Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev
Judas Iscariot
Jesus Christ was warned many times that Judas of Kerioth was a man of very bad reputation and should be avoided. Some of the disciples who were in Judea knew him well themselves, many had heard a lot about him from people, and there was no one who could say a good word about him. And if the good ones reproached him, saying that Judas was selfish, treacherous, prone to pretense and lies, then the bad ones, who were asked about Judas, reviled him with the most cruel words. “He constantly quarrels with us,” they said, spitting, “he thinks of something of his own and gets into the house quietly, like a scorpion, and comes out of it noisily. And thieves have friends, and robbers have comrades, and liars have wives to whom they tell the truth, and Judas laughs at thieves, as well as at honest ones, although he himself steals skillfully and is uglier in appearance than all the inhabitants of Judea. No, he is not ours, this red-haired Judas from Kariot,” said the bad ones, surprising the good people, for whom there was not much difference between him and all the other vicious people of Judea.
They further said that Judas abandoned his wife a long time ago and she lives unhappy and hungry, unsuccessfully trying to squeeze out bread for food from the three stones that make up Judas’s estate. He himself wandered around senselessly among the people for many years and even reached one sea and another sea, which was even further; and everywhere he lies, grimaces, vigilantly looks out for something with his thief's eye; and suddenly leaves suddenly, leaving behind troubles and quarrels - curious, crafty and evil, like a one-eyed demon. He had no children, and this once again said that Judas was a bad person and God did not want offspring from Judas.
None of the disciples noticed when this red-haired and ugly Jew first appeared near Christ; but for a long time now he had been relentlessly following their path, interfering in conversations, providing small services, bowing, smiling and ingratiating himself. And then it became completely familiar, deceiving tired vision, then suddenly it caught the eyes and ears, irritating them, like something unprecedentedly ugly, deceitful and disgusting. Then they drove him away with stern words, and for a short time he disappeared somewhere along the road - and then quietly appeared again, helpful, flattering and cunning, like a one-eyed demon. And there was no doubt for some of the disciples that in his desire to get closer to Jesus there was hidden some secret intention, there was an evil and insidious calculation.
But Jesus did not listen to their advice; their prophetic voice did not touch his ears. With that spirit of bright contradiction that irresistibly attracted him to the rejected and unloved, he decisively accepted Judas and included him in the circle of the chosen. The disciples were worried and grumbled restrainedly, but he sat quietly, facing the setting sun, and listened thoughtfully, maybe to them, or maybe to something else. There had been no wind for ten days, and the same transparent air, attentive and sensitive, remained the same, without moving or changing. And it seemed as if he had preserved in his transparent depths everything that was shouted and sung these days by people, animals and birds - tears, crying and a cheerful song, prayer and curses; and these glassy, frozen voices made him so heavy, anxious, thickly saturated with invisible life. And once again the sun set. It rolled down like a heavy flaming ball, lighting up the sky; and everything on earth that was turned towards him: the dark face of Jesus, the walls of houses and the leaves of trees - everything obediently reflected that distant and terribly thoughtful light. The white wall was no longer white now, and the red city on the red mountain did not remain white.
And then Judas came.
He came, bowing low, arching his back, carefully and timidly stretching his ugly, lumpy head forward - and just as those who knew him imagined him to be. He was thin, of good height, almost the same as Jesus, who was slightly stooped from the habit of thinking while walking and this made him seem shorter; and he was strong enough in strength, apparently, but for some reason he pretended to be frail and sickly and had a changeable voice: sometimes courageous and strong, sometimes loud, like an old woman scolding her husband, annoyingly thin and unpleasant to the ear: and often I wanted to pull the words of Judas out of my ears like rotten, rough splinters. Short red hair did not hide the strange and unusual shape of his skull: as if cut from the back of the head with a double blow of a sword and put back together again, it was clearly divided into four parts and inspired distrust, even anxiety: behind such a skull there cannot be silence and harmony, behind such a skull there is always the sound of bloody and merciless battles can be heard. Judas’s face was also double: one side of it, with a black, sharply looking eye, was alive, mobile, willingly gathering into numerous crooked wrinkles. On the other there were no wrinkles, and it was deathly smooth, flat and frozen: and although it was equal in size to the first, it seemed huge from the wide open blind eye. Covered with a whitish haze that did not close either night or day, it met both light and darkness equally; but was it because there was a living and cunning comrade next to him that he could not believe in his complete blindness? When, in a fit of timidity or excitement, Judas closed his living eye and shook his head, this one swayed along with the movements of his head and looked silently. Even people completely devoid of insight clearly understood, looking at Iscariot, that such a person could not bring good, but Jesus brought him closer and even sat Judas next to him.
This work was written by the author in 1907 in an interpretation unusual for believers. There were too many discrepancies with the Gospel. The image and characterization of Judas Iscariot from Andreev’s story “Judas Iscariot” with quotes will help the reader understand what motivated the main character when he betrayed the one he loved more than life itself.
Image
Judas had no family. Several years ago he left his wife. Since then, her fate has not bothered him. There were no children in the marriage. Apparently it was God's will; he did not want offspring from him.
Judas's appearance made a repulsive impression. In order to perceive it normally, it was necessary to get used to its appearance. Tall, thin. A little stooped. An incomprehensible skull, decorated with red hair. One half of the face was alive, with a black eye and active facial expressions, and was dotted with wrinkles. The other half of the face is deathly smooth, without wrinkles. The blind eye was always open, day and night. The voice is disgusting, just like him. Iscariot knew how to change it from shrill and feminine to courageous and strong.
Red-haired and ugly Jew...
He came, bowing low, arching his back, carefully and timidly stretching his ugly lumpy head forward...
He was thin, of good height, almost the same as Jesus...
...he was quite strong in strength, apparently, but for some reason he pretended to be frail and sickly and had a changeable voice: sometimes courageous and strong, sometimes loud, like that of an old woman scolding her husband, annoyingly thin and unpleasant to the ear...
Short red hair did not hide the strange and unusual shape of his skull: as if cut from the back of the head with a double blow of a sword and put back together again, it was clearly divided into four parts and inspired mistrust, even anxiety...
... Judas’s face also doubled: one side of it, with a black, sharply looking eye, was alive, mobile, willingly gathering into numerous crooked wrinkles. On the other there were no wrinkles, and it was deathly smooth, flat and frozen, and although it was equal in size to the first, it seemed huge from the wide open blind eye. Covered with a whitish turbidity, not closing either at night or during the day, it equally met both light and darkness...
Characteristic
Contradictory. Judas seems to be woven from contradictions. For some reason, a strong, strong man constantly pretended to be frail and sickly. He took on household responsibilities, and in between, he stole from the common treasury. He told the apostles colorful stories from supposedly his life, and then admitted that he had made it all up.
Corrupt. Mercantile. Sold the Teacher for 30 pieces of silver.
Smart. He was distinguished by his quick wit and intelligence in comparison with the rest of Christ’s disciples. He, like no one else, knew people deeply and understood the motives of their actions.
False. Envious. The speech is replete with lies, which were either funny or unpleasant.
Purposeful. He sincerely believed in his rightness and chosenness, and most importantly, he strived in every way to achieve the goal he had set for himself. Betrayal has become the only way to get closer to the spiritual leader.
Warlike. Fearless. Judas more than once showed fearlessness in defending his teacher. He took the blow upon himself, risking his life and making it clear that he was ready to go to the end if necessary.
Furiously and blindly rushed into the crowd, threatened, shouted, begged and lied
Experiences real emotions: hatred, love, suffering, disappointment.
Thief. He makes a living by stealing. He constantly carries bread, and that’s what he eats.
Cunning. While the other apostles are fighting in an attempt to take first place next to Christ, Judas tries to be with him all the time, becoming indispensable and useful, if only they would pay attention to him and distinguish his efforts from the crowd.
Vulnerable. I was sincerely offended by the Teacher when he stopped paying attention to him.
Emotional. Until the last minute, Judas firmly believed that love and loyalty to Jesus would prevail. His people and disciples were supposed to save the Teacher, but this did not happen. Iscariot was sincerely worried and did not understand why the apostles fled in fear, leaving Christ in the hands of Roman soldiers. He called them cowards and murderers, incapable of action. At that moment, he was motivated by sincere love for the Teacher.
Selfless. He sacrificed his life to prove the power of love by fulfilling the destiny assigned to him.
Author Andreev Leonid Nikolaevich
Annotation
Leonid Andreev (1871–1919) is one of the greatest Russian writers of the Silver Age, creating a number of equally significant works in both realistic and symbolic prose.
This collection includes stories created in different periods and written in different stylistic and genre manners.
Leonid Andreev
Judas Iscariot
From a story that will never be finished
The Tale of the Seven Hanged Men
1. At one o'clock in the afternoon, Your Excellency
2. To death by hanging
3. I don’t need to be hanged
4. We, Oryol
5. Kiss and shut up
6. The clock is running
7. There is no death
8. There is death, there is also life
9. Terrible loneliness
10. The walls are falling
11. They are being transported
12. They were brought
Ivan Ivanovich
Gulliver's Death
Leonid Andreev
Judas Iscariot (collection)
Judas Iscariot
Jesus Christ was warned many times that Judas of Kerioth was a man of very bad reputation and should be avoided. Some of the disciples who were in Judea knew him well themselves, others heard a lot about him from people, and there was no one who could say a good word about him. And if the good ones reproached him, saying that Judas was selfish, treacherous, prone to pretense and lies, then the bad ones, who were asked about Judas, reviled him with the most cruel words. “He constantly quarrels with us,” they said, spitting, “he thinks of something of his own and gets into the house quietly, like a scorpion, and comes out of it noisily. And thieves have friends, and robbers have comrades, and liars have wives to whom they tell the truth, and Judas laughs at thieves, as well as at honest ones, although he himself steals skillfully, and his appearance is uglier than all the inhabitants of Judea. No, he is not ours, this red-haired Judas from Kariot,” said the bad ones, surprising the good people, for whom there was not much difference between him and all the other vicious people of Judea.
