Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/611

 JUDAS

539

JUDAS

1-10, is with the large majority of commentators taken to refer to the Council of Jerusalem, and the incident at Antioch is consequently placed after the council. Some few interpreters, however, refer Gal. ii, 1-10, to the time of St. Paul's journey mentioned in Acts, xi, 2S-30 [a. d. 44], and place the dispute at Antioch be- fore the council.)

The Jud.\izers in Other Churches. — After the foregoing events the Judaizers could do little mischief in Syria. But they covdd carry their agitation to the distant churches founded by St. Paul, where the facts were less well known; and this they attempted to do. The two Epistles to the Corinthians give good reason to believe that they were at work at Corinth. The party or rather faction of Cephas (I Cor., i, 12) very

Erobably consisted of Judaizers. They do not seem, owever, to have gone beyond belittling St. Paul's authority and person, and sowing distrust towards him (cf. I Cor., ix, 1-5; II Cor., xT, 5-12; xii, 11-12; i, 17-20; X, 10-13). For while he has much to say in his own defence, he does not attack the views of the Judaizers, as he would certainly have done had they been openly preached. His two letters and his subse- quent visit to Corinth put an end to the party's mach- inations. In the meantime (supposing Gal. to have been written soon after I and II Cor., as it very prob- ably was) Judaizing emissaries had penetrated into the Galatian churches, whether North or South Galatian matters little here (see Galatians, Epistle to the), and by their skilful manoeuvres had almost succeeded in persuading the Galatians, or at any rate many of them, into accepting circumcision. As at Corinth they attacked St. Paul's authority and person. He was only a secondary Apostle, subordinate to the Twelve, from whom he had received his instruction in the Faith and from whom he held hismis.sion. To his teaching they opposetl the practice and teaching of the pillars of the Church, of those who had conversed with the Lord (Gal., ii, 2 sqq.). He was a time-server, changing his teaching and conduct according to cir- cumstances with the view of ingratiating himself with men (Gal., i, 10; v, 11). They argued that circum- cision had been instituted as a sign of an eternal alli- ance between God and Israel: if the Galatians then wished to have a share in this alliance, with its bless- ings, if they wished to be in the full sense of the term Christians, they must accept circumcision (Gal., iii, 3 sq. ; V, 2). They did not however insist, it would seem, on the observance of the whole Law (v, 3).

On hearing the news of the threatened defection of the churches which he had founded at such cost to himself, St. Paul hastily indited the vigorous Epistle to the Galatians, in which he meets the accusations and arguments of his opponents step by step, and uses all his powers of persuasion to induce his neo- phytes to stand fast and not to be held again under the yoke of bondage. The letter, as far as we know, produced the desired effect. In spite of its resem- blance to the Epistle to the Galatians, the Epistle to the Romans is not, as has been asserted, a polemical writing directed against the Judaizing party at Rome. The whole tone of the Epistle shows this (cf. in particular i, 5-8, 11-12; xv, 14; xvi, 19). It he refers to the Jewish Christians of Rome, it is only to exhort the Gentiles to bear with these weak brethren and to avoid whatever might scandalize them (xiv, 1-23). He would not have shown such forbearance towards the Judaizers, nor spoken of them in such gentle tones. His purpose in treating of the useless- ness of circumcision and legal observances was to forewarn and forearm the Romans against the Juda- izing disturbers, should they reach the capital, as lie had reason to fear (Rom., "xvi, 17-18). After their attempt in Galatia, St. Paul's opponents seem to have relaxed their activity, for in his later letters he rarely alludes to them. In the Epistle to the Phil- ippians he warns against them in very severe terms:

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil-workers, beware of the concision" (Phil., iii, 2). They do not seem, however, to have been active in that church at the time. Beyond tliis only two allusions are found — one in I Tim., i, 6-7: "From which things some go- ing astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: de- siring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm " ; the other in Tit., iii, 9: "Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable things and vain."

Final, History. — With the disappearance of the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem at the time of the rebellion (a. d. 67-70), the question about circumcision and the observance of the Law ceased to be of any importance in the Church, and soon became a dead issue. At the beginning of the second century St. Ignatius of Antioch, it is true, still warns against Judaizers (Magnes., x, 3; viii, 1; Philad., vi, 1), but the danger was probably more a memory than a reality. During the rebellion the mass of the Jewish Christians of Palestine retired be- yond the Jordan, where they gradually lost touch with the Gentiles and in the course of time split up into several sects. St. Justin (about 140) distin- guishes two kinds of Jewish Christians: those who observe the Law of Moses, but do not require its observance of others — with these he would hold communion, though in this all his contemporaries did not agree with him — and those who believe the Mosaic Law to be obligatory on all, whom he con- siders heretics (Dial, cum Tryph., 47). If Justin is describing the Jewish Christians of his day, as he appears to do, they had changed little since Apos- tolic times. 'The accounts of later Fathers show them divided into three main sects: (a) the Naz- arenes, who, while observing the Mosaic Law, seem to have been orthodox. They admitted the Divinity of Christ and the virginal birth; (b) the Ebionites, who denied the Divinity of Christ and the virginal birth, and considered St. Paul as an apostate. It should be noted, however, that though the Fathers restrict the name Ebionite to the heretical Jewish Christians, the name was common to all; (c) an offshoot of the last infected with Gnosticism (cf. art. Ebionites). After the middle of the fifth century the Jewish Christians disappear from history.

LiGHTFooT, Ep. to the Gal. (London, 1905), 292 sq.; Thomas in Rev. des Questions Histor.. XLVI (1S89), 400 sq.; XLVII (1890), 353 sq.; Prat, in Vio., Oirf. dcia BtMe, 1778 sq.; Idem, Theologie de Saint Paul (Paris, 1908), 69-80; Coppieters in Revue Bibl. IV (1907), 34-58; 218-239; Steinmann in Bibl. Zeitschr., VI (1908). 30-48; Idem, Abfassungszeit des Galater- briefes (MUnster, 1906), 55 sq.; Pesch in Zeitschr. fiir Kath. Theol.,\ll (1883), 476 sq.; Honnicke, Das Judenchrislentum im 1. u. 2. Jahrh. (Berlin, 1908). p BecHTEL.

Judas Iscariot, the Apo.stle who betrayed his Divine Master. The name Judas ('Ioi/5as) is the Greek form of Judah (Heb. mw, i. e., praised), a proper name frequently found both in the Old and the New Testament. Even among the Twelve there were two that bore the name, and for this reason it is usually associated with the surname Iscariot [Heb. flVlp C"N, i. e., a man of Kerioth or Carioth, which is a city of Judah (cf. Jos., xv, 25)]. There can be no doubt that this is the ri|;ht interpretation of the name, though the true origin is obscured in the Greek spelling, and, as might be expected, other derivations have been sug- gested (e. g. from Issachar). Very little is told us in the Sacred Text concerning the history of Judas Is- cariot beyond the bare facts of his call to the Aposto- late, his treachery, and his death. His birthplace, as we have seen, is indicated in his name Iscariot, and it may be remarked that his origin separates him from the other Apostles, who were all Galileans. For Ke- rioth is a city of Judah. It has been suggested that this fact may have had some influence on liis career by causing want of sympathy with his brethren in the