyes of posterity, has left even the research of modern criticism, not one hook to hang a guess upon.

JUDAS ISCARIOT.

This name doubtless strikes the eye of the Christian reader, as almost a stain to the fair page of apostolic history, and a dishonor to the noble list of the holy, with whom the traitor was associated. But he who knew the hearts of all men from the beginning, even before their actions had developed and displayed their characters, chose this man among those whom he first sent forth on the message of coming grace; and all the gospel records bear the name of the traitor along with those who were faithful even unto death; nor does it behove the unconsecrated historian to affect, about the arrangement of this name, a delicacy which the gospel writers did not manifest.

Of his birth, his home, his occupation, his call, and his previous character, the sacred writers bear no testimony; and all which the inventive genius of modern criticism has been able to present in respect to any of these circumstances, is drawn from no more certain source than the various proposed etymologies and significations of his name. But the plausibility which is worn by each one of these numerous derivations, is of itself a sufficient proof of the little dependence which can be placed upon any conclusion so lightly founded. The inquirer is therefore safest in following merely the reasonable conjecture, that his previous character had been respectable, not manifesting to the world at least, any baseness which would make him an infamous associate. For though the Savior in selecting the chief ministers of his gospel, did not take them from the wealthy, the high-born, the refined, or the learned; and though he did not scruple even to take those of a low and degraded occupation, his choice would nevertheless entirely exclude those who were in any way marked by previous character, as more immoral than the generality of the people among whom they lived. In short, it is very reasonable to suppose; that Judas Iscariot was a respectable man, probably with a character as good as most of his neighbors had, though he may have been considered by some of his acquaintance, as a close, sharp man in money matters; for this is a character most unquestionably fixed on him in those few and brief allusions which are made to him in the gospel narratives. Whatever may have been the business to which he had been devoted during his previous life, he had probably acquired a good reputation for honesty, as well as for careful management of property; for he is on two occasions distinctly specified as the treasurer and steward of the little company or family of Jesus;――an office for which he would not have been selected, unless he had maintained such a character as that above imputed to him. Even after his admission into the fraternity, he still betrayed his strong acquisitiveness, in a manner that will be fully exhibited in the history of the occurrence in which it was most remarkably developed.

Iscariot.――The present form of this word appears from the testimony of Beza, to be different from the original one, which, in his oldest copy of the New Testament, was given without the I in the beginning, simply; Σκαρίωτης; (Scariotes;) and this is confirmed by the very ancient Syriac version, which expresses it by (Sekaryuta.) Origen also, the oldest of the Christian commentators, (A. D. 230,) gives the word without the initial vowel, “Scariot.” It is most reasonable therefore to conclude that the name was originally Scariot, and that the I was prefixed, for the sake of the easier pronunciation of the two initial consonants; for some languages are so smoothly constructed, that they do not allow even S to precede a mute, without a vowel before. Just as the Turks, in taking up the names of Greek towns, change Scopia into Iscopia, &c. The French too, change the Latin Spiritus into Esprit, as do the Spaniards into Espiritu; and similar instances are numerous.

The very learned Matthew Poole, in his Synopsis Criticorum, (Matthew x. 4,) gives a very full view of the various interpretations of this name. Six distinct etymologies and significations of this word have been proposed, most of which appear so plausible, that it may seem hard to decide on their comparative probabilities. That which is best justified by the easy transition from the theme, and by the aptness of the signification to the circumstances of the person, is the First, proposed by an anonymous author, quoted in the Parallels of Junius, and adopted by Poole. This is the derivation from the Syriac (sekharyut,) “a bag,” or “purse;” root cognate with the Hebrew סכר (sakhar.) No. 1, Gibbs’s Hebrew Lexicon, and סגר (sagar,) Syrian & Arabic id. The word thus derived must mean the “bag-man,” the “purser,” which is a most happy illustration of John’s account of the office of Judas, (xii. 6: xiii. 29.) It is, in short, a name descriptive of his peculiar duty in receiving the money of the common stock of Christ and his apostles, buying the necessary provisions, administering their common charities to the poor, and managing all their pecuniary affairs,――performing all the duties of that officer who in English is called a “steward.” Judas Iscariot, or rather “Scariot,” means therefore “Judas the STEWARD.”

The second derivation proposed is that of Junius, (Parall.) who refers it to a sense descriptive of his fate. The Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic root, סכר (sakar,) has in the first of these languages, the secondary signification of “strangle,” and the personal substantive derived from it, might therefore mean, “one who was strangled.” Lightfoot says that if this theme is to be adopted, he should prefer to trace the name to the word אשכרא which with the Rabbinical writers is used in reference to the same primitive, in the meaning of “strangulation.” But both these, even without regarding the great aptness of the first definition above given, may be condemned on their own demerits; because, they suppose either that this name was applied to him, only after his death,――an exceedingly unnatural view,――or (what is vastly more absurd) that he was thus named during his life-time, by a prophetical anticipation, that he would die by the halter!!! It is not very uncommon, to be sure, for such charitable prophetic inferences to be drawn respecting the character and destiny of the graceless, and the point of some vulgar proverbs consists in this very allusion, but the utmost stretch of such predictions never goes to the degree of fixing upon the hopeful candidate for the gallows, a surname drawn from this comfortable anticipation of his destiny. Besides, it is hard to believe that a man wearing thus, as it were, a halter around his neck, would have been called by Jesus into the goodly fellowship of the apostles; for though neither rank, nor wealth, nor education, nor refinement were requisites for admission, yet a tolerable good moral character may be fairly presumed to have been an indispensable qualification.