They further said that Judas abandoned his wife a long time ago, and she lives unhappy and hungry, unsuccessfully trying to squeeze out bread for food from the three stones that make up Judas’s estate. He himself wandered around senselessly among the people for many years and even reached one sea and another sea, which was even further; and everywhere he lies, grimaces, vigilantly looks out for something with his thief's eye; and suddenly leaves suddenly, leaving behind troubles and quarrels - curious, crafty and evil, like a one-eyed demon. He had no children, and this once again said that Judas was a bad person and God did not want offspring from Judas.
None of the disciples noticed when this red-haired and ugly Jew first appeared near Christ; but for a long time now he had been relentlessly following their path, interfering in conversations, providing small services, bowing, smiling and ingratiating himself. And then it became completely familiar, deceiving tired vision, then suddenly it caught the eyes and ears, irritating them, like something unprecedentedly ugly, deceitful and disgusting. Then they drove him away with harsh words, and for a short time he disappeared somewhere along the road - and then he quietly appeared again, helpful, flattering and cunning, like a one-eyed demon. And there was no doubt for some of the disciples that in his desire to get closer to Jesus there was hidden some secret intention, there was an evil and insidious calculation.
But Jesus did not listen to their advice; their prophetic voice did not touch his ears. With that spirit of bright contradiction that irresistibly attracted him to the rejected and unloved, he decisively accepted Judas and included him in the circle of the chosen. The disciples were worried and grumbled restrainedly, but he sat quietly, facing the setting sun, and listened thoughtfully, maybe to them, or maybe to something else. There had been no wind for ten days, and the same transparent air, attentive and sensitive, remained the same, without moving or changing. And it seemed as if he had preserved in his transparent depths everything that was shouted and sung these days by people, animals and birds - tears, crying and a cheerful song, prayer and curses; and these glassy, frozen voices made him so heavy, anxious, thickly saturated with invisible life. And once again the sun set. It rolled down like a heavy flaming ball, lighting up the sky; and everything on earth that was turned towards him: the dark face of Jesus, the walls of houses and the leaves of trees - everything obediently reflected that distant and terribly thoughtful light. The white wall was no longer white now, and the red city on the red mountain did not remain white.
And then Judas came.
He came, bowing low, arching his back, carefully and timidly stretching his ugly, lumpy head forward - just as those who knew him imagined him to be. He was thin, of good height, almost the same as Jesus, who was slightly stooped from the habit of thinking while walking and this made him seem shorter; and he was quite strong in strength, apparently, but for some reason he pretended to be frail and sickly and had a changeable voice: sometimes courageous and strong, sometimes loud, like an old woman scolding her husband, annoyingly thin and unpleasant to the ear; and often I wanted to pull the words of Judas out of my ears, like rotten, rough splinters. Short red hair did not hide the strange and unusual shape of his skull: as if cut from the back of the head with a double blow of a sword and put back together again, it was clearly divided into four parts and inspired distrust, even anxiety: behind such a skull there cannot be silence and harmony, behind such a skull there is always the sound of bloody and merciless battles can be heard. Judas’s face was also double: one side of it, with a black, sharply looking eye, was alive, mobile, willingly gathering into numerous crooked wrinkles. On the other there were no wrinkles, and it was deathly smooth, flat and frozen; and although it was equal in size to the first, it seemed huge from the wide open blind eye. Covered with a whitish turbidity, not closing either at night or during the day, it met both light and darkness equally; but was it because there was a living and cunning comrade next to him that he could not believe in his complete blindness? When, in a fit of timidity or excitement, Judas closed his living eye and shook his head, this one swayed along with the movements of his head and looked silently. Even people completely devoid of insight clearly understood, looking at Iscariot, that such a person could not bring good, but Jesus brought him closer and even sat Judas next to him.
John, his beloved student, moved away with disgust, and everyone else, loving their teacher, looked down disapprovingly. And Judas sat down - and, moving his head to the right and to the left, in a thin voice began to complain about illness, that his chest hurts at night, that, when climbing mountains, he suffocates, and standing at the edge of an abyss, he feels dizzy and can barely hold on from a stupid desire to throw himself down. And he shamelessly invented many other things, as if not understanding that illnesses do not come to a person by chance, but are born from the discrepancy between his actions and the precepts of the Eternal. This Judas from Kariot rubbed his chest with a wide palm and even coughed feignedly in the general silence and downcast gaze.
John, without looking at the teacher, quietly asked Peter Simonov, his friend:
“Aren’t you tired of this lie?” I can't stand her any longer and I'll leave here.
Peter looked at Jesus, met his gaze and quickly stood up.
- Wait! - he told his friend.
He looked at Jesus again, quickly, like a stone torn from a mountain, moved towards Judas Iscariot and loudly said to him with broad and clear friendliness:
- Here you are with us, Judas.
He affectionately patted his hand on his bent back and, without looking at the teacher, but feeling his gaze on himself, decisively added in his loud voice, which crowded out all objections, like water crowds out air:
“It’s okay that you have such a nasty face: we also get caught in our nets who are not so ugly, and when it comes to food, they are the most delicious.” And it is not for us, the fishermen of our Lord, to throw away our catch just because the fish is prickly and one-eyed. I once saw an octopus in Tyre, caught by the local fishermen, and I was so scared that I wanted to run away. And they laughed at me, a fisherman from Tiberias, and gave me some to eat, and I asked for more, because it was very tasty. Remember, teacher, I told you about this, and you laughed too. And you, Judas, look like an octopus - only with one half.
And he laughed loudly, pleased with his joke. When Peter said something, his words sounded so firmly, as if he was nailing them down. When Peter moved or did something, he made a far-audible noise and evoked a response from the most deaf things: the stone floor hummed under his feet, the doors trembled and slammed, and the very air shuddered and made noise timidly. In the gorges of the mountains, his voice awakened an angry echo, and in the mornings on the lake, when they were fishing, he rolled round and round on the sleepy and shining water and made the first timid rays of the sun smile. And, probably, they loved Peter for this: on all the other faces the shadow of the night still lay, and his large head, and wide naked chest, and freely thrown arms were already burning in the glow of the sunrise.
Peter's words, apparently approved by the teacher, dispelled the painful state of those gathered. But some, who had also been by the sea and seen the octopus, were confused by its monstrous image, which Peter so frivolously dedicated to his new student. They remembered: huge eyes, dozens of greedy tentacles, feigned calm - and time! – hugged, doused, crushed and sucked, without even blinking his huge eyes. What is this? But Jesus is silent, Jesus smiles and looks from under his brows with friendly mockery at Peter, who continues to talk passionately about the octopus - and one after another the embarrassed disciples approached Judas, spoke kindly, but walked away quickly and awkwardly.
And only John Zebedee remained stubbornly silent, and Thomas, apparently, did not dare to say anything, pondering what had happened. He carefully examined Christ and Judas, who were sitting next to each other, and this strange proximity of divine beauty and monstrous ugliness, a man with a gentle gaze and an octopus with huge, motionless, dull, greedy eyes oppressed his mind, like an unsolvable riddle. He tensely wrinkled his straight, smooth forehead, squinted his eyes, thinking that he would see better this way, but all he achieved was that Judas really seemed to have eight restlessly moving legs. But this was not true. ...
[Greek ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ισκαριώτης; ᾿Ιούδας (ὁ) ᾿Ισκαριώθ], a disciple of Jesus Christ who betrayed Him.
Name Iscariot
Mn. the apostles received from Christ new names, which are translated by the evangelists: Peter - the rock, Simon - the zealot (in the Slavic tradition of the Zealot), James and John - βοανηργές (presumably) - sons of thunder, etc. Therefore, the fact that Judas had a second name - Iscariot, does not seem unusual. However, the name Iscariot stands out from the rest. Firstly, the evangelists do not say that Christ Himself called Judas Iscariot; In this regard, the question arises whether Judas had a second name initially, and if not, then whether he received it from those around him or from the Savior, or whether this name was given to him in the First Christ. community. Secondly, evangelists, as a rule, explain the aram they use. and ev. names and expressions, but the name Iscariot remains without translation.
The name Iscariot is found in the Gospels in different versions and combinations: ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ισκαριώτης (Matt 26.14), the same with the article under the 2nd name (Matt 10.4; John 12.4; 14.22), ᾿Ιούδας ( ὁ) ᾿Ισκαριώθ (Mk 3. 19; 14. 40; Luke 6. 16), ᾿Ιούδας Σίμωνος ᾿Ισκαριώτης (“Judas Simon Iscariot” or “Judas [son] Simon Iscariot", John 6.71; 13.2, 26); It served to identify Judas, including to distinguish him from Judas, the brother of the Lord. On the one hand, the use of the article may indicate that the name Iscariot was a common noun and, accordingly, had a specific meaning. On the other hand, it can also be assumed that this name was hereditary, since in the Gospel of John there are several. Simon Iscariot, the father of I.I., is mentioned once. As a hereditary nickname, the word Iscariot may not have been perceived as having an independent semantic load: perhaps that is why there was no need for its translation.
