Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/562

Rh at Basel, where after a course in medicine he turned to the study of theology. This change was due to the influence of Zwingli whose colleague at Zürich Jud became after serving for four years (1518–1522) as pastor of Einsiedeln. His chief activity was as a translator; he was the leading spirit in the translation of the Zürich Bible and also made a Latin version of the Old Testament. He died at Zürich on the 19th of June 1542.

See Life by C. Pestalozzi (1860); art. in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie, vol. ix. (1901).

JUDAEA, the name given to the southern part of Palestine as occupied by the Jewish community in post-exilic days under Persian, Greek and Roman overlordship. In Luke and Acts the term is sometimes used loosely to denote the whole of western Palestine. The limits of Judaea were never very precisely defined and—especially on the northern frontier—varied from time to time. After the death of Herod, Archelaus became ethnarch of Samaria, Idumea and Judaea, and when he was deposed Judaea was merged in Syria, being governed by a procurator whose headquarters were in Caesarea.

For a description of the natural features of the country see ; for its history see and. Cf. T. Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, ch. xi.

JUDAH, a district of ancient Palestine, to the south of the kingdom of Israel, between the Dead Sea and the Philistine plain. It falls physically into three parts: the hill-country from Hebron northwards through Jerusalem; the lowland (Heb. Shĕphelah) on the west; and the steppes or “dry land” (Heb. Negeb) on the south. The district is one of striking contrasts, with a lofty and stony table-land in the centre (which reaches a height of 3300 ft. just north of Hebron), with a strategically important valley dividing the central mountains from the lowland, and with the most desolate of tracts to the east (by the Dead Sea) and south. Some parts, especially around Hebron, are extremely fertile, but the land as a whole has the characteristics of the southern wilderness—the so-called “desert” is not a sterile Sahara—and was more fitted for pastoral occupations; see further G. A. Smith, ''Hist. Geog. Holy Land'', chs. x.–xv. Life in ancient Judah is frequently depicted in the Bible, but much of the Judaean history is obscure. In the days of the old Hebrew monarchy there were periods of conflict and rivalry between Judah and Israel—even times when the latter incorporated, or at least claimed supremacy over, the former. Later, from the 5th century there was a breach between the Jews (the name is derived from Judah) and the (q.v.). The intervening years after the fall of Samaria (722 ), and after the destruction of Jerusalem (586 ), were probably marked by closer intercourse, similar to the period of union in the popular traditions relating to the pre-monarchical age. The course of Judaean history was conditioned, also, by the proximity of the Philistines in the west, Moab in the east, and by Edom and other southern peoples extending from North Arabia to the delta of the Nile. Judah’s stormy history, continued under Greek and Roman domination, reached its climax in the birth of Christianity, and ended with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 (see, ).