The third derivation is of such a complicated and far-fetched character, that it bears its condemnation on its own face. It is that of the learned Tremellius, who attempts to analyze Iscariot into שכר (seker,) “wages,” “reward,” and נטה (natah,) “turn away,” alluding to the fact that for money he revolted from his Master. This, besides its other difficulties, supposes that the name was conferred after his death; whereas he must certainly have needed during his life, some appellative to distinguish him from Judas the brother of James.

The fourth is that of Grotius and Erasmus, who derive it from איש יששכר (Ish Issachar,) “a man of Issachar,”――supposing the name to designate his tribe, just as the same phrase occurs in Judges x. 1. But all these distinctions of origin from the ten tribes must have been utterly lost in the time of Christ; nor does any instance occur of a Jew of the apostolic age being named from his supposed tribe.

The fifth is the one suggested and adopted by Lightfoot. In the Talmudic Hebrew, the word סקורטיא (sekurti,)――also written with an initial א (aleph) and pronounced Iscurti,――has the meaning of “leather apron;” and this great Hebraician proposes therefore, to translate the name, “Judas with the leather apron;” and suggests some aptness in such a personal appendage, because in such aprons they had pockets or bags in which money, &c. might be carried. The whole derivation, however, is forced and far-fetched,――doing great violence to the present form of the word, and is altogether unworthy of the genius of its inventor, who is usually very acute in etymologies.

The sixth is that of Beza, Piscator and Hammond, who make it איש־קריות (Ish-Qerioth or Kerioth,) “a man of Kerioth,” a city of Judah. (Joshua xv. 25.) Beza says that a very ancient MS. of the Greek New Testament, in his possession, (above referred to,) in all the five passages in John, where Judas is mentioned, has this surname written απο Καριωτου. (apo Cariotou,) “Judas of Kerioth.” Lucas Brugensis observes, that this form of expression is used in Ezra ii. 22, 23, where the “men of Anathoth,” &c. are spoken of; but there is no parallelism whatever between the two cases; because in the passage quoted it is a mere general designation of the inhabitants of a place,――nor can any passage be shown in which it is thus appended to a man’s name, by way of surname. The peculiarity of Beza’s MS. is therefore undoubtedly an unauthorized perversion by some ancient copyist; for it is not found on any other ancient authority.

The motives which led such a man to join himself to the followers of the self-denying Nazarene, of course could not have been of a very high order; yet probably were about as praiseworthy as those of any of the followers of Jesus. Not one of the chosen disciples of Jesus is mentioned in the solemnly faithful narrative of the evangelists, as inspired by a self-denying principle of action. Wherever an occasion appeared on which their true motives and feelings could be displayed, they all without exception, manifested the most sordid selfishness, and seemed inspired by no idea whatever but that of worldly honors, triumphs, and rewards to be won in his service! Peter, indeed, is not very distinctly specified as betraying any remarkable regard for his own individual interest, and on several occasions manifested, certainly by starts, much of a true self-sacrificing devotion to his Master; yet his great views in following Jesus were unquestionably of an ambitious order, and his noblest conception was that of a worldly triumph of a Messiah, in which the chosen ones were to have a share proportioned no doubt to their exertions for its attainment. The two Boanerges betrayed the most determined selfishness, in scheming for a lion’s share in the spoils of victory; and the whole body of the disciples, on more than one occasion, quarreled among themselves about the first places in Christ’s kingdom. Judas therefore, was not greatly worse than his fellow-disciples,――no matter how bad may have been his motives; and probably at the beginning maintained a respectable stand among them, unless occasion might have betrayed to them the fact, that he was mean in money matters. But he, after espousing the fortunes of Jesus, doubtless went on scheming for his own advancement, just as the rest did for theirs, except that probably, when those of more liberal conceptions were contriving great schemes for the attainment of power, honor, fame, titles, and glory, both military and civil, his penny-saving soul was reveling in golden dreams, and his thoughts running delightedly over the prospects of vast gain to be reaped in the confiscation of the property of the wealthy Pharisees and lawyers, that would ensue immediately on the establishment of the empire of the Nazarene and his Galileans. While the great James and his amiable brother were quarreling with the rest of the fraternity about the premierships,――the highest administration of spiritual and temporal power,――the discreetly calculating Iscariot was doubtless expecting the fair results of a regular course of promotion, from the office of bag-carrier to the strolling company of Galileans, to the stately honors and immense emoluments of lord high-treasurer of the new kingdom of Israel; his advancement naturally taking place in the line in which he had made his first beginning in the service of his Lord, he might well expect that in those very particulars where he had shown himself faithful in few things, he would be made ruler over many things, when he should enter into the joy of his Lord,――sharing the honors and profits of His exaltation, as he had borne his part in the toils and anxieties of his humble fortunes. The careful management of his little stewardship, “bearing the bag, and what was put therein,” and “buying those things that were necessary” for all the wants of the brotherhood of Jesus,――was a service of no small importance and merit, and certainly would deserve a consideration at the hands of his Master. Such a trust also, certainly implied a great confidence of Jesus in his honesty and discretion in money matters, and shows not only the blamelessness of his character in those particulars, but the peculiar turn of his genius, in being selected, out of the whole twelve, for this very responsible and somewhat troublesome function.