There are many theories in literature that explain the name Iscariot, 5 of them have become classic (see: Klassen. 1992; Taylor. 2010). The name Iscariot is interpreted as: 1) indicating the origin of Judas from a certain city; 2) transmitting Aram. a word meaning “liar”; 3) denoting Hebrew. a word meaning “traitor”; 4) reflecting lat. sicarius - robber (through Aramaic and Hebrew borrowings); 5) transmitting Aram. a word with the meaning “red”, “red-haired”.
The first of these interpretations is the most popular. The initial syllable of the word Iscariot is considered to be a transliteration of Hebrew. words - a person (such a rendering of the Hebrew word, and precisely in connection with the indication of the city, is attested in the Septuagint, see: 2 Kings 10. 6, 8; the word is often used in rabbinic literature to indicate belonging to one or another city). Researchers' opinions differ on the question of which city Judas is connected with in this case. Among the cities mentioned in the OT, this may be Kerioth (Kerioth) (Jer 48.24, 41; Am 2.2). This name exactly corresponds to the New Testament καριώθ. “Alpha” conveys the original root sound [α], which was dropped as a result of syncopation. The “topographical” understanding of the name Iscariot allows us to flawlessly explain the Greek. transliteration, and it has authoritative supporters. But despite the merits of this explanation, difficulties arise in relating the supposed Heb. phrases with New Testament usage. It is in the NT that a person’s belonging to a particular city is regularly conveyed by the preposition ἀπό (with the genitive). Needs to transfer the appropriate design to the aram. or eur. language does not arise. Semitic tracing paper is never used. expressions "man of the city". The question arises why Judas could not be called ἀπὸ τοῦ Καριώθου - “man from Kariot” (this is the expression that is regularly found in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it cannot be recognized as original and reflects only attempts to decipher the incomprehensible name Iscariot). Another difficulty is the fact that Hebrew, not Aram, is used to denote the concept of “man.” word. The question of the status of ancient Hebrew. language as a spoken language in Palestine in the 1st century. according to R.H. remains open, but it is significant that everything transmitted in the Gospels in the original language is Semitic. expressions and nicknames are aram. origin. (For a bibliography of the latest discussion on the issue, see J. Taylor; in Russian-language literature, alternative views are presented in the works: Grilikhes L. E., prot. Archeology of the Text: A Comparative Analysis of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark in the Light of Semitic Reconstruction. M., 1999; Lezov S.V. Aramaic languages // Languages of the world: Semitic languages. M., 2009. Part 1: Akkadian language, North-West Semitic languages. pp. 417-421.) However, K. Bayer, the most influential defender of the theory of the early extinction of ancient Hebrew. language, supported the “topographical” explanation of the name Iscariot (Beyer K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Gött., 1984. Bd. 1. S. 57).
There are no compelling reasons to consider the Old Testament city to have a k.-l. attitude towards I.I., also because there is no evidence of the existence of this city in the 1st century. according to R.H. Eusebius of Caesarea notes Καριώθ in the Onomasticon, but refers to the prophet. Jeremiah and, apparently, only on the basis of this testimony knows about the existence of the city. In the Septuagint in Am 2.2 the word is translated as “cities” (as well as in Joshua 15.25), most likely this indicates that a city with that name was not known to the translators. However, the lack of information about the biblical city does not exclude the possibility of existence in the 1st century. an insignificant settlement with this name (this is all the more likely since the root is very popular in North-West Semitic languages and in Syriac means a village). Based on the use of Targums, the assumption arose that the plural form. Part with the article is the name of Jerusalem (this form here has the meaning pluralium majestatis - “plural greatness”). The second name of Judah, based on this premise, is interpreted as “man of the City,” that is, a native of Jerusalem.
Dr. hypotheses attempt to reconstruct unattested nouns with appropriate meaning and phonetic appearance based on indirect data. In this regard, Aram attracts attention. and ev. root meaning "to lie". K. Torrey suggested that the name ᾿Ισκαριώτης was formed from Greek. models (for example, Σικελιώτης - from Σικελία) from the word - liar. The scientist considers the option with the suffix -ωθ spoiled and does not take it into account. J. Morin connected the name Iscariot with the ancient Hebrew. with a verb, noting that this verb is conveyed in the Septuagint in Isaiah 19.4 with the word παραδίδομαι in the meaning of “transfer (to someone, into someone’s hands).” Accordingly, the original meaning of the 2nd name of Jude is reconstructed by Morin as “traitor.”
Attempts to understand the name Iscariot as a “liar” or “traitor” lead to the conclusion that Judas received the nickname already in Christ. traditions, after the gospel events. This dubious claim calls into question the credibility of such theories. These hypotheses include many implausible assumptions - the word is not attested in Aram. buildings; the possibility of its formation from the root is doubtful. In Aramaic languages, the meaning of “liar” is conveyed by a noun that is common in both Jewish and Christian languages. Syrian tradition.
Reconstructions of the name Iscariot based on Hebrew. The material does not seem convincing: in Hebrew there is no model that would correspond to the Greek. writing Ισκαριωθ; meanwhile Semitic. expressions are conveyed in the Gospels very accurately. Therefore, we cannot agree with the explanation of the 2nd name of Judas based on the meaning of the root, for the name Iscariot cannot be derived either from the participle or from the name of the figure. Moreover, the meaning of “transmit” for the root is peripheral (the main meaning in the post-biblical corpus is “to hinder, hinder”). Finally, the verb occurs only once in the OT, which does not allow k.-l. serious conclusions.
O. Kulman traces the name Iscariot to lat. sicarius, adopted from Greek. (σικάριος) and Aram. (m. pl.) languages and meaning "robber". Since Josephus uses this name in relation to the zealots, the question was raised about the attitude of Judas to this religion. movement. This version, in addition to the insufficiency of purely historical data, has the same flaw as speculation with roots and the word Ισκαριωθ cannot be derived from. In Aram. dialects, prosthetic regularly appeared in borrowed words that began with 2 consonants or more ( - “square tray” for Latin scutula - “bowl, rectangular dish; rectangle”, etc.), but the word does not meet this condition. In this hypothesis, the suffix -ωθ, corresponding to the Hebrew, does not receive an explanation. plural indicator h. female gender or Aram. suffix also in the words of wives. kind (Taylor. 2010. P. 375).
I. Arbaitman suggested that the basis of the 2nd name of Judah is aram. root meaning "red". The scientist offered an explanation for the changes that the word formed according to typical Arama underwent. models. According to Arbeitman, the original version of the nickname of Judas is the form ᾿Ισκαριώτης from Greek. suffix, edge reflects the bilingualism of Greek-Aram. Churches. The combination -ιω conveys Aramaic -. Arbeitman explains this unusual transliteration by inconsistency in the transmission of a foreign word. A complex explanation is offered for the initial iota: the unusual length of the hybrid word (4 open syllables) led to the elision of [a] in the 1st syllable. However, the cluster of consonants was difficult to pronounce, and an additional vowel appeared at the beginning of the word, which corresponds to aram. language practice. Within the framework of this theory, it is clear why the name Iscariot remained untranslated in the Gospels: it was bilingual from the very beginning. The disadvantage of Arbeitman's theory is its unreliable factual basis. The word is attested only in the name of a rabbi mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, and its connection with the meaning “red” has not been proven (in the Palestinian Talmudic corpus the verb is not attested, unlike the Babylonian, where the word is absent). The assumption of transliteration as ιω- is clearly a stretch. Finally, in the NT and early tradition Judas is not called red, and for tradition the color of Judas’ hair or skin did not matter (unlike Esau, who received the second name Edom for his red skin color, which later gave rise to moral and allegorical interpretations).
Convincing criticism by J. Taylor, who revealed the shortcomings of the 5 main theories, at the same time showed that understanding the name Iscariot as an indication of origin raises the least number of questions. However, the researcher offers an alternative explanation, based on the testimony of Origen. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, the exegete mentions a version of the translation of the word Iscariot, strangled (exsuffocatus), that he heard in Palestine. The researcher correlates the Aramaic word (choking) with sire. variant of the nickname of Judas - as well as with the widespread lat. variant of Scariota. However, as Taylor explains, the Peshitta does not correlate Judas' suicide with his nickname, for Judas's act is denoted by a word with a different root - (to hang himself). But most importantly, it remains unclear how Judas could during his lifetime have a name indicating death by hanging (Taylor excludes the possibility of the later appearance of the 2nd name of Judas). The researcher suggests that Judas could have died from suffocation, and interprets Acts 1.18 in this spirit, understanding the verb λάσχω in the sense of “to make a painful wheeze.”
Another explanation of the word Iscariot, which diverges from popular interpretations, was proposed by T. McDaniel. The Mishnah attests to the word “persons called to read the Scripture (in the synagogue).” In accordance with this usage, the researcher admits the existence of a term to designate the reader. Judas, according to McDaniel, could be a hereditary reader. This explanation eliminates the language problem in resolving the issue, because a concept related to the sphere of cult could exist independently of the spoken language. The presence of the ending of wives in the nickname of Judas also receives an explanation. gender (in this case it indicates the collective meaning of the word). However, the word did not denote professional readers, but members of the community invited on a specific occasion to read (the word is in the form of a passive participle of the verb, i.e., means “called”). Such a concept as a “hereditary reader” should have been reflected in Jewish religion. legend, but the expression is absent in the Talmudic corpus. Finally, the long sound does not explain the iota in Greek. transliteration.
The most convincing and commonly used explanation for the name Iscariot is the indication of the place of origin of Judas. Which city is designated by the word remains unknown.
