Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 03-06-2007, 03:38 AM

In a current GRD thread about the motives of the Judas character in Jesus story, there has been some discussion of his name.

The name given in the Bible is Ιουδας Ισκαριωτης which is transliterated into English as "Ioudas Iscariotes" or simply "Judas Iscariot".

Now the first part of the name - Judas - is obviously a double-meaning. It is clearly a Hellenization of "Judah" (as can be seen in Matthew 1:2), the name of the son of Jacob who (according to the story) gave his name to both the Kingdom of Judah and to Judaism itself. As such, although this would have been a common name, it also has the obvious double meaning of "Jew" - and the Judas character can be seen as symbolic of "the Jews" betraying Jesus.

"Iscariot" is more problematic, though.

Most sources I have seen say that Iscariotes is a translation of "of Kerioth" - a town a few miles outside Hebron that is mentioned in Joshua 15:25 in the lists of places conquered by Joshua's armies.

Some sources though - and I note that these are mainly Christian apologetics sources - say instead that Iscariotes is a translation of "of the Iscarii". According to these sources, the Iscarii were a sect of Jewish Zealots who worked as assassins. Apparently (according to these sources) the Iscarii sect got their name from the distinctive daggers that they used.

However, I've not been able to find any references to this "Iscarii" sect outside of Christian apologetics webpages.

Was there such a thing as the "Iscarii" sect? Is there such a thing as an "Iscarii" dagger?

Or is this just an example of Christian anti-Semitic propaganda, trying to make Judas's actions into some kind of "Jewish Agenda" over and above what is written in the Bible?

Or does "Iscariotes" mean something entirely different to either of the above options?

Malachi151 · 03-06-2007, 04:38 AM

I don't know about Iscarii, but in this case I think that the fundies might be right. The irony is that they can't see how this undermines the legitimacy of the Gospels as history. Obviously when you throw in symbolic characters you aren't writing history, you are writing allegory. Indeed, I think that GMark is an anti-Jewish work, as are all of the Gospels really, though Matthew minimizes it some.

Dean Anderson · 03-06-2007, 05:37 AM

Hmmm...

I think I've found something here.

Although I can still find no mention of Iscarii outside apologetics websites, there was apparently a group of Jewish "robbers" called the Sicarii that Josephus mentions.

The first mention of anything related to this is this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, War of the Jews, Chapter 8

AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.

Here, Josephus refers to a rebel leader called "Judas". The events here would have been in about 6 CE.

Then later, Sicarii themselves are mentioned:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, War of the Jews, Chapter 13

When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; and while every body expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance.

Finally, the Sicarii are linked with Judas's son (or grandson) Manahem, who is also a rebel:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, War of the Jews, Chapter 17

Now the next day was the festival of Xylophory; upon which the custom was for every one to bring wood for the altar (that there might never be a want of fuel for that fire which was unquenchable and always burning). Upon that day they excluded the opposite party from the observation of this part of religion. And when they had joined to themselves many of the Sicarii, who crowded in among the weaker people, (that was the name for such robbers as had under their bosoms swords called Sicae,) they grew bolder, and carried their undertaking further; insomuch that the king's soldiers were overpowered by their multitude and boldness; and so they gave way, and were driven out of the upper city by force. The others then set fire to the house of Ananias the high priest, and to the palaces of Agrippa and Bernice; after which they carried the fire to the place where the archives were reposited, and made haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors, and thereby to dissolve their obligations for paying their debts; and this was done in order to gain the multitude of those who had been debtors, and that they might persuade the poorer sort to join in their insurrection with safety against the more wealthy; so the keepers of the records fled away, and the rest set fire to them. And when they had thus burnt down the nerves of the city, they fell upon their enemies; at which time some of the men of power, and of the high priests, went into the vaults under ground, and concealed themselves, while others fled with the king's soldiers to the upper palace, and shut the gates immediately; among whom were Ananias the high priest, and the ambassadors that had been sent to Agrippa. And now the seditious were contented with the victory they had gotten, and the buildings they had burnt down, and proceeded no further.

But on the next day, which was the fifteenth of the month Lous, [Ab,] they made an assault upon Antonia, and besieged the garrison which was in it two days, and then took the garrison, and slew them, and set the citadel on fire; after which they marched to the palace, whither the king's soldiers were fled, and parted themselves into four bodies, and made an attack upon the walls. As for those that were within it, no one had the courage to sally out, because those that assaulted them were so numerous; but they distributed themselves into the breast-works and turrets, and shot at the besiegers, whereby many of the robbers fell under the walls; nor did they cease to fight one with another either by night or by day, while the seditious supposed that those within would grow weary for want of food, and those without supposed the others would do the like by the tediousness of the siege.

In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,) took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open king Herod's armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition, and gave orders for continuing the siege; but they wanted proper instruments, and it was not practicable to undermine the wall, because the darts came down upon them from above.

