We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
The post-apostolic generation was not interested in the person who, according to all four gospels, betrayed Jesus the day before his death. This whole episode remained a rather dark spot for the young church, which was in constant self-defence against the manifold powers of the pagan world. It is not astonishing, therefore, that the apologetic literature of the second century carefully avoided this subject. The Judas legend, developing more and more the evil character and the horrible end of the betrayer, does not even appear in the second century writings of Justin, Hermas, and Clement, and we would not know anything about it if Irenaeus and the Catenas of the church had not preserved the Papias fragments for us. The apologetic literature had no use for it.
1. Funk-Bihlmeyer, : A post. Väter, Tübingen 1924 pp. 134–137.Google ScholarIr. Adv. Haer. 5, 33, 3 [GCS I, 268]. As for the early Judas legend, cf. also: the Gospe' of Bartholomew (in Les Apocryphes Coptes I, 1907 Patribi. Orient. 2)Google Scholar and the Coptie fragments in Haase: Lit. Untersuchungen zur Orient. apokr. Evang. Literatur, Leipzig 1913, pp. 11Google Scholar sqq., and Zoëga: Cat, cod. copt., Rom 1810, p. 230.Google Scholar
2. Ir. Adv. Haer. II, 20Google Scholar, 2 and II, 20, 4.
3. One branch of the Gnostic sect of the “Canites” worshipped Judas Iscariot who “alone recognized the truth” and who “separated the earthly from the divine.'s critical edition of the Matthew Commentary in GCS (Die griech. christlichen Schriftsteller).
5. Quid Juda pejus! Aug. Tract. Joh. 50, 10. The few comments of Origen's immediate predecessors in the East and in the West, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, show the same attitude of the common faith, so different from Origen's profound insight into the Judas questions: Cl. Al. Paed. II, 8Google Scholar (§62,363,1), Tert. Enn. in Ps. 39 and Enn. in Ps. 40. The most typical book ever written in this respect probably is: Abraham de Santa Clara: Juda, der Erzschelm, Salzburg 1686Google Scholar, part of it republished in 1906.
6. Cf. Franklin, P. B.: “The mediaeval Legend of Judas Iscarioth” in Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, XXXI, 481–632.Google Scholar
7. Migne Ser. Gr. 50, pp. 373, sqq.Google Scholar
8. John Comm. XXXII, 18 [235, 237] Matth. Comm. Ser. 82 (mt.) Between [ ] the reference numbers in GCS.
9. John Comm. XXXII, 10Google Scholar [109]
10. philargyresas, Matth. Comm. XVI, 8Google Scholar
11. Matth. Comm. XI, 9Google Scholar
12. Matth. Comm. XI, 9Google Scholar and Comm. on Cant. Cant. IV (lat.)
13. Matth. Comm. Ser. 78 (lat.)
14. There is something evil in the beet Christian,—as one can see in the lives of the saints—, and there is something good in the worst of the bad, even in Judas. Comm. on Rom. IX, 41Google Scholar (Ruf.)
15. Cf. Footnote 1, and further: Hippolytoe: 4, 60 (GGS I, 339), Aphraat: Hom 14, Ephr. Syr. cf.Zahn, : Forschungen I, 212Google Scholar, and the two Papias traditions in Eusebius: Hist. Ecci. III, 39Google Scholar and Funk-Bihlmeyer: loc. cit.
16. John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar [246]
17. Cant. Cant. Comm. IV, certainly the Latin equivalent of the Origeniatic atexousion.
18. John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar [240–241]
19. John Comm. XXXII, 14Google Scholar [161]
20. Ibid. [157–158 and 162]
21. Ibid. 159. Otherwise, Jesus would not have sent Judas with the other apostles: the close relationship of apostoios and apostellein. Cf. also: Luke-Horn. I 89Google Scholar [GGS p. 8, 12]: he was an “eyewitness” of the Lord.
22. Matth. Comm. XVI, 2Google Scholar
23. Matth. Comm. XVI, 8Google Scholar
24. Comm. on Cant. Cant. IV (lat.) (DeLaRue p. 92)
25. Ex. Horn. VI, 2Google Scholar (Ruf.) [VI, 193, 10]
26. Matth. Comm. XVI, 2Google Scholar
27. The devil did not enter Judas before, he only put it into his heart to betray Jesus. After the sop, he entered. John Comm. XXXII, 22Google Scholar [286], and the Greek fragment to Ex. 20, 5–6 (lat: Ex.-Horn. VIII, 6) [GCS VI 230 sqq.]