Yet the eyes of the Redeemer were by no means closed to the baser inclinations of this much-trusted disciple. He knew (for what did he not know?) how short was the step from the steady adherence to the practice of a particular virtue, to the most scandalous breach of honor in that same line of action,――how slight, and easy, and natural was the perversion of a truly mean soul, or even one of respectable and honorable purposes, from the honest pursuit of gain, to the absolute disregard of every circumstance but personal advantage, and safety from the punishment of crime,――a change insensibly resulting from the total absorption of the soul in one solitary object and aim; for in all such cases, the honesty is not the purpose; it is only an incidental principle, occasionally called in to regulate the modes and means of the grand acquisition;――but gain is the great end and essence of such a life, and the forgetfulness of every other motive, when occasion suggests, is neither unnatural nor surprising. With all this and vastly more knowledge, Jesus was well able to discriminate the different states of mind in which the course of his discipleship found this calculating follower. He doubtless traced from day to day, and from week to week, and from month to month, as well as from year to year of his weary pilgrimage, the changes of zeal, resolution and hope, into distaste and despair, as the day of anticipated reward for these sacrifices seemed farther and farther removed, by the progress of events. The knowledge too, of the manner in which these depraved propensities would at last develope themselves, is distinctly expressed in the remark which he made in reply to Peter’s declaration of the fidelity and devotion of himself and his fellow disciples, just after the miracle of feeding the five thousand by the lake, when some renounced the service of Christ, disgusted with the revelations which he there made to them of the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and its rewards, and of the difficult and disagreeable requisites for his discipleship. Jesus seeing the sad defection of the worldly, turned to the twelve and said, “Will ye also go away?” Simon Peter, with ever ready zeal replied, “Lord! to whom shall we go but unto thee? For thou only hast the words of eternal life.” Jesus answered them, “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is an accuser?” This reply, as John in recording it remarks, alluded to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon; for he it was that was to betray him, though he was one of the twelve. He well knew that on no ear would these revelations of the pure spiritualism of his kingdom, and of the self-denying character of his service, fall more disagreeably than on that of the money-loving steward of the apostolic family, whose hopes would be most wofully disappointed by the uncomfortable prospects of recompense, and whose thoughts would be henceforth contriving the means of extricating himself from all share in this hopeless enterprise. Still he did not, like those mal-contents who were not numbered among the twelve, openly renounce his discipleship, and return to the business which he had left for the deceptive prospect of a profitable reward. He found himself too deeply committed to do this with advantage, and he therefore discontentedly continued to follow his great summoner, until an opportunity should occur of leaving this undesirable service, with a chance of some immediate profit in the exchange. Nor did he yet, probably, despair entirely of some more hopeful scheme of revolution than was now held up to view. He might occasionally have been led to hope, that these gloomy announcements were but a trial of the constancy of the chosen, and that all things would yet turn out as their high expectations had planned. In the occasional remarks of Jesus, there was also much, which an unspiritual and sordid hearer, might very naturally construe into a more comfortable accomplishment of his views, and in which such a one would think he found the distinct expression of the real purposes of Jesus in reference to the reward of his disciples. Such an instance, was the reply made to Peter when he reminded his Master of the great pecuniary sacrifices which they had all made in his service: “Lo! we have left all, and followed thee.” The assurances contained in the reply of Jesus, that among other things, those who had left houses and lands for his sake, should receive a hundred fold more in the day of his triumph, must have favorably impressed the baser-minded, with some idea of a real, solid return for the seemingly unprofitable investment which they had made in his scheme. Or, on the other hand, if the faith and hope of Iscariot in the word of Jesus were already too far gone to be recalled to life by any cheering promises, these sayings may have only served to increase his indifference, or to deepen it into downright hatred, at what he would regard as a new deceit, designed to keep up the sinking spirits of those, who had begun to apprehend the desperate character of the enterprise in which they had involved themselves. If his feelings had then reached this point of desperation, the effect of this renewal of promises, which he might construe into a support of his original views of the nature of the rewards accruing to the followers of Christ, on the establishment of his kingdom, would only excite and strengthen a deep rooted spite against his once-adored Lord, and his malice, working in secret over the disappointment, would at last be ready to rise on some convenient occasion into active revenge.