I.I. in the New Testament
The image of I.I. in the Gospel of Mark contains the least details. In the conversation at the Last Supper we are talking about the betrayal of “one of the Twelve”; the name of I.I. is not mentioned (Mk 14.20). In the narrative about the events of the night of Gethsemane, the name Iscariot is not mentioned, the verb παραδιδόναι is not specifically associated with I. I. and is used in the passive voice: “the Son of Man is betrayed (παραδίδοται) into the hands of sinners” (Mk 14.41). The testimony of Mark 14, which does not emphasize the special role of I. I. in the events of Gethsemane and reveals a parallel in the Epistles of St. Paul, who does not mention I.I. in his discussion of the betrayal of Jesus, is considered the earliest layer of tradition in understanding the role of I.I.
V. Klassen, trying to reconstruct the “pre-synoptic” stage of understanding the image of I.I. in Christ. community (“Aramaic-speaking Church”), in the testimony of Mark 14 he sees 3 stages of development. The initial stage is associated with verses Mark 14. 43, 46, which state the fact that during Jesus’ conversation with the disciples, I. I. came with an armed detachment sent by the high priests. Verses 14. 18, 21 are considered the next stage in the development of tradition and express the idea that the suffering of Jesus was not accidental. Christ predicts betrayal and thereby testifies: He is given over to death in accordance with the Divine plan revealed in Scripture. Klassen calls the last step the verses of Mark 14.10, where the background and motivation of I.I.’s action are introduced.
V. Vogler reconstructs the original kerygma, which presumably could have been addressed by the Evangelist Mark to the community: chosen by God, like the rest of the apostles, I. I. was involved, along with them, in the power given by Christ (ἐξουσία, Mark 3.15) and the messengership (Mark 3 14) and participated in the Last Supper; and just as the disciple’s impeccable dignity did not save I.I. from betrayal, so every believer cannot arrogantly believe that, being a member of the Church, he is no longer capable of falling into grave sin; and just as betrayal occurred among the closest disciples of Jesus, so the Church can suffer damage from its own false brethren; apostasy has the most serious spiritual consequences for a Christian; excommunication (anathema) from the community of the faithful has a parallel with the curse of I.I.
The Evangelist Matthew does not change the tradition presented in Mark, but adds new significant details to it. So, only in Matthew I. I. asks the high priests about the reward for betrayal (Matthew 26.15). The reasons for this motive in the Gospel of Matthew have no explanation (in traditional biblical studies it has been suggested that Matthew, as a repentant publican, deliberately emphasized the corruption of the Sanhedrin and the traitor (Alfeev. 1915, p. 126)). The Gospel of Matthew contains a dialogue between Jesus and I. I. at the Last Supper (Matthew 26.25). Only Matthew speaks of I.I.’s repentance and his suicide. (Acts 1:18 presents an alternative tradition, according to which Judas “acquired the land... and when he was cast down, his belly was split open, and all his entrails fell out.”)
According to V. Klassen, the evangelist Matthew seeks to highlight the image of I. I., increasing the contrast between him and the disciples at the Last Supper (Matt. 26.22, 25) and between him and Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26.49-50). If in the Gospel of Mark only the question “is it not I?” that was asked by all the disciples in response to Jesus’ prediction of betrayal is noted, then the Evangelist Matthew separately explains: “At this Judas, who betrayed Him, said: “Am I not, Rabbi? [Jesus] says to him: “You said” (Matthew 26:25), showing I. I. as an extremely hypocritical person, not ashamed to lie to his face. At the same time, Matthew emphasizes the sincere sadness of the disciples, replacing the words of the Evangelist Mark “they became sad and began to speak” (ἤρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι κα λέγειν) (Mark 14.19) with the stronger expression “they became very sad and began to speak” (λυπούμε νοι σφόδρα ἤρξαντο λέγειν) (Matt. 26. 22). If in the Gospel of Mark I. I. at the moment of betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane utters only the word “Rabbi”, then in the Gospel of Matthew the greeting “Rejoice” is added, confirming the hypocrisy of the traitor. And Matthew quotes Christ’s answer: “Friend (ταῖρε), why have you come?” (Matthew 26:50). The appeal of ταῖρος in other contexts by the Evangelist Matthew is associated with the expression of reproach: in the parable of the vineyard, the owner reproaches the worker, who, although he fulfilled his duty, turned out to be envious (Matthew 20.13); in the parable of those invited to the feast, the king denounces the man who was awarded the royal meal, but appeared in inappropriate clothing (Mt 22:12). In this context, the bitter reproach and sorrow for the called but fallen disciple become especially clear.
In the Gospel of Luke, the motivation for betrayal is complicated by 2 circumstances: firstly, the emphasis is on the initiative of the high priests, who were looking for an opportunity to destroy Jesus Christ and accepted the offer of I.I. (the story about the council of the high priests and the betrayal of I.I. is a single a complete story (Luke 22:1-6) in contrast to the Gospel of Mark, where these events are spoken of in different places (Mark 14:1, 10-11)); secondly - and this is the most significant detail - the Evangelist Luke directly connects the betrayal of I.I. with the action of the devil (Luke 22.3).
The image of I.I. in the early Church
Explaining the story of Matthew 26. 6-16, bl. Jerome of Stridon denounces not only the love of money of I.I., but also opposition to God’s plan for universal salvation: “Why are you indignant, Judas, that the vessel was broken? God, who created you and all nations, blesses everyone with this precious peace. You wanted the ointment to remain in the vessel and not spill on others” (Hieron. Tract. in Marc. 10 // CCSL. 78. P. 499).
St. Basil the Great in his “Conversation on the Day of the Holy Forty Martyrs” refers to the image of I. I. as a tragic example of the falling away of a disciple called by Christ Himself and not retaining this calling. The saint compares the cowardly warrior with I.I.: “A pitiful sight for the righteous! The warrior is a fugitive, the first of the brave is a captive, the sheep of Christ is the prey of beasts. ...But just as this lover of life fell, breaking the law without any benefit to himself, so the executioner, as soon as he saw that he had evaded and went to the bathhouse, he himself took the place of the fugitive... Judas walked away, and Matthias was brought in his place "(Basil. Magn. Hom. 19).
St. Ephraim the Syrian connects the image of I. I. with the people of Israel, and the correlation of the people with I. I. indicates not death, but salvation. Jesus chose Judas to show that the “throne of Judah” did not perish, despite the presence of false teachers in the Jewish people, and vice versa, to testify to the truth of the Old Testament religion, despite its incorrect understanding by the teachers of the people: “... although there were stewards in Judah lawbreakers, but the housekeeping was true” (Ephraem Syr. In Diatess. 14.12). Thus, the focus is not on the internal tragedy of I.I., who fell away from his high calling, but on the deep meaning of the act of Christ, Who chooses a man named Judas (in accordance with the name of the entire people), who hated Him, and washes his feet at the Last Supper to testify that the Jewish people are not abandoned.
One of the most striking works of patristic writing that reveals the image of I.I. is the conversation of St. John Chrysostom “On the betrayal of Judas and Easter, on the teaching of the mysteries, and also on forgetfulness of malice.” The text is built on contrasts: the image of I. I. is revealed in comparison with Christ and at the same time in comparison with the harlot who anointed the feet of Jesus. “...Do not be disheartened when you hear that Jesus was betrayed; or better, give in to despondency and cry bitterly, but not for the betrayed Jesus, but for the traitor Judas, because the betrayer saved the universe, and the betrayer destroyed his soul; the devotee now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, and the betrayer is now in hell, awaiting inevitable punishment” (Ioan. Chrysost. De prodit. Jud. 1). I.I. appears as a man who has reached the extreme degree of evil, but at the same time the Christian is called not to condemn him, but to grieve over his fate. “Weep and sigh for him, mourn for him, just as our Lord wept for him.” St. John Chrysostom wrote about John 13.21 (“...Jesus was troubled (ἐταράχθη) in spirit... and said: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you will betray Me”): the verb ἐταράχθη does not indicate anger or despondency , but to the Savior’s sadness about the traitor. “Oh, how great is the mercy of the Lord: the devotee grieves for the betrayer!” (Ibidem). In another version of the homily (PG. 49. Col. 381-392) this idea is expressed even more strongly: “Seeing the madness of the disciple and feeling sorry for him, the Lord was indignant and cried. All the evangelists talk about this..."
The contrast between Christ and I. I. is strengthened by an indication of the gifts that I. I., as an apostle, received from Christ: “What does it mean: one of two (Matthew 26:14)? And in these words: one of two, the greatest condemnation against him (Judas - M.K.) is expressed. Jesus had other disciples, seventy in number; but they took second place, did not enjoy such honor, did not have such boldness, did not participate in as many secrets as the twelve disciples. These were especially distinguished and formed a choir near the King; it was the close company of the Teacher; and from here Judas fell. So, so that you know that it was not an ordinary disciple who betrayed Him, but one of the highest rank, for this the evangelist says: one of two” (Ioan. Chrysost. De prodit. Jud. 2). Like the other apostles, I. I. had “power over demons,” “the power to heal diseases, cleanse lepers,” “the power to raise the dead,” and was made “lord over the power of death” (Ibid. 3).
St. contrasts the sinner I.I. with the repentant harlot. John the basis for moral and ascetic reasoning. Following the Gospels of Matthew and John, calling the love of money the main motive for betrayal, St. John Chrysostom strives to show in detail the diverse effect of sin in man: I. I. fell because of carelessness, just as the sinner repented because “she was attentive to herself” (Ibid. 2). Because of his carelessness, I. I. allowed the passion of love of money to take over him so much that he turned out to be capable of betrayal. The love of money deprives a person of a clear view of things: “Such is this evil root; worse than a demon, he infuriates the souls that he takes possession of, produces in them oblivion about everything - about themselves, about their neighbors, and about the laws of nature, deprives them of their very meaning and makes them insane” (Ibid. 3). In this state, a person is difficult to instruct; awareness of one’s own sin comes after it has been committed, which is what happened to I.I.
