JUDAS
540
JUDAS
Apostolate. We are told nothing concerning the cir-
cumstances of his call or his share in the ministry and
miracles of the Apostles. And it is significant that he
is never mentioned without some reference to his great
betrayal. Thus, in the list of the Apostles given in
the Synoptic Gospels, we read: "and Judas Iscariot,
who also betrayed him" (Matt., x, 4. Cf. Mark, iii,
19; Luke, vi, 16). So again in St. John's Gospel the
name first occurs in connexion with the foretelling of
the betrayal: "Jesus answered them: Have not I
chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now
he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this
same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of
the twelve" (John, vi, 71-2).
In this passage St. John adds a further particular in mentioning the name of the traitor Apostle's father, which is not recorded by the other Evangelists. And it is he again who tells us that Judas carried the purse. For, after describing the anointing of Christ's feet by Mary at the feast in Bethania, the Evangelist continues: "Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein " (Jolm, xii, 4-6). This fact that Judas carried the purse is again referred to by the same Evangelist in his account of the Last Supper (xiii, 29). The Synop- tic Gospels do not notice this office of Judas, nor do they say that it was he who protested at the alleged waste of the ointment. But it is significant that both in Matthew and Mark the account of the anointing is closely followed by the story of the betrayal: "Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, and said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? " (Matt., xxvi, 14-5); "And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them. Who hearing it were glad; and they promised him they would give him money" (Mark, xiv, 10-1). In both these accounts it will be noticed that Judas takes the initiative: he is not tempted and seduced by the priests, but approaches them of his own accord. St. Luke tells the .same tale, but adds another touch by ascribing the deed to the instigation of Satan: "And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and coven- anted to give him money. And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude " (Luke, xxii, .3-6).
St. John likewise lays stress on the instigation of the evil spirit: "the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him " (xiii, 2) . The same Evangelist, as we have seen, tells of an earlier intimation of Christ's foreknowledge of the betrayal (John, vi, 71-2), and in the same chapter .says expressly: "For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him " ( vi, 65) . But he agrees with the Synoptics in recording a more explicit prediction of the treachery at the Last Supper: " When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and .said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me" (John, xiii, 21). And when St. John himself, at Peter's request, asked who this was, "Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the morse] , Satan entered into him. And Jesu.s said to him: That wliieh tliou dost, <lo quickly. Now no man at the talile knew to what purpos(? he said t-hia unto him. For some thought, be- cause Judas had the pur.se, that Jesus said to him: Buy those things which we liave need of for the festi-
val day: or that he should give something to the poor "
(xiii, 26-9). These last details about the words of
Jesus, and the natural surmise of the disciples, are given
only by St. John. But the prediction and the ques-
tioning of the disciples are recorded by all the Synop-
tics (Matt., xxvi; Mark, xiv; Luke, xxii). St. Mat-
thew adds that Judas himself asked, " Is it I, Rabbi? "
and was answered: "Thou hast said it" (xxvi, 25).
All four Evangelists agree in regard to the main facts
of the actual betrayal which followed so closely on this
prediction, and tell how the traitor came with a mul-
titude or a band of soldiers from the chief priests, and
brought them to the place where, as he knew, Jesus
would be found withHis faithful disciples (Matt., xxvi,
47; Mark, xiv, 43; Luke, xxii, 47; John, xviii, 3).
But some have details not found in the other narra-
tives. That the traitor gave a kiss as a sign is men-
tioned by all the Synoptics, but not by St. John, who
in his turn is alone in telling us that those who came
to take Jesus fell backward to the ground as He an-
swered "I am he." Again, St. Mark tells that Judas
said "Hail, Rabbi " before kissing his Master, but does
not give any reply. St. Matthew, after recording
these words and the traitor's kiss, adds: "And Jesus
said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come" (xxvi,
50). St. Luke (xxii, 48) gives the words: "Judas,
dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss? "
St. Matthew is the only Evangelist to mention the sum paid by the chief priests as the price of the be- trayal, and in accordance with his custom he notices that an Old -Testament prophecy has been fulfilled therein (Matt., xxvi, 15; xxvii, 5-10). In this last passage he tells of the repentance and suicide of the traitor, on which the other Gospels are silent, though we have another account of these events in the speech of St. Peter: " Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of in- iquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say. The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take" (Acts, i, 16-20. Cf. Ps., Ixviii, 26; cviii, 8). Some modern critics lay great stress on the apparent discrepancies between this passage in the Acts and the account given by St. JIatthew. For St. Peter's words taken by themselves seem to imply that Judas himself bought the field with the price of his in- iquity, and that it was called " field of blood " because of his death. But St. Matthew, on the other hand, says: " Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter." After this the Evangelist goes on to tell how the priests, who scrupled to put the money in the corbona because it was the price of blood, spent it in buying the potter's field for the burial of strangers, which for this cause was called the field of blood. And in this St. Matthew sees the fulfilment of the prophecy ascribed to Jeremias (but found in Zach., xi, 12): "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave them unto the potter'.s field, as the Lord appointed to me" (Matt., xxvii, 9, 10). ,
But there does not seem to he .any great diflicvilty in reconciling the two accounts. For the field, bought