An accuser.――This is the true primary force of διαβολος (diabolos) in this passage. (John vi. 70.) This word is never applied to any individual in the sense of “devil,” except to Satan himself; but wherever it occurs as a common substantive appellation, descriptive of character, pointedly refers to its primary signification of “accuser,” “calumniator,” “informer,” &c., the root of it being διαβαλλω, which means “to accuse,” “to calumniate;” and when applied to Satan, it still preserves this sense,――though it then has the force of a proper name; since שטן (Satan,) in Hebrew, means primarily “accuser” but acquires the force of a proper name, in its ordinary use. Grotius however, suggests that in this passage, the word truly corresponds to the Hebrew צר (tsar,) the word which is applied to Haman, (Esther vii. 6. viii. 1.) and has here the general force of “accuser,” “enemy,” &c. The context here (verse 71,) shows that John referred to this sense, and that Christ applied it to Judas prophetically,――thus showing his knowledge of the fact, that this apostle would “accuse” him, and “inform” against him, before the Sanhedrim. Not only Grotius, but Vatablus, Erasmus, Lucas Brugensis, and others, maintain this rendering.

This occasion, before long, presented itself. The successful labors of Jesus, in Jerusalem, had raised up against him a combination of foes of the most determined and dangerously hostile character. The great dignitaries of the nation, uniting in one body all the legal, literary and religions honors and influence of the Hebrew name, and strengthened too by the weight of the vast wealth belonging to them and their immediate supporters, as well as by the exaltation of high office and ancient family, had at last resolved to use all this immense power, (if less could not effect it,) for the ruin of the bold, eloquent man, who, without one of all the privileges which were the sources and supports of their power, had shaken their ancient dominion to its foundation by his simple words, and almost overthrown all their power over the people, whose eyes were now beginning to be opened to the mystery of “how little wisdom it took, to govern them!” Self-preservation seemed to require an instantaneous and energetic action against the bold Reformer; and they were not the men to scruple about the means or mode of satisfying both revenge and ambition by his destruction. This state of feeling among the aristocracy could not have been unknown to Iscariot. He had doubtless watched its gradual developments, from day to day, during the displays in the temple; and as defeat followed defeat in the strife of mind, he had abundant opportunity to see the hostile feeling of the baffled and mortified Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers, mounting to the highest pitch of indignation, and furnishing him with the long-desired occasion of making up for his own disappointment in his great plans for the recompense of his sacrifices, in the cause of Jesus. He saw that there was no chance whatever for the triumphant establishment of that kingdom in whose honors he had expected to share. All the opportunities and means for effecting this result, Jesus was evidently determined to throw away, nor could anything ever move him to such an effort as was desirable for the gratification of the ambition of his disciples. The more splendid and tempting the occasions for founding a temporal dominion, the more resolutely did he seem to disappoint the golden hopes of his followers; and, proceeding thus, was only exposing himself and them to danger, without making any provision for their safety or escape. And where was to be the reward of Iscariot’s long services in the management of the stewardship of the apostolic fraternity? Had he not left his business, to follow them about, laboring in their behalf, managing their affairs, procuring the means of subsistence for them, and exercising a responsibility which none else was so competent to assume? And what recompense had he received? None, but the almost hopeless ruin of his fortunes in a desperate cause. That such were the feelings and reflections which his circumstances would naturally suggest, is very evident. The signs of the alienation of his affections from Jesus, are also seen in the little incident recorded by all the evangelists, of the anointing of his feet by Mary. She, in deep gratitude to the adored Lord who had restored to life her beloved brother, brought, as the offering of her fervent love, the box of precious ointment of spikenard, and poured it over his feet, anointing them, and wiping them with her hair, so that the whole house was filled with the fragrance. This beautiful instance of an ardent devotion, that would sacrifice everything for its object, awakened no corresponding feeling in the narrow soul of Iscariot; but seizing this occasion for the manifestation of his inborn meanness, and his growing spite against his Master, he indignantly exclaimed, (veiling his true motive, however, under the appearance of charitable regard for the poor,) “To what purpose is this waste? Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” So specious was this honorable pretense for blaming what seemed the inconsiderate and extravagant devotion of Mary, that others of the disciples joined in the indignant remonstrance against this useless squandering of property, which might be converted to the valuable purpose of ministering to the necessities of the poor, many of whose hearts might have been gladdened by a well-regulated expenditure of the price of this costly offering, which was now irrecoverably lost. But honorable as may have been the motives of those who joined with Iscariot in this protest, the apostle John most distinctly insists that he was moved by a far baser consideration. “This he said, NOT because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and kept the coffer, and carried what was cast into it.” This is a most distinct exposition of a piece of villainy in the traitor, that would have remained unknown, but for the record which John gives of this transaction. It is here declared in plain terms, that Iscariot had grossly betrayed the pecuniary trust which had been committed to him on the score of his previous honesty, and had been guilty of downright peculation,――converting to his own private purposes, the money which had been deposited with him as the treasurer and steward of the whole company of the disciples. He had probably made up his mind to this rascally abuse of trust, on the ground that he was justified in thus balancing what he had lost by his connection with Jesus; and supposed, no doubt, that the ruin of all those whom he was thus cheating, would be effectually secured before the act could be found out. What renders this crime doubly abominable, is, that it was robbing the poor of the generous contributions which, by the kindness of Jesus, had been appropriated to their use, out of this little common stock; for it seems that Iscariot was the minister of the common charities of the brotherhood, as well as the provider of such things as were necessary for their subsistence, and the steward of the common property. With the pollution of this base crime upon his soul, before stirred up to spite and disgust by disappointed ambition, he was now so dead to honor and decency, that he was abundantly prepared for the commission of the crowning act of villainy. The words in which Jesus rebuked his specious concern for the economical administration of the money in charity, was also in a tone that he might construe into a new ground of offense, implying, as it did, that his zeal had some motive far removed from a true affection for that Master, whose life was in hourly peril, and might any moment be so sacrificed by his foes, that the honorable forms of preparation for the burial might be denied; and being thus already devoted to death, he might well accept this costly offering of pure devotion, as the mournful unction for the grave. In these sadly prophetic words, Judas may have found the immediate suggestion of his act of sordid treachery; and incited, moreover, by the repulse which his remonstrance had received, he seems to have gone directly about the perpetration of the crime.