In conformity with ancient methods of (q.v.), Judah is traced back to a son of Jacob or Israel by Leah and along with other “tribes” (Dan, Levi, Simeon, &c.) is included under the collective term Israel. Thus it shares the general traditions of the Israelites, although Judah appears as an individual in the story of his “brother” Joseph (on ch. xxxvii. seq., see ). Its boundaries in Joshua xv. are manifestly artificial or imaginary; they include the Philistines and number places which are elsewhere ascribed to Simeon or Dan. The origin of the name (Yĕhūdah) is quite uncertain; the interpretation “praised” is suggested in Gen. xxix. 35 (cf; xlix. 8 seq.), but some connexion with allied names, as Yehūd (Yahūdīya, E. of Jaffa), or Ēhūd (a Benjamite clan) seems more probable. That Judah, whatever its original connotation, underwent development through the incorporation of other clans appears from 1 Chron. ii., iv., where it is found to contain a large element of non-Israelite population whose names find analogies or parallels in Simeonite, Edomite and other southern lists. Indeed, underlying the account of the Israelite (q.v.) there are traces of a separate movement of certain clans—apart from the Israelite invasion of Palestine—who are ultimately found in the south of Judah; and the traditions in Chronicles themselves allow the view that the incorporation of these elements began under David, when Judah first occupies a prominent position in biblical history (cf. Cheyne, Ency. Bib., col. 2618 seq., and see, , ). But such movements were not necessarily limited to one single period, and the evidence connecting (a) the non-Israelite clans of Judah with Levites, and (b) both with the south, is found in narratives referring to several different ages and might point to an unceasing relationship with the south. On the other hand, clans, which in the traditions of David’s time were in the south of Judah, about five hundred years later (in the exile) are found near Jerusalem (e.g. Caleb), so that either these survived the strenuous vicissitudes of half a millennium or all perspective of their early history has been lost. In Gen. xxxviii. a curious narrative points to the separation of Judah “from his brethren” and his marriage with Shua the Canaanite; two sons Er and Onan perish and the third Shelah survives. From Judah and Er’s widow Tamar are derived Perez and Zerah, and these with Shelah appear in post-exilic times as the three representative families of Judah (Neh. xi. 4–6; 1 Chron. ix. 4–6). This story, amid a number of other motives, appears to reflect the growth of the tribe of Judah and its fluctuations, but that the reference is to any very early period is unlikely, partly because the interest of the story is in post-exilic families, and partly because the scenes (Adullam, Chezib and Timnah) overlap with David’s own fights between Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. xxi. xxiii.; see, ad fin.). Even David’s conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam. v.) conflicts both with the statement of its capture by Judah many years previously (Judges i. 8), and with the traditions of the Israelite heroes Joshua and Saul. Consequently, the few surviving data are too uncertain for any decisive conclusions regarding the origin of the tribe of Judah. Judah as a kingdom may have taken its name from a limited district, in which case its growth finds a parallel in the extension of the name Samaria from the city to the province. The location of Yehūd and Ēhūd in the light of 1 Kings iv. 8–19 (perhaps the subdivisions of the Israelite kingdom, see ), would necessitate the assumption of a violent separation from the north; this, however, is quite conceivable (see, §§ 11–13). On the bearing of South Judah upon the historical criticism of the Old Testament, see especially N. Schmidt, Hibbert Journal (1908), pp. 322–342, “The Jerahmeel Theory and the Historic Importance of the Negeb, with some account of personal exploration of the country”; also, § 20.

JUDAS ISCARIOT ( or  ), in the Bible, the son of Simon Iscariot (John vi. 71, xiii. 26), and one of the twelve apostles. He is always enumerated last with the special mention of the fact that he was the betrayer of Jesus. If the generally accepted explanation of his surname (“man of Kerioth”; see Josh. xv. 25) be correct, he was the only original member of the apostolic band who was not a Galilean. The circumstances which led to his admission into the apostolic circle are not stated; while the motives by which he was actuated in enabling the Jewish authorities to arrest Jesus without tumult have been variously analysed by scholars. According to some (as De Quincey in his famous Essay) the sole object of Judas was to place Jesus in a position in which He should be compelled to make what had seemed to His followers the too tardy display of His Messianic power: according to others (and this view seems more in harmony with the Gospel narratives) Judas was an avaricious and dishonest man, who had already abused the confidence placed in him (John xii. 6), and who was now concerned only with furthering his own ends.

As regards the effects of his subsequent remorse and the use to which his ill-gotten gains were put, the strikingly apparent discrepancies between the narratives of Matt. xxvii. 3, 10 and Acts i. 18, 19 have attracted the attention of biblical scholars, ever since Papias, in his fourth book, of which a fragment has been preserved, discussed the subject. The simplest explanation is that they represent different traditions, the Gospel narrative being composed with more special reference to prophetic fulfilments, and being probably nearer the truth than the short explanatory note inserted by the author of the Acts (see Bernard, Expositor, June 1904, p. 422 seq.). In ecclesiastical legend and