Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (827 page)

^*
Kaiser, bibi. Theol. I, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar representation in his Messias.

^†
K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, I, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18 ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, I, s. 163 ff.

^‡
Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. I, b, s. 143 ff.; Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.expected an exaltation to one of the first places in the kingdom of his master, he was not unwilling to combine with it even that small advantage. But Judas had miscalculated in two points: first, in not considering that after the feasting of the paschal night, the people would not be early on the alert for an insurrection; secondly, in overlooking the probability, that the Sanhedrim would hasten to deliver Jesus into the hands of the Romans, from whom a popular insurrection would hardly suffice to deliver him. Thus Judas is supposed to be either an honest man misunderstood,* or a deluded one, who however was of no common character, but exhibited even in his despair the wreck of apostolic greatness;
^†
or, he is supposed, by evil means, indeed, to have sought the attainment of an object, which was nevertheless good.‡ Neander imagines the two opposite opinions concerning Jesus, the supernatural and the natural, to have presented themselves to the mind of Judas in the form of a dilemma, so that he reasoned thus: if Jesus is the Messiah, a delivery into the hands of his enemies will, owing to his supernatural power, in no way injure him, but will, on the contrary, serve to accelerate his glorification: if, on the other hand, he is not the Messiah, he deserves destruction. According to this, the betrayal was merely a test, by which the doubting disciple meant to try the messiahsliip of his master.§

Among these views, that which derives the treachery of Judas from wounded ambition, is the only one which can adduce a positive indication in its favour: namely, the repulse which the traitor drew on himself from Jesus at the meal in Bethany. But against such an appeal to this reproof we have already, on another occasion, applied the remark of the most recent criticism, that its mildness, especially as compared with the far more severe rebuke administered to Peter, Matt. xvi. 23
,
must forbid our attributing to it such an effect as the rancour which it is supposed to have engendered in Judas
^||
while that in other instances he was less considered than his fellow-disciples, we have nowhere any trace.

All the other conjectures as to what was properly the motive of the deed of Judas, can only be supported by negative grounds, i.e. grounds which make it improbable in general that his project had a bad aim, and in particular, that his motive was covetousness; a positive proof; that he intended to further the work of Jesus, and especially that he was actuated by violent political views of the Messiah’s kingdom, is not to be discovered. — That Judas had in general no evil designs against Jesus is argued chiefly from the fact, that after the delivery of Jesus to the Romans, and the inevitableness of his death had come to his knowledge, he fell into despair; this being regarded as a proof that he had expected an opposite result. But not only does the unfortunate result of crime, as Paulus thinks, but also its fortunate result, that is, its success, “exhibit

^*
Schmidt, ut sup.

^†
Hase.

^‡
Paulus.

^§
Neander, L. J. Chr., s.
578 f
.

^||
Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.that which had before been veiled under a thousand extenuating pretexts, in all the blackness of its real form.” Crime once become real, once passed into act, throws off the mask which it might wear while it remained merely ideal, and existed in thought alone; hence, as little as the repentance of many a murderer, when he sees his victim lie before him, proves that he did not really intend to commit the murder; so little can the anguish of Judas, when he saw Jesus beyond rescue, prove that he had not beforehand contemplated the death of Jesus as the issue of his deed.

But, it is further said, covetousness cannot have been the motive of Judas; for if gain had been his object, he could not be blind to the fact that the continued charge of the purse in the society of Jesus, would yield him more than the miserable thirty pieces of silver (from 20 to 25
thalers,* of our money), a sum which among the Jews formed the compensation for a wounded slave, being four months’ wages. But these thirty pieces of silver are in vain sought for in any other narrator than Matthew. John is entirely silent as to any reward offered to Judas by the priests; Mark and Luke speak indefinitely of
money
a
r
g
u
r
i
o
n
,
which they had promised him; and Peter in the Acts (i. 18) merely mentions a
reward,
m
i
s
q
o
V
,
which Judas obtained. Matthew, however, who alone has that definite sum, leaves us at the same time in no doubt as to the historical value of his statement. After relating the end of Judas (xxvii. 9 f.),
he cites a passage from Zechariah (xi. 12
f. ; he ascribes it by mistake to Jeremiah), wherein likewise thirty pieces of silver appear as a price at which some one is valued. It is true that in the prophetic passage the thirty pieces of silver are not given as purchase money, but as hire; he to whom they are paid is the prophet, the representative of Jehovah, and the smallness of the sum is an emblem of the slight value which the Jews set upon the divine benefits so plentifully bestowed on them.
^†
But how easily might this passage, where there was mention of a shamefully low price (ironically a
good1y price
[
Heb. letters
]
‘eder hayqar
), at which the Israelites had rated the speaker in the prophecy, remind a Christian reader of his Messiah, who, in any case, had been sold for a paltry price compared with his value, and hence be led to determine by this passage, the price which was paid to Judas for betraying Jesus.‡ Thus the
thirty pieces of silver,
t
r
i
a
k
o
n
t
a
a
r
g
u
r
i
a
,
present no support to those who would prove that it could not be the reward which made Judas a traitor; for they leave us as ignorant as ever how great or how small was the reward which Judas received. Neither can we, with Neander, conclude that the sum was trifling from Matt. xxvii. 6 ff. ; Acts i. 18, where it is said that a
field,
a
g
r
o
V
or
c
w
r
i
o
n
,
was purchased with the reward assigned to the treachery of Judas; since, even apart from the historical value of that statement, hereafter to