The nature and immediate object of this plot may not be perfectly comprehended, without considering minutely the relations in which Jesus stood to the Jewish Sanhedrim, and the means he had of resisting or evading their efforts for the consummation of their schemes and hopes against him. Jesus of Nazareth was, to the chief priests, scribes and Pharisees, a dangerous foe. He had, during his visits to Jerusalem, in his repeated encounters with them in the courts of the temple, and all public places of assembly, struck at the very foundation of all their authority and power over the people. The Jewish hierarchy was supported by the sway of the Romans, indeed, but only because it was in accordance with their universal policy of tolerance, to preserve the previously established order of things, in all countries which they conquered, so long as such a preservation was desired by the people; but no longer than it was perfectly accordant with the feelings of the majority. The Sanhedrim and their dependents therefore knew perfectly well that their establishment could receive no support from the Roman government, after they had lost their dominion over the affections of the people; and were therefore very ready to perceive, that if they were to be thus confounded and set at nought, in spite of learning and dignity, by a poor Galilean, and even their gravest and most puzzling attacks upon his wisdom and prudence, turned into an absolute jest against them,――it was quite clear that the amused and delighted multitude would soon cease to regard the authority and opinions of their venerable religious and legal rulers, whose subtleties were so easily foiled by one of the common, uneducated mass. But the very circumstances which effected and constituted the evil, were also the grand obstacles to the removal of it. Jesus was by these means seated firmly in the love and reverence of the people,――and of the vast numbers of strangers then in Jerusalem at the feast, there were very many who would have their feelings strongly excited in his favor, by the circumstance that they, as well as he, were Galileans, and would therefore be very apt to make common cause with him in case of any violent attack. All these obstacles required management; and after having been very many times foiled in their attempts to seize him, by the resolute determination of the thousands by whom he was always encircled, to defend him, they found that they must contrive some way to get hold of him when he was without the defenses of this admiring host. This could be done, of course, only by following him to his secret haunts, and coming quietly upon him before the multitude could assemble to his aid. But his movements were altogether beyond their notice. No armed band could follow him about, as he went from the city to the country in his daily and nightly walks. They needed some spy who could watch his private movements when unattended, save by the little band of the twelve, and give notice of the favorable moment for a seizure, when the time, the place, and the circumstances, would all conspire to prevent a rescue. Thus taken, he might be safely lodged in some of the impregnable fortresses of the temple and city, so as to defy the momentary burst of popular rage, on finding that their idol had been taken away. They knew too, the fickle character of the commonalty, well enough to feel certain, that when the tide of condemnation was once strongly set against the Nazarene, the lip-worship of “Hosannas” could be easily turned, by a little management, into the ferocious yell of deadly denunciation. The mass of the people are always essentially the same in their modes of action. Mobs were then managed by the same rules as now, and demagogues were equally well versed in the tricks of their trade. Besides, when Jesus had once been formally indicted and presented before the secular tribunal of the Roman governor, as a rioter and seditious person, no thought of a rescue from the military force could be thought of; and however unwilling Pilate might be to minister to the wishes of the Jews, in an act of unnecessary cruelty, he could not resist a call thus solemnly made to him, in the character of preserver of the Roman sway, though he would probably have rejected entirely any proposition to seize Jesus by a military force, in open day, in the midst of the multitude, so as to create a troublesome and bloody tumult, by such an imprudent act. In the full consideration of all these difficulties, the Jewish dignitaries were sitting in conclave, contriving means to effect the settlement of their troubles, by the complete removal of him who was unquestionably the cause of all. At once their anxious deliberations were happily interrupted by the entrance of the trusted steward of the company of Jesus, who changed all their doubts and distant hopes into absolute certainty, by offering, for a reasonable consideration, to give up Jesus into their hands, a prisoner, without any disturbance or riot. How much delay and debate there was about terms, it would be hard to say; but after all, the bargain made, does not seem to have been greatly to the credit of the liberality of the Sanhedrim, or the sharpness of Judas. Thirty of the largest pieces of silver then coined, would make but a poor price for such an extraordinary service, even making all allowance for a scarcity of money in those times. And taking into account the wealth and rank of those concerned, as well as the importance of the object, it is fair to pronounce them a very mean set of fellows. But Judas especially seems to forfeit almost all right to the character given him of acuteness in money matters; and it is only by supposing him to be quite carried out of his usual prudence, by his woful abandonment to crime, that so poor a bargain can be made consistent with the otherwise reasonable view of his character.