Speaking about I.I., St. John Chrysostom raises a question that Origen had to answer in his polemic with Celsus: why did communication with Christ not change I. I. morally? Another important problem raised by Chrysostom and later is connected with this issue. formulated (also using the example of I.I.) in the theological system of St. John of Damascus: the relationship between human free will and the Divine plan for him.
Answering the 1st question, St. John expresses a fundamental point about the incompatibility of coercion and moral perfection. By drawing the attention of listeners to the details of the narrative of the Evangelist Matthew, the interpreter seeks to show that I. I. was completely free in his actions: “Why, you say, was he who converted harlots unable to attract a disciple to himself? He was able to attract a disciple to Himself, but He did not want to make him good out of necessity and draw him to Himself by force. “Then shed” (Matthew 26:14). An important subject for reflection lies in this word: shed; not being called by the high priests, not being forced by necessity or force, but on his own and from himself he committed deceit and undertook such an intention, without having anyone as an accomplice of this wickedness” (Ioan. Chrysost. De prodit. Jud. 2).
Considering the 2nd question, St. John Chrysostom provides numerous evidence not only of I. I.’s calling to service and salvation, but also of Jesus’ concern for the repentance of the apostle who decided to betray, and the desire to prevent I. I.’s fall from grace to the extent that this did not contradict the free will of man: “...He [Christ] used all the measures that could test will and intention. And if he did not want to accept healing, then this is not the fault of the doctor, but of the one who rejected healing. Look how much Christ did to win him over to His side and save him: he taught him all wisdom both in deeds and words, placed him above demons, made him capable of performing many miracles, frightened him with the threat of Gehenna, admonished him with the promise of the kingdom, constantly exposed his secret thoughts. , but denouncing him, he did not expose him to everyone, he washed his feet along with the other [disciples], made him a participant in his supper and meal, and did not omit anything - neither small nor great; but he voluntarily remained incorrigible” (Ibid. 3).
St. John of Damascus talks about I.I. in the context of the general theological teaching about predestination and foreknowledge of God: “Knowledge refers to what is, and foreknowledge to what will certainly be. ...If for those who have the goodness of God to receive existence, the circumstance that they, by their own will, become evil served as an obstacle to existence, then evil would defeat the goodness of God. Therefore, everything that God creates, God creates good, but everyone, according to his own will, is either good or evil. Therefore, although the Lord said: “It would have been better for this man not to have been born” (Matthew 26:24), He said this not condemning His own creation, but condemning the depravity that appeared in His creation as a consequence of His own will and frivolity.” (Ioan. Damasc. De fide orth. IV 21).
Lit.: Muretov M.D. Judas the Traitor // BV. 1905. No. 7/8. pp. 539-559; No. 9. P. 39-68; 1906. No. 1. P. 32-68; No. 2. P. 246-262; 1907. No. 12. P. 723-754; 1908. No. 1. P. 1-52; Alfeev P.I., prot. Judas the Traitor. Ryazan, 1915; Torrey C. C. The Name “Iscariot” // HarvTR. 1943. Vol. 36. P. 51-62; Cullmann O. The State in the NT. N. Y., 1956; idem. Jesus und die Revolutionären seiner Zeit. Tüb., 1970; Morin J. Les deux derniers des douze: Simon le Zélote et Judas Iskariôth // RB. 1973. Vol. 80. P. 332-358; Ehrman A. Judas Iscariot and Abba Saqqara // JBL. 1978. Vol. 97. P. 572-573; Arbeitman Y. The Suffix of Iscariot // Ibid. 1980. Vol. 99. P. 122-124; Vogler W. Judas Iskarioth. B., 1985 2; Klassen W. Judas Iscariot // ABD. 1992. Vol. 3. P. 1091-1096; Martin R. P. Judas Iscariot // New Bible Dictionary / Ed. D. R. W. Wood e. a. Leicester, 1996 3. P. 624; Judas Iskariot // RAC. 1998. Bd. 19. Sp. 142-160; McDaniel T. F. The Meaning of "Iscariot". 2006 // http://daniel.eastern.edu/seminary/tmcdaniel/Judas%20Iscariot.pdf; Meyer M. Judas: The Definitive Collection of Gospels and Legends about the Infamous Apostle of Jesus. N.Y., 2007; Taylor J. E. The Name “Iskarioth” (Iscariot) // JBL. 2010. Vol. 129. N 2. P. 367-383.
M. G. Kalinin
Apocryphal legends about I.I.
Over the centuries, the image of I.I. has acquired additional details and is increasingly demonized. A significant role was given to such a plot as the death of I.I. The Scriptures contain various versions of it: in the 1st case, I. I. hanged himself (Matthew 27.5), in the 2nd case he “fell down, his belly was split open, and all his entrails fell out” (Acts 1.18). These options could be harmonized, giving rise to new versions, according to Crimea I.I. fell from a tree while trying to hang himself, or was pulled out of a noose alive and later. died from some illness.
Papias, bishop Hierapolis (beginning of the 2nd century; a fragment came down in the transmission of Apollinaris of Laodicea), describes I. I. as a monstrously swollen from illness, a repulsive man with his appearance, who died because he could not miss the cart in a narrow passage (The Apostolic Fathers / Ed B. D. Ehrman, Camb. (Mass.), L., 2003, Vol. 2, pp. 104-107). With a refutation of this opinion as contrary to St. Scripture later Rev. spoke Maxim Grek ( Maxim the Greek, Rev. Creations. Serg. P., 1996r. Part 3. pp. 98-100).
The “Gospel of Nicodemus” (or “Acts of Pilate”; IV-V centuries) contains a legend that I. I., after a complete betrayal, turns to his wife, who is roasting a rooster, and asks to find him a rope suitable for hanging himself ( Evangelia Apocrypha / Ed. C. von Tischendorf. Lipsiae, 1876. P. 290). The wife answers I.I. that the rooster she is preparing would sooner crow than Jesus resurrected on the 3rd day. Suddenly the rooster crows three times, and Judas makes the final decision to hang himself.
According to another tradition, the roots of I.I.’s malice and dark destiny go back to his childhood. Already in the apocryphal “Arabic Gospel of the Childhood of the Savior” (original - c. 6th century) it is said that I. I. was possessed by the devil as a child, went into a rage and bit people. Prompted by the devil, he tried to bite little Christ, but failed and then hit Jesus, making Him cry. After this, the devil left I.I., fleeing in the guise of a dog, and I.I. pushed Jesus in the side, which later. was pierced by a spear (Ibid. P. 199-200).
The “Revelation of Pseudo-Methodius of Patara” (mid-7th century) says that I. I., like the Antichrist, was, according to the prophecy of Jacob, to come from the tribe of Dan (Istrin V.M. Revelation of Methodius of Patara and apocryphal visions Daniel in Byzantine and Slavic-Russian literature: Research and texts. M., 1897. P. 444 (1st page), 100, 114 (2nd page)).
In sir. collection of biblical and apocryphal tales “The Book of the Bee” by Solomon, Met. Basra (XIII century), tells about the origin of 30 pieces of silver by I.I.: made by Terah, the father of Abraham, they appear in many. important events of biblical history, after which they go to the Edessa king Abgar, who, in gratitude for the healing, sends them to Christ, and Christ donates them to the Temple of Jerusalem (Solomon of Basra. The Book of Bee. 44 / Ed. E. A. W. Budge. Oxf., 1886. P. 95-97).
Most widespread in the Middle Ages. Literature was given to a legend in which the biography of I. I. before his meeting with Christ is presented with an adaptation of 2 stories: the ancient one about King Oedipus and the Old Testament about Cain. Origen already refers to the story of Oedipus in connection with I.I. in his treatise “Against Celsus,” but only as an illustration of the fact that the fulfillment of the prophecy does not contradict the manifestation of free will (Orig. Contr. Cels. II 20). The legend appears to have originated in Byzantium, but its original origin is unknown. 2 variants of the later Greek have been preserved. edition (ed.: Solovyov. 1895. S. 187-190; Istrin. 1898. S. 614-619), which also includes elements of ancient Greek. history of Paris, and lat. edition as part of the “Golden Legend” of Jacob of Varazze (XIII century; Iacopo da Varazze. 1998. P. 277-281), from which subsequent versions come both in European and Old Russian. literature (from the end of the 16th-17th centuries), where the legend is mistakenly attributed to the blzh. Jerome of Stridon (Klimova M.N. Jerome’s Tale of Judas the Traitor // SKKDR. 1989. Issue 2. Part 2. pp. 345-347). There are also many folklore variants in different languages (Ibid. p. 347).
