- itive, 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 (
Hebrew characters) (seker,) "wages," "reward," and (Hebrew characters) (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 (Hebrew characters) (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 (Hebrew characters) (sekurti,)—also written with an initial (Hebrew characters) (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 (Hebrew characters) (Ish-*Qerioth
or Kerioth,) "a man of Kerioth," a city of Judah. (Josh. 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 [Greek: apo Kariôtou]. (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