Thirty pieces of silver.――The value of these pieces is seemingly as vaguely expressed in the original as in the translation; but a reference to Hebrew usages throws some light on the question of definition. The common Hebrew coin thus expressed was the shekel,――equivalent to the Greek didrachmon, and worth about sixteen cents. In Hebrew the expression, thirty “shekels of silver,” was not always written out in full; but the name of the coin being omitted, the expression was always equally definite, because no other coin was ever left thus to be implied. Just so in English, the phrase, “a million of money,” is perfectly well understood here, to mean “a million of dollars;” while in England, the current coin of that country would make the expression mean so many pounds. In the same manner, to say, in this country, that any thing or any man is worth “thousands,” always conveys, with perfect definiteness, the idea of “dollars;” and in every other country the same expression would imply a particular coin. Thirty pieces of silver, each of which was worth sixteen cents, would amount only to four dollars and eighty cents, which are just one pound sterling. A small price for the great Jewish Sanhedrim to pay for the ruin of their most dangerous foe! Yet for this little sum, the Savior of the world was bought and sold!

Having thus settled this business, the cheaply-purchased traitor returned to the unsuspecting fellowship of the apostles, mingling with them, as he supposed, without the slightest suspicion on the part of any one, respecting the horrible treachery which he had contrived for the bloody ruin of his Lord. But there was an eye, whose power he had never learned, though dwelling beneath its gaze for years,――an eye, which saw the vainly hidden results of his treachery, even as for years it had scanned the base motives which governed him. Yet no word of reproach or denunciation broke forth from the lips of the betrayed One; the progress of crime was suffered unresistedly to bear him onward to the mournfully necessary fulfilment of his destiny. Judas meanwhile, from day to day, waited and watched for the most desirable opportunity of meeting his engagements with his priestly employers. The first day of the feast of unleavened bread having arrived, Jesus sat down at evening to eat the Paschal lamb with his twelve disciples, alone. The whole twelve were there without one exception,――and among those who reclined around the table, sharing in the social delights of the entertainment which celebrated the beginning of the grand national festival, was the dark-souled accuser also, like Satan among the sons of God. Even here, amid the general joyous hilarity, his great scheme of villainy formed the grand theme of his meditations,――and while the rest were entering fully into the natural enjoyments of the occasion, he was brooding over the best means of executing his plans. During the supper, after the performance of the impressive ceremony of washing their feet, Jesus made a sudden transition from the comments with which he was illustrating it; and, in a tone of deep and sorrowful emotion, suddenly exclaimed, “I solemnly assure you, that one of you will betray me.” This surprising assertion, so emphatically made, excited the most distressful sensations among the little assembly;――all enjoyment was at an end; and grieved by the imputation, in which all seemed included until the individual was pointed out, they each earnestly inquired, “Lord, is it I?” As they sat thus looking in the most painful doubt around their lately cheerful circle, the disciple who held the place of honor and affection at the table, at the request of Peter, whose position gave him less advantage for familiar and private conversation,――plainly asked of Jesus, “Who is it, Lord?” Jesus, to make his reply as deliberate and impressive as possible, said, “It is he to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it.” The design of all this circumlocution in pointing out the criminal, was, to mark the enormity of the offense. “He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me.” It was his familiar friend, his chosen companion, enjoying with him at that moment the most intimate social pleasures of the entertainment, and occupying one of the places nearest to him, at the board. As he promised, after dipping the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, who, receiving it, was moved to no change in his dark purpose; but with a new Satanic spirit, resolved immediately to execute his plan, in spite of this open exposure, which, he might think, was meant to shame him from his baseness. Jesus, with an eye still fixed on his most secret inward movements, said to him, “What thou doest, do quickly.” Judas, utterly lost to repentance and to shame, coolly obeyed the direction, as if it had been an ordinary command, in the way of his official duty, and went out at the words of Jesus. All this, however, was perfectly without meaning, to the wondering disciples, who, not yet recovered from their surprise at the very extraordinary announcement which they had just heard of the expected treachery, could not suppose that this quiet movement could have anything to do with the occurrence which preceded it; but concluded that Judas was going about the business necessary for the preparation of the next day’s festal entertainment,――or that he was following the directions of Jesus about the charity to be administered to the poor out of the funds in his keeping, in accordance with the commendable Hebrew usage of remembering the poor on great occasions of enjoyment,――a custom to which, perhaps, the previous words of Judas, when he rebuked the waste of the ointment by Mary, had some especial reference, since at that particular time, money was actually needed for bestowment in alms to the poor. Judas, after leaving the place where the declaration of Jesus had made him an object of such suspicion and dislike, went, under the influence of that evil spirit, to whose direction he was now abandoned, directly to the chief priests, (who were anxiously waiting the fulfilment of his promise,) and made known to them that the time was now come. The band of watchmen and servants, with their swords and cudgels, were accordingly mustered and put under the guidance of Judas, who, well knowing the place to which Jesus would of course go from the feast, conducted his band of low assistants across the brook Kedron, to the garden of Gethsemane. On the way he arranged with them the sign by which they should recognize, in spite of the darkness and confusion, the person whose capture was the grand object of this expedition. “The man whom I shall kiss is he: seize him.” Entering the garden, at length, he led them straight to the spot which his intimate familiarity with Jesus enabled him to know, as his favorite retreat. Going up to him with the air of friendly confidence, he saluted him, as if rejoiced to find him, even after this brief absence,――another instance of the very close intimacy which had existed between the traitor and the betrayed. Jesus submitted to this hollow show, without any attempt to repulse the movement which marked him for destruction, only saying, in mild but expressive reproach,――“Judas! Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?” Without more delay he announced himself in plain terms, to those who came to seize him; thus showing how little need there was of artful contrivance in taking one who did not seek to escape. “If ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, I am he.” The simple majesty with which these words were uttered, was such as to overawe even the low officials; and it was not till he himself had again distinctly reminded them of their object, that they could execute their errand. So vain was the arrangement of signals, which had been studiously made by the careful traitor.