According to the Greek legend, I.I. came from the tribe of Judah from the villages. Iskara (from whose name I. I. received his nickname). His father's name was Rovel. One night, I.I.’s mother had a dream that she would give birth to a boy, who would become destruction for the Jews. That same night she conceived, and when the time was right, the child was born. Wanting to get rid of her son, the woman secretly put him in a basket and threw him into the sea. Not far from Iskara there was a small island where shepherd tribes lived. They picked up a basket, fed the boy with animal milk and named him Judas, thinking that he was descended from the Jews. When the child grew up a little, the shepherds took him to Iskara to give him to the residents to be raised. I.I.'s father, not knowing that it was his son, took a boy into his house, who was very handsome. Rovel's wife fell in love with I.I., soon she gave birth to another son and raised children together. The evil and money-loving I.I. often offended his brother and, overcome by envy, killed him and fled to Jerusalem. There, King Herod learned about I.I., who appointed him manager of purchases and sales at the city market. After some time, there was unrest in Iskara, then I.I.’s father and his wife, taking their property with them, came to Jerusalem and purchased a beautiful house with a garden not far from Herod’s palace. Wanting to please the king, I.I. snuck into Rovel’s garden to steal the fruits and killed his father. Herod forced Rovel's widow to marry I.I., and they had children. Once, when asked by I.I. why she was crying, the woman talked about how she threw her first son into the sea, about the death of another child and her husband. I.I. confessed to her that he was the very son whom she wanted to drown, and that he killed his brother and father. Repenting, I. I. went to Christ, Who made him His disciple and instructed him to carry a box of alms for the needs of the apostles. I.I., being a money-lover, stole money and sent it to his wife and children.
Lat. the version of the legend is somewhat different from the Greek: I.I.’s father, Reuben, also called Simeon, and mother, Ciboria, lived in Jerusalem; a basket containing a baby was found on Scariot Island; I.I. was picked up and raised by the childless ruler of the island, who soon gave birth to a boy; I.I. found out that he was the adopted child of the queen, killed her son and fled to the court of Pontius Pilate. Having become the steward of Pilate's house, I. I. carried out his instructions and accidentally killed his father, Reuben, after which he married his mother. Below is the text from Lat. edition coincides with the Greek. option.
In the late Middle Ages. pseudepigraphical “Gospel of Barnabas” (see Barnabas Gospel; not earlier than the end of the 15th century), which most likely comes from the Spanish. Moriscos (Moors converted to Christianity) and contains borrowings from both Christianity and Islam. tradition, it tells how it was not Jesus who was crucified on the cross, but I. I., who was mistakenly captured by Rome. warriors. This version is consistent with Islam. the idea that Isa (Jesus) was not actually crucified (Koran Sura 4). According to the “Gospel of Barnabas,” God, through the prayer of Jesus, so transformed I.I.’s appearance and voice that even the apostles accepted him as their Teacher; when the soldiers arrived and captured I.I., he unsuccessfully tried to convince the soldiers. Instead of Jesus, I. I. was subjected to reproach and ridicule, interrogated by Caiaphas and was crucified; on the cross he turned to God as a Jew, complaining that he had been abandoned by God while Jesus was free. The body of I.I., who was still mistaken for Christ, was taken down from the cross, mourned and buried (The Gospel of Barnabas. Oxf., 1907. P. 470-473, 478-481).
The image of I.I. in fiction
Non-standard and not correlated with the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, not with well-known apocrypha, is the story of I. I. in the Middle Ages. ballad "Judas" (13th century), probably the oldest recorded English. ballad (Housman J. E. British Popular Ballads. L., 1952. P. 67-70). According to it, Jesus sent I. I. to buy meat to feed the apostles, and gave him 30 pieces of silver. On the way, I.I. meets his sister, and promises that he will be stoned for believing in the “false prophet,” i.e., Christ, but I.I. objects to her. Then the sister persuades I.I. to lie down to rest and, while he is sleeping, steals 30 pieces of silver from him. Having discovered the loss, I.I., in despair, breaks his head so that it bleeds, so that the Jews of Jerusalem take him for a madman. The rich Jew Pilate, as written in the ballad, asks whether I. I. will sell his Teacher. I.I., not daring to return to Jesus without money and without food, agrees to betrayal for the sake of this amount. As the apostles sit down to eat, Jesus approaches them and says that he “was bought and sold today.”
I.I. as an allegorical personification of betrayal is found in plural. medieval lit. works. Brunetto Latini, Dante Alighieri's mentor, mentions in "Treasure", a popular allegorical-didactic encyclopedia in Old French in the Middle Ages. language, the betrayal of I.I. and his replacement by Matthias among the disciples of Christ. In The Divine Comedy, Dante places I. I. in the 9th circle of hell (the circle of traitors), where he, along with 2 other greatest traitors, the murderers of Julius Caesar Cassius and Brutus, is forever devoured by one of the 3 jaws of Lucifer, and the claws of Lucifer They tear apart I.I.’s back, which means that he suffers more than others (Dante. Canto 34. 55-63). In The Canterbury Tales by J. Chaucer, I. I. is referred to as a “thief,” a liar, a traitor, and a man consumed by greed.
From the end XVIII century there is a tendency towards a kind of “rehabilitation” of I.I. in the spirit of the Gnostic ideas of the Cainites, Manichaeism and Bogomils (see Art. Bogomilism) about him as a faithful disciple of Jesus who fulfilled his destiny. This doctrine was expressed most clearly in the book. “The True Messiah” (1829) by G. Oegger, vicar of the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, and was subsequently reflected in the works of A. France (“The Garden of Epicurus,” 1895), H. L. Borges (“The Three versions of the betrayal of Judas”, 1944) and M. Voloshin (lecture “The Paths of Eros”, 1907). German the poet F. G. Klopstock in the poem “Messiad” (1748-1773) explained the betrayal of I. I. by the latter’s desire to encourage Jesus to establish His Kingdom on earth; similar interpretations are present in English. writer T. de Quincey (“Judas Iscariot”, 1853), from J. W. Goethe, R. Wagner. In the XIX - early XXI century Many works of art appear, the authors of which also strive, to one degree or another, to present the figure of I. I. in non-traditional ways. key: as a Jewish patriot, as a beloved disciple of Christ, betraying the Mentor with His consent, etc.: “Judas: The Story of One Suffering” by T. Gedberg (1886), “Christ and Judas” by N. Runeberg (1904), “Judas” by S. Melas (1934), “The Last Temptation of Christ” by N. Kazantzakis (1951), “Behold the Man” by M. Moorcock (1969), “The Gospel of Judas” by G. Panas (1973), “The Gospel of Pilate "E. E. Schmitt (2004), "My name was Judas" by K. K. Stead (2006), etc.
A number of Russian works are devoted to understanding the betrayal of I.I. church writers con. XIX - 1st third of the XX century: “Judas the Traitor” by M. D. Muretov (1905-1908), book of the same name by Archpriest. P. Alfeeva (1915), “Judas Iscariot - Apostle-Traitor” Prot. S. Bulgakov (1931), in which the author revises traditions. idea of I.I. towards his “rehabilitation”, essay “Judas” priest. A. Zhurakovsky (1923). In Russian artistic literature of the 19th century. The traditional negative image of I.I. dominated - both in poetry (the poems “The Betrayal of Judas” by G. E. Guber and “Judas” by S. Ya. Nadson; the poem “Judas Iscariot” by P. Popov, 1890) and in prose ( “Christ’s Night” by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, 1886). From the beginning XX century it is being replaced by the desire for a psychological analysis of I. I.’s behavior and his “rehabilitation” that has penetrated through translations of Western literature (drama in verse “Iscariot” by N. I. Golovanov, 1905; poem “Judas” by A. S. Roslavlev, 1907; the story “Judas Iscariot” by L. N. Andreev, 1907; the poem “Judas the Traitor” (1903) and the play “The Tragedy of Judas, Prince Iscariot” (1919) by A. M. Remizov). This tendency to justify betrayal, although it caused sharp protests (see, for example, the article “On Modernity” by M. Gorky, 1912), continues to exist (the story of Yu. M. Nagibin “Favorite Student,” 1991). In addition, following M. A. Bulgakov (“The Master and Margarita”, 1929-1940), writers of the Soviet and post-Soviet times often place I. I. within the framework of a fantastic narrative (“Three times the greatest, or the Narrative of the former from the non-existent” by N. S. Evdokimova, 1984; “Burdened with Evil, or Forty Years Later” by A. N. and B. N. Strugatsky, 1988; “The Gospel of Afranius” by K. Eskov, 1996).
I.I. in folklore
of various European nations is the embodiment of betrayal, greed and hypocrisy; A wide range of images are associated with I.I. (“the kiss of Judas”, “thirty pieces of silver”, “color of Judas’ hair”, “tree of Judas”). Greek folklore developed early Christian motifs. apocrypha about I.I.’s tormenting thirst, about his incestuous marriage and parricide. The idea goes back to Origen that I. I. committed suicide in order to end up in hell before Christ rises from the dead, in order to receive forgiveness at the moment of the Resurrection along with others there (PG. 13. Col. 1766-1767) .
In Russian folklore tradition, I.I. as the personification of betrayal and deceit is mentioned in a number of sayings (see: Dal V.I. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language. M., 1998. Vol. 2. Stb. 164). In the Middle Ages, there was an idea that I. I. supposedly had red hair (possibly by analogy with Cain, who was also considered red-haired), especially widespread in Spain and England. It is also found in English. the ballad “Judas” of the 13th century, and in the early modern period it is reflected in the works of Shakespeare (“As You Like It”, III 4. 7-8; there is also a mention of “The Kiss of Judas” - III 4. 9), also in “The Spanish Tragedy” by T. Kyd (Kyd T. The Spanish Tragedy / Ed. D. Bevington. Manchester, 1996. P. 140), in J. Marston (Marston J. The Insatiate Countess / Ed. G. Melchiori. Manchester, 1984. P. 98).