So it seems that the Sicarii were initially simply robbers rather than being "Jewish Zealots", but that they got involved in the Jewish Revolt under the instigation of the son (or grandson) of Judas of Galilee.

It may be, then, that the Bible authors are using the name "Judas Iscariotes" or "Judas of the Sicarii" to refer to this original troublemaker who is (albeit indirectly) associated with the Sicarii - or may be referring using the name "Judas of the Sicarii" merely with its implication of "the betrayer Jew", since the Sicarii were known for the tactic of blending in with the crowd and then attacking from within.

Does anyone have any further information on this?

Malachi151 · 03-06-2007, 06:14 AM

I have no further info, but this is interesting, thanks.

John Kesler · 03-06-2007, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

In a current GRD thread about the motives of the Judas character in Jesus story, there has been some discussion of his name.

May I suggest moving that thread to BC & H?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

"Iscariot" is more problematic, though. Most sources I have seen say that Iscariotes is a translation of "of Kerioth" - a town a few miles outside Hebron that is mentioned in Joshua 15:25 in the lists of places conquered by Joshua's armies. <snip>

It's possible that the gospel writers drew on various etiologies for the name Iscariot. In addition to being a town in southern Judah, Kerioth was also a Moabite town which received curses from Yahweh. Maybe what I have come upon is a coincidence, but Amos 2 ties in Judah, Iscariot/Kerioth and "sell[ing] the righteous for silver." There is also mention in verse 5 about sending a fire on Judah and devouring Jerusalem's strongholds:

Quote:

Thus says Yahweh:
For three transgressions of Moab,
and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;
because he burned to lime
the bones of the king of Edom.
2 So I will send a fire on Moab,
and it shall devour the strongholds of Kerioth,
and Moab shall die amid uproar,
amid shouting and the sound of the trumpet;
3 I will cut off the ruler from its midst,
and will kill all its officials with him,
says Yahweh.
4 Thus says Yahweh:
For three transgressions of Judah,
and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;
because they have rejected the law of Yahweh,
and have not kept his statutes,
but they have been led astray by the same lies
after which their ancestors walked.
5 So I will send a fire on Judah,
and it shall devour the strongholds of Jerusalem.
6 Thus says Yahweh:
For three transgressions of Israel,
and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;
because they sell the righteous for silver...

figuer · 03-06-2007, 10:01 AM

In Spanish, the word "Sicario" denotes a paid assassin. Its etymology is identified as deriving from the Latin word "Sicarius" (a murderer), which comes from "Sicae" (murder), which comes from "Sica" (a dagger). Thus originaly it denoted one who killed with a dagger.

Perhaps the Romans applied the word to some Jewish rebbels in a generic way (like calling them "those blade-wielding murderers"), and it was later interpreted as an especific name by Josephus or his sources.

Interestingly, the word Assassin comes from a muslim sect which used murder as a religious sanctioned tactic. The sources I consulted said it derived from "Hashsh AshIn" which means one who uses hashish, because they performed their murders under the influence of the said drug.

Johann_Kaspar · 03-06-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Hmmm...

I think I've found something here.

It is common knowledge in writings in French.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

So it seems that the Sicarii were initially simply robbers rather than being "Jewish Zealots",

Initially, no.
They can be called, robbers, terrorists or freedom fighters. Depends on one's agenda.

sharrock · 03-07-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

They can be called, robbers, terrorists or freedom fighters. Depends on one's agenda.

Cribbed from a piece by Joe Atwill...

A fact often overlooked by historians is that Christianity’s origins are suspicious. During the entire era in which the religion purportedly emerged; another Jewish messianic movement, called the Sicarii, fought in Judea against imperial Rome. This militaristic movement interpreted –- quite logically -- that the same prophecies that the Gospels claim envisioned Jesus, actually predicted the coming of a warrior Messiah who would lead the Jews against Rome.

It is unlikely that such a movement would have permitted Jesus, a multicultural and pacifistic “son of David” (Jesus’ philosophy it should be remembered contradicted the original David who was a xenophobic warrior) to have wandered about the Judean countryside teaching his followers to “turn the other cheek” to Roman authority. Further, the Gospels’ literary style is much closer to the popular Greek and Roman romances of the day -- that often featured a hero, empty tombs and resurrection scenes -- than the ascetic style of writing used throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Given the above, perhaps the most natural suspects for the creation of the Gospels would have been the Roman Caesars. Certainly the most likely of the Caesars would have been the Flavian dynasty, which lasted from 69 – 96 CE, the period when most scholars believe at least some of the Gospels were written. It consisted of three Caesars: Vespasian, and his two sons: Titus and Domitian. Flavius Josephus, a Jew who was an adopted member of the royal family was their official historian and wrote War of the Jews, the history of the family’s war against the Sicarii.