No further mention is made of Iscariot after the scene of his treachery, until the next morning, when Jesus had been condemned by the high court of the Sanhedrim, and dragged away to undergo punishment from the secular power. The sun of another day had risen on his crime; and after a very brief interval, he now had time for cool meditation on the nature and consequences of his act. Spite and avarice had both now received their full gratification. The thirty pieces of silver were his, and the Master whose instructions he had hated for their purity and spirituality, because they had made known to him the vileness of his own character and motives, was now in the hands of those who were impelled, by the darkest passions, to secure his destruction. But after all, now came the thought, and inquiry, ‘what had the pure and holy Jesus done, to deserve this reward at his hands?’ He had called him from the sordid pursuits of a common life, to the high task of aiding in the regeneration of Israel. He had taught him, labored with him, prayed for him, trusted him as a near and worthy friend, making him the steward of all the earthly possessions of his apostolic family, and the organ of his ministrations of charity to the poor. All this he had done without the prospect of a reward, surely. And why? To make him an instrument, not of the base purposes of a low ambition;――not to acquire by this means the sordid and bloody honors of a conqueror,――but to effect the moral and spiritual emancipation of a people, suffering far less under the evils of a foreign sway, than under the debasing dominion of folly and sin. And was this an occasion to arm against him the darker feelings of his trusted and loved companions?――to turn the instruments of his mercy into weapons of death? Ought the mere disappointment of a worldly-minded spirit, that was ever clinging to the love of material things, and that would not learn the solemn truth of the spiritual character of the Messiah’s reign, now to cause it to vent its regrets at its own errors, in a traitorous attack upon the life of him who had called it to a purpose whose glories and rewards it could not appreciate? These and other mournful thoughts would naturally rise to the repentant traitor’s mind, in the awful revulsion of feeling which that morning brought with it. But repentance is not atonement; nor can any change of feeling in the mind of the sinner, after the perpetration of the sinful act, avail anything for the removal or expiation of the evil consequences of it. So vain and unprofitable, both to the injurer and the injured, are the tears of remorse! And herein lay the difference between the repentance of Judas and of Peter. The sin of Peter affected no one but himself, and was criminal only as the manifestation of a base, selfish spirit of deceit, that fell from truth through a vain-glorious confidence,――and the effusion of his gushing tears might prove the means of washing away the pollution of such an offense from his soul. But the sin of Judas had wrought a work of crime whose evil could not be affected by any tardy change of feeling in him. Peter’s repentance came too late indeed, to exonerate him from guilt; because all repentance is too late for such a purpose, when it comes after the commission of the sin. The repentance of an evil purpose, coming in time to prevent the execution of the act, is indeed available for good; but both Peter and Judas came to the sense of the heinousness of sin, only after its commission. Peter however, had no evil to repair for others,――while Judas saw the bloody sequel of his guilt, coming with most irrevocable certainty upon the blameless One whom he had betrayed. Overwhelmed with vain regrets, he took the now hateful, though once-desired price of his villainy, and seeking the presence of his purchasers, held out to them the money, with the useless confession of the guilt, which was too accordant with their schemes and hopes, for them to think of redeeming him from its consequences. The words of his confession were, “I have sinned, in betraying innocent blood.” This late protestation was received by the proud priests, with as much regard as might have been expected from exulting tyranny, when in the enjoyment of the grand object of its efforts. With a cold sneer they replied, “What is that to us? See thou to that!” Maddened with the immovable and remorseless determination of the haughty condemners of the just, he flung down the price of his infamy and woe, upon the floor of the temple, and rushed out of their presence, to seal his crimes and eternal misery by the act that put him for ever beyond the power of redemption. Seeking a place removed from the observation of men, he hurried out of the city, and contriving the fatal means of death for himself, before the bloody doom of him whom he betrayed had been fulfilled, the wretched man saved his eyes the renewed horrors of the sight of the crucifixion, by closing them in the sleep which earthly sights can not disturb. But even in the mode of his death, new circumstances of horror occurred. Swinging himself into the air, by falling from a highth, as the cord tightened around his neck, checking his descent, the weight of his body produced the rupture of his abdomen, and his bowels bursting through, made him, as he swung stiffening and convulsed in the agonies of this doubly horrid death, a disgusting and appalling spectacle,――a monument of the vengeance of God on the traitor, and a shocking witness of his own remorse and self-condemnation.