"Tree of Judas" in Europe. countries could call different plants: for example, in English. Traditionally, it was believed that I. I. hanged himself on an elder tree (see, for example, in Shakespeare - “Love’s Labour’s Lost”, V 2. 595-606). It is the elderberry that is mentioned in “The Travels of Sir John Maundeville” (XIV century) as the tree on which I.I. hanged himself allegedly preserved in the Holy Land (The Voyages and Travels of Sir John Maundeville. N.Y., 1898. P. 55). However, the development of scientific ideas in the early modern period did not allow the elderberry to be identified with the tree of Judah, since the elderberry could not grow in Palestine. Therefore, already in “The Herbalist” by J. Gerard (Gerard H. The Herball or Generall Histoire of Plantes / Ed. T. Johnson. L., 1633. P. 1428) the idea of elderberry as a “Judas tree” (Arbor Juda) is refuted - now the European cercis shrub (Cercis siliquastrum; grows in the Mediterranean) or scarlet, which begins to bloom in March with pink flowers, is identified with it. The idea that I.I. hanged himself on this tree originated in France. The French may have originally called cercis "the tree of Judea" (Arbre de Judée).
In different countries, different trees are associated with the name I.I. In Greece, there are local beliefs about the "Tree of Judas" in different regions. Thus, in Lefkada and Thrace it was believed that I. I. hanged himself on a fig tree. This idea goes back to an ancient tradition recorded by pilgrims to the Holy Land in the 6th-7th centuries. (Anton. Placent (ps.). Itinerarium. 17 // CCSL. 175. P. 138; Adamn. De locis sanctis. I 17 // CCSL. 175. P. 197). In Crete, the “Judas tree” was called the foul-smelling anagyris (Anagyris foetida), in Naxos - the bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). East the Slavs believed that I. I. hanged himself on an aspen (“the aspen is a cursed tree, Judas hanged himself on it, and since then the leaf on it has been trembling” - Dal V. I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M., 1998. T 2. Stb. 1803-1804), in Poland - on elderberry or rowan, in Pomerania - on chasteberry (Vitex agnus-castus).
In a number of Orthodox and Catholic. Countries have preserved the ritual of burning I.I. on the days of Holy Week (Thursday or Friday), on Easter or on Easter Monday. Effigy of I.I. is burned in Greece, Cyprus, Spain and Portugal (from where this tradition came to the countries of Latin America and the Philippines), in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, East. Slovenia. In England, the custom was widespread only locally and was prohibited in the beginning. XX century
Source: The Gospel of Barnabas / Ed., transl. L. Ragg, L. M. Ragg. Oxf., 1907; Istrin V. Die griechische Version der Judas Legende // ASPh. 1898. Bd. 20. S. 605-619.
F. M. Panfilov, S. A. Moiseeva, O. V. L.
Iconography
Probably the earliest images of I.I. appeared on sarcophagi of the 4th century. in the "Kiss of Judas" scene. Images of I.I. who hanged himself also existed in early Christ. art, for example on an ivory plate with the “Crucifixion” and the hanged I.I., apparently created in Rome ca. 420-430 (British Museum, London). The compositions “Kiss of Judas” and “Last Supper” are presented on the mosaics of the nave c. Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna (c. 520). On miniatures in the Rossan Codex of the 6th century. (Archbishop's Museum in Rossano) I. I. is depicted three times: in the scene of “The Last Supper” (Fol. 3) reclining among the other apostles around a C-shaped table and stretching out his hand with bread to the cup; returning the money to the high priest and hanging himself (both scenes - Fol. 6). In the Gospel of Rabbi (Laurent. Plut. I.56, 586), on the sides of the table of canons (Fol. 12) the scene of “The Kiss of Judas” and the hanging of I.I.T.O. are depicted, already in the early Byzantine period. art, the main scenes with I.I. appeared, which then, in the middle and late Byzantine. periods entered into the Passion Cycle.
The composition “The Last Supper” has 2 iconographic versions: on one I. I. is depicted with a raised hand (speech gesture) (in a miniature from the Khludov Psalter - State Historical Museum. Khlud. No. 149d. L. 40 vol., ca. mid-9th century .), on the other I. I. immerses bread in a bowl (in the Rossan Codex; Four Gospels - Paris. gr. 74. Fol. 95, 156, 1057-1059, etc.). The first version is typical especially for the Cappadocian monuments of the 10th century: Kylychlar-kilise, Old (1st quarter of the 10th century) and New (50s of the 10th century) Tokaly-kilise. The second became especially widespread in the 11th century. (frescoes of the crypt of the monastery of Osios-Loukas, Greece (30-40s of the 11th century), and frescoes on the choir of the Cathedral of St. Sophia of Kiev (40s of the 11th century); paintings of Karanlik-kilise and Elmaly -kilise in Cappadocia (mid-3rd quarter of the 11th century) generally follow this iconography, but on them I.I. has no bread in his hand, which he extends to the bowl). The depiction of I. I. in a miniature from the Trebizond Gospel (RNB. Greek No. 21 and 21A, 3rd quarter of the 10th century) is not quite usual: I. I. accompanies his exclamation with a gesture of his raised right hand, and brings his left hand to his mouth . In zap. monuments, such as, for example, in a miniature from the Stuttgart Psalter (Stuttg. Fol. 23, 20-30s of the 9th century), Jesus Christ is depicted serving I. I. bread.
In the scene of “The Last Supper” in the Paleologian period there is often a contrast between I. I. and the ap. John the Theologian. Their figures can be located one at a time (frescoes of the exonarthex of the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos, 1312; the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary of the Gracanica monastery, ca. 1320; the Church of St. Nikita near Skopje, until 1316) or on opposite sides of the figure of Christ (frescoes Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Protata on Athos, ca. 1300), as well as diagonally - opposite each other (frescoes of the churches of the Virgin Mary Perivelept in Ohrid, 1294/1295; Virgin Mary Leviski in Prizren, 1310-1313; Martyr George in Staro Nagorichino , 1317-1318; Theotokos in the monastery of Hilandar on Mount Athos, 1318-1320; St. Nicholas Orphanos in Thessalonica, ca. 1320).
Instead of the image of I.I. returning 30 pieces of silver, known in the early Byzantine monuments. period, in the Middle Byzantine period. era, the scene was often reproduced where I. I. receives a wallet with money (for example, in miniatures from Khludovskaya (L. 40 vol.) and Bristol (Lond. Brit. Lib. Add. 40731. Fol. 57v, 68; ca. 1000) Psalter) or holds a wallet (in the miniature from the Khludov Psalter - L. 32 vol.). In monuments of the Palaeologian period, the scene of I. I. receiving silver pieces may include an image of the high priests sitting at a table on which coins are laid out (for example, the fresco of the Grand Martyr George Monastery in Staro-Nagorichino). During this period, there is also a scene of the return of I. I. silver coins (for example, a fresco of the cave church of the Virgin Mary in Ivanovo, Bulgaria, 50s of the 14th century).
In the scene “The Kiss of Judas” the arrangement of the figures of Jesus Christ and I. I. is based on their opposition, as in the miniature from the Four Gospels (Parma. Palat. 5. Fol. 92, late XI - early XII centuries), I. I .. often presented in profile - so in the Middle Ages. in art they usually depicted negative or secondary persons.
In the Psalms with marginal illustrations - Khludovskaya, Bristolskaya and Hamilton (Berolin. SB. 78F9, c. 1300) - among the miniatures to Psalm 108 one can also see the scene “Judas, instigated by the devil.” In the scene of the hanging of I.I. in the Khludov Psalter (L. 113), the devil holds a rope tied to a tree branch.
From the end XIII century in the composition “Communion of the Apostles” located in the altar, I. I. is depicted together with the apostles receiving communion (the first in one of the groups), he receives bread from the hands of Jesus Christ. Like other apostles receiving the Body of Christ, I. I. is depicted with a halo, but his halo is dark in color (for example, frescoes of the Church of the Assumption on Volotovo Field near Vel. Novgorod, 1363, or the Church of the Great Martyr Theodore Stratelates on the Stream , 1378). In c. Spasa on Ilyina st. in Vel. Novgorod (1378) I. I. is represented squeezing with both hands a purse of silver to the left of Jesus Christ, behind the apostles Paul and Matthew.
Lit.: Soloviev S.V. Historical and literary studies. Kh., 1895. Issue. 1: To the legends of Judas the Traitor; Vzdornov G.I. Frescoes of Theophanes the Greek in the c. Church of the Transfiguration in Novgorod. M., 1976. P. 93; aka. Volotovo: Frescoes c. Dormition on Volotovo Field near Novgorod. M., 1989. P. 47. Ill. 73; Shchepkina M.V. Miniatures of the Khludov Psalter: Greek. illus. codex 9th century M., 1977; Dufrenne S. Tableaux synoptiques de 15 psautiers medievaux a illustrations integrals issues du texte. P., 1978; Tourta A. G. The Judas Cycle?: Byzantine Examples and Post Byzantine Survivals // Byzantinische Malerei: Bildprogramme, Ikonographie, Stil / Hrsg. G. Koch. Wiesbaden, 2000. S. 321-336; Παπακυριακού Χ. Η Προδοσία του Ιούδα. Home page τινα. Θεσσαλονίκη, 2002/2003. Τ. 23. Σ. 233-260; Picturing the Bible: The Earliest Christian Art: Exhibition cat. /Ed. J. Spier. New Haven; Fort Worth, 2007. P. 229-232; Zakharova A.V. Variants of the iconography of the Last Supper in Middle Byzantine painting. period // Byzantium in the context of world culture: Materials of the conference. in memory of A. V. Bank (1906-1984). St. Petersburg, 2010. pp. 97-108. (Tr. GE; 51); Zarras N. The Passion Cycle in Staro Nagoricino // JÖB. 2010. Bd. 60. S. 181-213.
