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