28. Matth. Comm. XVI, 2 and XVI, 8Google Scholar
29. John Comm., XXXII, 2Google Scholar [19/23] Matth. Comm. XI, 9Google Scholar
30. John Comm. XXXII, 2Google Scholar [19]
31. Matth. Comm. XI, 9Google Scholar
32. John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar [241]
33. Cant. Cant. Comm. IV (lat.)
34. John Comm. XXXII, 22Google Scholar [280–285]
35. Cf. the discussion in John Comm. XXXII, 24Google Scholar [306–311] with the concluding statement of uncertainty in [312]. The Roman Catholic historians are inclined to pay too much attention to the problem of the Judas communion in Origen. (Haugg, Donatus: Judas Ischarioth, der Verräter, München 1936).Google Scholar It is wrong to treat the Origenistic Eucharist, the trophkoi artoi aletheias, from the Thomistie as peat of the opus operatum and the communion dogma of 1215. The way Origen deals with the question whether Judas ate the sop or not (loc. cit.) shows that this is not a vital problem in his conception of the eucharistia the way it is, of course, for the dogma of the Fourth Lateran Council.
36. Ibid. [306] and John Comm. XXXII, 30 [382]
37. John Comm. XXXII, 23Google Scholar [299]
38. John Ctmm. XXXII, 22Google Scholar [283]
39. P.A. III, 2, 1 (Ruf.) [GGS V. 246, 13]
40. Es. Hom. XIII, 1Google Scholar (Ruf.) [VIII, 442, 16]
41. John Comm. XXXII, 23Google Scholar[297]
42. Ex. Hom. VIII, 6Google Scholar (Ruf. and a Greek fragment) [VI 230 sqq.]
43. Ex. Hom. VI, 2Google Scholar (Ruf.) [VI 193, 10 sqq.]
44. Ex. Hom. III, 2Google Scholar (Ruf.) [VI 163, 10 sqq.]
45. Matth. Comm. Ser. 78 (lat.)
46. John Comm. XXXII, 22Google Scholar [290]
47. In Peri Archon II 3, 4Google Scholar, Origen says that Judas betrayed the Lord twice. If Rufinus translated right, it either means the two steps of betraying as shown before, or the betrayal in talking to the Pharisees as the first step, and the actual betrayal in Gethsemane as the second.
48. John Comm. XXXII, 24Google Scholar [313–317]
49. Matth. Comm. Ser. 83 (lat.), John Comm. XXXII, 13Google Scholar [148] Jer. Cat. XXX to Jer. 27, 23 (LXX) [Greek Fragment: GCS IX 214, 28]
50. John Comm. XXXII, 24Google Scholar [309]
51. Ibid. [301]
52. John Comm. XXXII, 13Google Scholar [149–150]
53. Matth. Comm. Ser. 117 (lat.). The whole interesting passage of the Commentary on Matth. only exists in the late Latin version. Yet most of it has a parallel text either in John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar or in Kata Kelsou II, 11–12.Google Scholar
54. K. K. II, 11Google Scholar
55. Matth. Comm. Ser. 117 (lat.)
56. Ibid.
57. John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar [241]
58. Ibid. [244]
59. K. K. II, 11Google Scholar
60. Matth. Comm. Ser. 117. The Latin does not quite make sense for Christ was not resurrected by the time Judas spoke his words of penance. There would be a possibility that Judas, after the resurrection of the Christ, actually did penance once more, and that the original Greek text, for obvious reasons, has been obscured. This is not more than a hypothesis, however, and the context as well as the lack of any similar idea in the parallel text in the Commentary on John speak against it.