Though overlooked by virtually all of New Testament scholarship, this group should be regarded as the prime suspect for the creation of Christianity because they possessed all of the requirements to have done so. They had a strong financial motivation to replace the militaristic religion of the Sicarii that waged war against them with a pro Roman Messiah cult, they were known to have a staff of intellectuals with the expertise in Judaism and philosophy necessary to write the Gospels, and they possessed the knowledge and bureaucracy required to implement a religion (the Flavians created and maintained a number of religions other than Christianity). Moreover, this royal family was the absolute rulers over the territories where the first Christian congregations began and therefore determined which literature was permitted to circulate in the area.

Johann_Kaspar · 03-07-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharrock

...Jesus, a multicultural and pacifistic “son of David” ...

Best oxymoron of the day.

Loomis · 03-07-2007, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

"Iscariot" is more problematic, though.

... does "Iscariotes" mean something entirely different to either of the above options?

It looks to me like “Judas Iscariot” might be a play on the Hebrew words Judah and Issachar.

Judah was the one of the original Twelve sons of Jacob who suggested betraying Joseph for a payment of silver in Genesis 37:26-28.

Quote:

Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let’s not lay a hand on him, for after all, he is our brother, our own flesh.” His brothers agreed. So when the Midianite merchants passed by, Joseph’s brothers pulled him out of the cistern and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver.

The names Judah and Issachar are usually adjacent to each other as "Judah Issachar". See Genesis 35:23, 46:12-13, Exodus 1:2-3; Numbers 1:27-28, 26:22-23; Deuteronomy 27:12; and 1 Chronicles 2:1.

Also check out Deuteronomy 27:25

Quote:

Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to kill an innocent person.

I bet it’s some sort of conflation - either out of ignorance or maybe the product of a creative writing exercise.

Maybe it all got started when someone accidentally thought that Judah Issachar was one character - and then they proceeded to write a story around him.

03-06-2007, 03:38 AM	#1
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Judas Iscariot - translation and meaning of the name? In a current GRD thread about the motives of the Judas character in Jesus story, there has been some discussion of his name. The name given in the Bible is Ιουδας Ισκαριωτης which is transliterated into English as "Ioudas Iscariotes" or simply "Judas Iscariot". Now the first part of the name - Judas - is obviously a double-meaning. It is clearly a Hellenization of "Judah" (as can be seen in Matthew 1:2), the name of the son of Jacob who (according to the story) gave his name to both the Kingdom of Judah and to Judaism itself. As such, although this would have been a common name, it also has the obvious double meaning of "Jew" - and the Judas character can be seen as symbolic of "the Jews" betraying Jesus. "Iscariot" is more problematic, though. Most sources I have seen say that Iscariotes is a translation of "of Kerioth" - a town a few miles outside Hebron that is mentioned in Joshua 15:25 in the lists of places conquered by Joshua's armies. Some sources though - and I note that these are mainly Christian apologetics sources - say instead that Iscariotes is a translation of "of the Iscarii". According to these sources, the Iscarii were a sect of Jewish Zealots who worked as assassins. Apparently (according to these sources) the Iscarii sect got their name from the distinctive daggers that they used. However, I've not been able to find any references to this "Iscarii" sect outside of Christian apologetics webpages. Was there such a thing as the "Iscarii" sect? Is there such a thing as an "Iscarii" dagger? Or is this just an example of Christian anti-Semitic propaganda, trying to make Judas's actions into some kind of "Jewish Agenda" over and above what is written in the Bible? Or does "Iscariotes" mean something entirely different to either of the above options?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2007, 04:38 AM	#2
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I don't know about Iscarii, but in this case I think that the fundies might be right. The irony is that they can't see how this undermines the legitimacy of the Gospels as history. Obviously when you throw in symbolic characters you aren't writing history, you are writing allegory. Indeed, I think that GMark is an anti-Jewish work, as are all of the Gospels really, though Matthew minimizes it some.

03-06-2007, 06:14 AM	#4
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I have no further info, but this is interesting, thanks.

03-06-2007, 10:01 AM	#6
figuer Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico Posts: 7,984	In Spanish, the word "Sicario" denotes a paid assassin. Its etymology is identified as deriving from the Latin word "Sicarius" (a murderer), which comes from "Sicae" (murder), which comes from "Sica" (a dagger). Thus originaly it denoted one who killed with a dagger. Perhaps the Romans applied the word to some Jewish rebbels in a generic way (like calling them "those blade-wielding murderers"), and it was later interpreted as an especific name by Josephus or his sources. Interestingly, the word Assassin comes from a muslim sect which used murder as a religious sanctioned tactic. The sources I consulted said it derived from "Hashsh AshIn" which means one who uses hashish, because they performed their murders under the influence of the said drug.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.