[* The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three shillings.TR]

^†
Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.

^‡
Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.be examined, the two expressions adduced may denote a larger or a smaller piece of land, and the additional observations of Matthew, that it was destined
to bury strangers in,
e
i
V
t
a
f
h
n
t
o
i
V
x
e
n
o
i
V
will not allow us to think of a very small extent. How the same theologian can discover in the statement of the two intermediate Evangelists, that the Jewish rulers had promised Judas
money,
a
r
g
u
r
i
o
n
,
an intimation that the sum was small, it is impossible to conceive. — Far more weighty is the observation above made with a different aim, that Jesus would scarcely have appointed and retained as purse-bearer one whom he knew to be covetous even to dishonesty; whence Neander directly infers that the fourth Evangelist, when he derived the remark of Judas at the meal in Bethany from his covetousness, put a false construction upon it, in consequence of the idea which ultimately prevailed respecting Judas, and especially added the accusation, that Judas robbed the common fund, out of his own imagination.* But in opposition to this it is to be asked, whether in Neander’s point of view it be admissible to impute to the apostle John, who is here understood to be the author of the fourth gospel, so groundless a calumny — for such it would be according to Neander’s supposition; and, in our point of view, it would at least be more natural to conclude, that Jesus indeed knew Judas to be fond of money, but did not until the last believe him to be dishonest, and hence did not consider him unfit for the post in question. Neander observes in conclusion: if Judas could be induced by money to betray Jesus, he must have long lost all true faith in him. This indeed follows of necessity, and must be supposed in every view of the subject; but this extinction of faith could of itself only lead him to
go back,
a
p
e
l
q
e
i
n
e
i
V
t
a
o
p
i
s
w
(John vi. 66); in order to prompt him to meditate treachery there must be a further, special incitement, which, intrinsically, might just as well be covetousness, as the views which are attributed to him by Neander and others.

That covetousness, considered as such an immediate motive, suffices to explain the deed of Judas, I will not maintain; I only contend that any other motives are neither stated nor anywhere intimated in the gospels, and that consequently every hypothesis as to their existence is built on the air.†

§ 120. PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER.

On the first day of unleavened bread, in the evening of which the paschal lamb was to be slain, consequently, the day before the feast properly speaking, which however commenced on that evening, i.e.
the 14th of Nisan, Jesus, according to the two first Evangelists, in compliance with a question addressed to Him by the disciples, sent — Matthew leaves it undecided which and how many, Mark says, two disciples, whom Luke designates as Peter and John — to

^*
L. J. Chr., s.
573
.

^†
Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.Jerusalem (perhaps from Bethany), to bespeak a place in which he might partake of the passover with them, and to make the further arrangements (Matt. xxvi. 17 ff. parall.). The three narrators do not altogether agree as to the directions which Jesus gave to these disciples. According to all, he sends them to a man of whom they had only to desire, in the name of their
master
d
i
d
a
s
k
a
l
o
V
, a place in which to celebrate the passover, in order at once to have their want supplied : but first, this locality is more particularly described by the two intermediate Evangelists than by Matthew, namely as a
large upper room,
which was already
furnished and prepared
for the reception of guests; and secondly, the manner in which they were to find the owner, is described by the former otherwise than by the latter. Matthew makes Jesus merely say to the disciples, that they were to go
to such a man,
p
r
o
V
t
o
n
d
e
i
n
a
:
the others, that, being come into the city, they would meet a man
bearing a pitcher of water,
whom they were to follow into the house which he should enter, and there make their application to the owner.