I. A. Oretskaya
“Jesus Christ was warned many times that Judas of Kerioth was a man of very ill repute and should be avoided.” No one will say a good word about him. He is “selfish, cunning, prone to pretense and lies,” endlessly quarrels people among themselves, crawling into houses like a scorpion. He left his wife a long time ago, and she is in poverty. He himself “staggers senselessly among the people,” grimaces, lies, vigilantly looking for something with his “thief’s eye.” “He had no children, and this once again said that Judas is a bad person and God does not want offspring from Judas.” None of the disciples noticed when the “red-haired and ugly Jew” first appeared near Christ, but now he was constantly nearby, hiding “some secret intention... an evil and insidious calculation” - there was no doubt about it. But Jesus did not listen to the warnings; he was drawn to the outcasts. “...He decisively accepted Judas and included him in the circle of the chosen ones.” There had been no wind for ten days, the students were grumbling, and the teacher was quiet and focused. At sunset Judas approached him. “He was lean, of good stature, almost the same as Jesus...” “Short red hair did not hide the strange and unusual shape of his skull: as if cut from the back of the head with a double blow of a sword and recomposed, it was clearly divided into four parts and inspired distrust, even anxiety: behind such a skull there cannot be silence and harmony; behind such a skull one can always hear the noise of bloody and merciless battles. Judas’s face was also double: one side of it, with a black, sharply looking eye, was alive, mobile, willingly gathering into numerous crooked wrinkles. On the other there were no wrinkles, and it was deathly smooth, flat and frozen, and although it was equal in size to the first, it seemed huge from the wide open blind eye. Covered with a whitish turbidity, not closing either at night or during the day, it equally met both light and darkness...” Even undiscerning people clearly understood that Judas could not bring good. Jesus brought him closer and sat him down next to him. Judas complained about illnesses, as if not understanding that they were not born by chance, but corresponded to the actions of the sick person and the covenants of the Eternal. The beloved disciple of Jesus Christ, John, disgustedly moved away from Judas. Peter wanted to leave, but, obeying the look of Jesus, he greeted Judas, comparing Iscariot to an octopus: “And you, Judas, are like an octopus - only in one half.” Peter always speaks firmly and loudly. His words dispelled the painful state of those gathered. Only John and Thomas are silent. Thomas is depressed by the sight of an open and bright Jesus and “an octopus with huge, motionless, dull, greedy eyes” sitting next to him. Judas asked John, who was looking at him, why he was silent, for his words were “like golden apples in transparent silver vessels, give one of them to Judas, who is so poor.” But John continues to silently examine Iscariot. Later, everyone fell asleep, only Judas listened to the silence, then he coughed so that they would not think that he was pretending to be sick.
“Gradually they got used to Judas and stopped noticing his ugliness.” Jesus entrusted him with the cash drawer and all household chores: he bought food and clothing, gave alms, and while traveling, looked for places to stay for the night. Judas lied constantly, and they got used to it, not seeing bad deeds behind the lies. According to Judas' stories, it turned out that he knew all the people, and each of them committed some bad act or even a crime in life. Good people, according to Judas, are those who know how to hide their deeds and thoughts, “but if such a person is hugged, caressed and questioned well, then all untruths, abominations and lies will flow from him, like pus from a punctured wound.” He himself is a liar, but not like others. They laughed at Judas’ stories, and he squinted, pleased. Iscariot said about his father that he did not know him: his mother shared a bed with many. Matthew reviled Judas for speaking foul language about his parents. Iscariot said nothing about Jesus’ disciples or himself, making hilarious grimaces. Only Thomas listened attentively to Judas, exposing him in lies. One day, traveling through Judea, Jesus and his disciples approached a village about whose inhabitants Judas spoke only bad things, predicting disaster. When the residents warmly welcomed the wanderers, the disciples reproached Iscariot with slander. Only Thomas returned to the village after they left. The next day, he told his comrades that after they left, panic began in the village: the old woman lost her kid and accused Jesus of theft. Soon the kid was found in the bushes, but the residents still decided that Jesus was a deceiver or even a thief. Peter wanted to return, but Jesus calmed his ardor. From that day on, Christ's attitude towards Iscariot changed. Now, speaking with his disciples, Jesus looked at Judas, as if not seeing him, and no matter what he said, “it seemed, however, that he was always speaking against Judas.” For everyone, Christ was “a fragrant rose of Lebanon, but for Judas he left only sharp thorns.” Soon another incident occurred, in which Iscariot again turned out to be right. In one village, which Judas scolded and advised to bypass, Jesus was received with extreme hostility and wanted to stone him. Screaming and cursing, Judas rushed at the residents, lied to them and gave time to Christ and his disciples to leave. Iscariot grimaced so much that in the end he caused laughter from the crowd. But Judas did not receive any gratitude from the teacher. Iscariot complained to Thomas that no one needed the truth and he, Judas. Jesus was probably saved by Satan, who taught Iscariot to contort and twist in front of an angry crowd. Later, Judas fell behind Thomas, rolled into a ravine, where he sat motionless for several hours on the rocks, pondering something heavily. “That night Judas did not return to spend the night, and the disciples, torn from their thoughts by worries about food and drink, grumbled at his negligence.”
“One day, around noon, Jesus and his disciples were passing along a rocky and mountainous road...” The teacher was tired, he had been walking for more than five hours. The disciples built a tent for Jesus from their cloaks, and they themselves went about various things. Peter and Philip threw heavy stones from the mountain, competing in strength and dexterity. Soon the others arrived, first just watching the game and later taking part. Only Judas and Jesus stood aside. Thomas called out to Judas why he wasn’t going to measure his strength. “My chest hurts, and they didn’t call me,” Judas answered. Thomas was surprised that Iscariot was waiting for an invitation. “Well, so I’m calling you, go,” he answered. Judas grabbed a huge stone and easily threw it down. Peter said offendedly: “No, just quit!” They competed in strength and dexterity for a long time, until Peter prayed: “Lord!.. Help me defeat Judas!” Jesus answered: “...and who will help Iscariot?” Then Peter laughed at how “sick” Judas easily moved the stones. Caught in a lie, Judas also laughed loudly, followed by the others. Everyone recognized Iscariot as the winner. Only Jesus remained silent, going far ahead. Gradually the disciples gathered around Christ, leaving the “victor” trailing alone behind. Having stopped for the night in the house of Lazarus, no one remembered the recent triumph of Iscariot. Judas stood in the doorway, lost in his thoughts. He seemed to fall asleep, not seeing what was blocking Jesus’ entrance. The disciples forced Judas to step aside.
At night, Thomas was awakened by the crying of Judas. “Why doesn't he love me?” - Iscariot asked bitterly. Thomas explained that Judas is unpleasant in appearance, and besides, he lies and slanderes; how could a teacher like this? Judas responded passionately: “I would give him Judas, brave, beautiful Judas! And now he will perish, and Judas will perish with him.” Iscariot told Thomas that Jesus did not need strong and brave disciples. “He loves fools, traitors, liars.”
Iscariot hid several denarii, Thomas revealed it. It can be assumed that this is not the first time Judas has committed a theft. Peter dragged the trembling Iscariot to Jesus, but he remained silent. Peter left, outraged by the teacher's reaction. Later, John conveyed the words of Christ: “...Judas can take as much money as he wants.” As a sign of submission, John kissed Judas, and everyone followed his example. Iscariot confessed to Thomas that he had given three denarii to a harlot who had not eaten for several days. From that time on, Judas was reborn: he did not grimace, did not slander, did not joke and did not offend anyone. Matthew found it possible to praise him. Even John began to treat Iscariot more leniently. One day he asked Judas: “Which of us, Peter or I, will be first near Christ in his heavenly kingdom?” Judas replied, “I suppose you are.” To the same question from Peter, Judas replied that he would be the first
Peter. He praised Iscariot for his intelligence. Judas now tried to please everyone, constantly thinking about something. When Peter asked what he was thinking about, Judas replied: “About many things.” Only once did Judas recall his former self. Having argued about closeness to Christ, John and Peter asked “clever Judas” to judge “who will be first near Jesus”? Judas answered: “I am!” Everyone understood what Iscariot had been thinking about lately.
At this time, Judas took the first step towards betrayal: he visited the high priest Anna, and was received very harshly. Iscariot admitted that he wanted to expose the deception of Christ. The high priest, knowing that Jesus has many disciples, is afraid that they will intercede for the teacher. Iscariot laughed, calling them “cowardly dogs” and assuring Anna that everyone would run away at the first danger and would only come to put the teacher in the coffin, because they loved him “more dead than alive”: then they themselves could become teachers. The priest realized that Judas was offended. Iscariot confirmed the guess: “Can anything hide from your insight, wise Anna?” Iscariot appeared to Anna many more times until he agreed to pay thirty pieces of silver for his betrayal. At first, the insignificance of the amount offended Iscariot, but Anna threatened that there would be people who would agree to a smaller payment. Judas was indignant, and then meekly agreed to the proposed amount. He hid the money he received under a stone. Returning home, Judas gently stroked the hair of the sleeping Christ and cried, writhing in convulsions. And then “he stood for a long time, heavy, determined and alien to everything, like fate itself.”
In the last days of Jesus’ short life, Judas surrounded him with quiet love, tender attention and affection. He anticipated any desire of the teacher and only did something pleasant for him. “Before, Judas did not love Marina Magdalene and other women who were near Christ... - now he became their friend... ally.” He bought incense and expensive wines for Jesus and was angry if Peter drank what was intended for the teacher, because he did not care what to drink, as long as he drank more. In “rocky Jerusalem,” almost devoid of greenery, Iscariot got flowers and grass somewhere and passed them on to Jesus through women. He brought him babies so that “they would rejoice at each other.” In the evenings, Judas “brought conversation” to Galilee, dear to Jesus.