61. Ibid.
62. John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar [242]
63. Matth. Comm. Ser. 117
64. John Comm. loc. cit. [245]
65. Matth. Comm. Ser. 117
66. John Comm. loc. cit. [243]
67. Matth. Comm. Ser. 117
68. Cf. Footnote 60. No possible interpretation would ever be strong enough to devaluate the original John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar
69. Matth. Comm. Ser. 117 and K.K. II, 11Google Scholar
70. Cf. the article by Chadwiek, : “Origen, Celsus aud. the resurrection of the body” in Harvard Theological Review XLI, 2 (1948)Google Scholar
71. John Comm. XXXII, 14Google Scholar [162] While the church fathers for centuries depended upon Origen in their views about Judas, Augustine, in this respect of the Judas problem, will be found in sharp contradiction to Origen: Jesus elected Judas because God wanted it, knowing well enough the lupus ovina pelle contectus” in him. Aug.: Trac. Joh. 55, 4–5 & 112, 2.Google Scholar
72. Ibid. [163]
73. Ibid. [168]
74. John Comm. XXXII, 18Google Scholar [232]
75. Ibid. [236]
76. Matth. Comm. Ser. 82
77. John Comm. XXXII, 6Google Scholar [68]
78. John Comm. XXXII, 13Google Scholar [148]
79. Rom. in Jes. Nave XIII, 2Google Scholar (Ruf.) [VII 441, 3]
80. John Comm. XXXII, 6Google Scholar [68]
81. John Comm. XXXII, 14Google Scholar [161]
82. Cant. Cant. Comm. IV (lat.) This Latin passage fits in consistently with what we know about Origen's conception of the free will (the third book of Peri Archon) and with the other passages dealing with the actual, free decision by Judas. A text by Methodists shows the same Origenistic line of thought: qua proptcr recte egit Christus etiam cern esset verbum Dei non mutando mentem Judae, ne ilium eligere bonum necessitate adigeret: De Resurrectione III, 23 (12) [GCS p. 424Google Scholar]
83. Gen. Comm. III, 6Google Scholar Origen once discusses the question whether Jesus meant the very origia of incarnation, or the actual birth on this earth, by saying: it would have been better for him not to have been born. He prefers the second interpretation: John Comm. XXXII, 18Google Scholar [239]
84. John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar [250 sqq.]
85. Gen. Comm. III, 6Google Scholar
86. John Comm. XXXII, 18Google Scholar [227]
87. Cant. Cant. Comm. IV (loc. cit.)
88. John Comm. XXXII, 13Google Scholar [146]
89. John Comm. XXXII, 24Google Scholar [302]
90. Ibid. XXXII, 23 [295–299]
91. John Comm. XXXII, 18Google Scholar [232] Matth. Comm. Ser. 78 (lat.)
92. John Comm. XXXII, 25Google Scholar [320]
93. John Comm. XXXII, 24Google Scholar [302]
94. Ex. Hom. III, 2Google Scholar (Rat.) [VI 163, 10]
95. John Comm. XXXII, 24Google Scholar [307]
96. Matth. Comm. Ser. 83 (lat.) John Comm. 13 [148Google Scholar] and the Jer. Cat. XXX in [GCS 214, 28]. In the Acta Petri (en. 200 A.]).) Peter accuses the devil of having forced Judas into the betrayal. (Text in L. Vouaux, Paris 1922) Cf. also Ephrnem Syr.: Carmine Nis. 35 (in Kemptener Kirchenvdter, vol. 35).
97. John Comm. XXXII, 2Google Scholar [19]
98. Matth. Comm. XI, 9Google Scholar
99. John Comm. XXXII, 19Google Scholar [246]
100. The content of Metth. Comm. Ser. 82 on a whole preserves this awareness quite well though I would not stress every single word of it in its actual form. Jesus was betrayed through, not by Judas (per quem, not a quo) and by the devil (a quo). And yet, woe to Judas and to anyone who betrays Christ! The picture about the judge who, as a servant of the devil, kills an innocent man does not solve the problem either. But at the end of the paragraph, it comes out clearly that Judas did his devilish service out of his free will. This is the ambiguity as showu in this text: the betrayal has been done by the devil (a qio) and through Judas (per quem), and yet, Judas did it of his own free will.
101. John Comm. XXXII, 23Google Scholar [295]
102. John Comm. XXXII, 25Google Scholar [320]
103. John Comm. XXXII, 8Google Scholar [84]
104. John Comm. XXXII, 3Google Scholar [25]
105. Matth. Comm. Ser. 75 (lat.), explaining Matth. 26, 2 Origen says further that the passive, impersonal construction “he will be delivered” is used, so it can be referred to all those who delivered him (or: betrayed him: the double meaning of paradidomi: to deliver, to betray, makes the combination with Born. 8 possible!). Even if it were possible that the Angustininn idea of predestination which lay between the original and its translation could have influenced the Latin text, the main theme is undoubtedly Origenistie: the combination of Matth. 26,2 with Rom. 8, 32.
106. Luke Fragment 26 (Greek) [GCS IX 245, 18–25]
107. John Comm. XXXII, 21 [276]Google Scholar