A very striking difference is noticeable between the account given by Matthew of the death of Judas, and that given by Luke in the speech of Peter, Acts i. 18, 19. The various modes of reconciling these difficulties are found in the ordinary commentaries. In respect to a single expression in Acts i. 18, there is an ingenious conjecture offered by Granville Penn, in a very interesting and learned article in the first volume of the transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, which may very properly be mentioned here, on account of its originality and plausibility, and because it is found only in an expensive work, hardly ever seen in this country. Mr. Penn’s view is, that “the word ελακησε (elakese,) in Acts i. 18, is only an inflection of the Latin verb, laqueo, (to halter or strangle,) rendered insititious in the Hellenistic Greek, under the form λακεω.” He enters into a very elaborate argument, which can not be given here, but an extract may be transcribed, in order to enable the learned to apprehend the nature and force of his views. (Translated by R. S. Lit. Vol. I. P. 2, pp. 51, 52.)

“Those who have been in the southern countries of Europe know, that the operation in question, as exercised on a criminal, is performed with a great length of cord, with which the criminal is precipitated from a high beam, and is thus violently laqueated, or snared in a noose, mid-way――medius or in medio; μεσος, and medius, referring to place as well as to person; as, μεσος ὑμων ἑστηκεν. (John i. 26.) ‘Considit scopulo medius――――’ (Virgil, Georgics, iv. 436.) ‘―――― medius prorumpit in hostes.’ (Aeneid, x. 379.)

“Erasmus distinctly perceived this sense in the words πρηνης γενομενος, although he did not discern it in the word ελακησε, which confirms it: ‘πρηνης Graecis dicitur, qui vultu est in terram dejecto: expressit autem gestum et habitum LAQUEO PRAEFOCATI; alioquin, ex hoc sane loco non poterat intelligi, quod Judas suspenderit se,’ (in loc.) And so Augustine also had understood those words, as he shows in his Recit. in Act. Apostol. l. i. col. 474. ‘et collem sibi alligavit, et dejectus in faciem,’ &c. Hence one MS., cited by Sabatier, for πρηνης γενομενος, reads αποκρεμαμένος; and Jerom, in his new vulgate, has substituted suspensus for the pronus factus of the old Latin version, which our old English version of 1542 accordingly renders, and when he was hanged.

“That which follows, and which evidently determined the vulgar interpretation of ελακησε――εξεχυνθη παντα τα σπλαγχνα αυτου, all his bowels gushed out――states a natural and probable effect produced, by the sudden interruption in the fall and violent capture in the noose, in a frame of great corpulency and distension, such as Christian antiquity has recorded that of the traitor to have been; so that a term to express rupture would have been altogether unnecessary, and it is therefore equally unnecessary to seek for it in the verb ελακησε. Had the historian intended to express disruption, we may justly presume that he would have said, as he had already said in his gospel, v. 6, διερρηγνυτο, or xxiii. 45, εσχισθη μεσος: it is difficult to conceive, that he would here have traveled into the language of ancient Greek poetry for a word to express a common idea, when he had common terms at hand and in practice; but he used the Roman laqueo, λακεω, to mark the infamy of the death.

“(Πρησθεις επι τοσουτον την σαρκα, ὡστε μη δυνασθαι δειλθειν. Papias, from Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ tom. I. p. 9. and Oecumenius, thus rendered by Zegers, Critici Sacri, Acts i. 18, in tantum enim corpore inflatus est ut progredi non posset. The tale transmitted by those writers of the first and tenth centuries, that Judas was crushed to death by a chariot proceeding rapidly, from which his unwieldiness rendered him unable to escape, merits no further attention, after the authenticated descriptions of the traitor’s death which we have here investigated, than to suggest a possibility that the place where the suicide was committed might have overhung a public way, and that the body falling by its weight might have been traversed, after death, by a passing chariot;――from whence might have arisen the tales transmitted successively by those writers; the first of whom, being an inhabitant of Asia Minor, and therefore far removed from the theater of Jerusalem, and being also (as Eusebius witnesses, iii. 39,) a man of a very weak mind――σφοδρα μκρος τον νουν――was liable to be deceived by false accounts.)