The true force and derivation of the word is this. The name assumed in the language of Palestine by the ferocious sect above mentioned, was derived from the Hebrew primitive קנא (Qana or Kana,) and thence the name קנני (Kanani) was very fairly expressed, according to the forms and terminations of the Greek, by Κανανιτης, (Kananites.) The Hebrew root is a verb which means “to be zealous,” and the name derived from it of course means, “one who is zealous,” of which the just Greek translation is the word Ζηλωτης, (Zelotes,) the very name by which Luke represents it in this instance. (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13.) One of these names is, in short, a mere translation of the other,——nor is there any way of evading this construction, except by supposing that Luke was mistaken in supposing that Simon was called “the Zealot,” being deceived by the resemblance of the name “Cananites” to the Hebrew name of that sect. But no believer in the inspiration of the gospel can allow this supposition. Equally unfounded, and inconsistent with Luke’s translation, is the notion that the name Cananite is derived from Cana the village of Galilee, famous as the scene of Christ’s first miracle.
The account given in the Life of Matthew shows the character of this sect, as it existed in the last days of the Jewish state. Josephus describes them very fully in his history of the Jewish War, (iv. 3.) Simon probably received this name, however, not from any connection with a sect which arose long after the death of Christ, but from something in his own character which showed a great zeal for the cause which he had espoused.
HIS HISTORY.
No very direct statement as to his parentage is made in the New Testament; but one or two incidental allusions to some circumstances connected with it, afford ground for a reasonable conclusion on this point. In the enumeration which Matthew and Mark give of the four brothers of Jesus, in the discourse of the offended citizens of Nazareth, Simon is mentioned along with James, Juda and Joses. It is worthy of notice, also, that on all the apostolic lists, Simon the apostle is mentioned between the brothers James and Juda; an arrangement that can not be accounted for, except by supposing that he was also the brother of James. The reason why Juda is distinctly specified as the brother of James, while Simon is mentioned without reference to any such relationship, is, doubtless, that the latter was so well known by the appellation of the Zealot, that there was no need of specifying his relations, to distinguish him from Simon Peter. These two circumstances, incidentally mentioned, may be considered as justifying the supposition, that Simon Zelotes was the same person as Simon the brother of Jesus. In this manner, all the old writers have understood the connection; and though such use is no authority, it is worth mentioning that the monkish chroniclers always consider Simon Zelotes as the brother of Juda; and they associate these two, as wandering together in eastern countries, to preach the gospel in Persia and Mesopotamia. Others carry him into much more improbable wanderings. Egypt and Northern Africa, and even Britain, are mentioned as the scenes of his apostolic labors, in the ingenious narratives of those who undertook to supply almost every one of the nations of the eastern continent with an apostolic patron saint. All this is very poor consolation for the general dearth of facts in relation to this apostle; and the searcher for historical truth will not be so well satisfied with the tedious tales of monkish romance, as with the decided and unquestionable assurance, that the whole history of this apostle, from beginning to end, is perfectly unknown, and that not one action of his life has been preserved from the darkness of an utterly impenetrable oblivion.
JUDA.
HIS NAME.
The number of instances, among the men of the apostolic age, of two persons bearing the same name, is very curious, and seems to show a great poverty of appellatives among their parents. Among the twelve there are two Simons, two Jameses, and two Judases; and including those whose labors were any way connected with theirs, there are three Johns, (the Baptist, the Apostle, and John Mark,) and two Philips, besides other minor coincidences. The confusion which this repetition of names causes among common readers, is truly undesirable; and it requires attention for them to avoid error. In the case of this apostle, indeed, the occasion of error is obviated for the most part, by a slight change in the termination; his name being generally written Juda, (in modern versions, Jude,) while the wretched traitor who bears the same name, preserves the common form terminating in S, which is also the form in which Luke and John express this apostle’s name. A more serious difficulty occurs, however, in a diversity noticed between the account given by the two first evangelists, and the forms in which his name is expressed in the writings of Luke and John, and in the introduction to his own epistle. Matthew and Mark, in giving the names of the apostles, mention in the tenth place, the name of Thaddeus, to whom the former evangelist also gives the name of Lebbeus. They give him a place before Simon Zelotes, and immediately after James, the son of Alpheus. Luke gives the tenth place to Simon Zelotes, in both his lists, and after him mentions “Judas, the brother of James”; and John speaks of “Judas, (not Iscariot,”) among the chosen disciples. Juda, in his epistle also, announces himself as “the brother of James.” From all these circumstances it would seem to be very fairly inferred, that Judas, or Juda, the brother of James, and Lebbeus or Thaddeus, were all only different names of the same apostle. But this view is by no means universally received, and some have been found bold enough to declare, that these two sets of names referred to different persons, both of whom were at different times numbered among the twelve apostles, and were received or excluded from the list by Jesus, from some various circumstances, now unknown;——or were perhaps considered such by one evangelist or another, according to the notions and individual preferences of each writer. But such a view is so opposed to the established impressions of the uniform and fixed character of the apostolic list, and of the consistency of different parts of the sacred record, that it may very justly be rejected without the trouble of a discussion.
Another inquiry still, concerning this apostle, is, whether he is the same as that Judas who is mentioned along with James, Joses and Simon, as the brother of Jesus. All the important points involved in this question, have been already fully discussed in the life of James, the Little; and if the conclusion of that argument is correct, the irresistible consequence is, that the apostle Jude was also one of these relatives of Jesus. The absurdity of the view of his being a different person, can not be better exposed than by a simple statement of its assertions. It requires the reader to believe that there was a Judas, and a James, brothers and apostles; and another Judas and another James, also brothers, and brothers of Jesus, but not apostles; and that these are all mentioned in the New Testament without anything like a satisfactory explanation of the reality and distinctness of this remarkable duplicate of brotherhoods. Add to this, moreover, the circumstance that Juda, the author of the epistle, specifies himself as “the brother of James,” as though that were sufficient to prevent his being confounded with any other Judas or Juda in this world;——a specification totally useless, if there was another Judas, the brother of another James, all eminent as Christian teachers.
There is still another question connected with his simple entity and identity. Ancient traditions make mention of a Thaddeus, who first preached the gospel in the interior of Syria; and the question is, whether he is the same person as the apostle Juda, who is called Thaddeus by Matthew and Mark. The great majority of ancient writers, more especially the Syrians, consider the missionary Thaddeus not as one of the twelve apostles, but as one of the seventy disciples, sent out by Jesus in the same way as the select twelve. Another confirmation of the view that he was a different person from the apostle Jude, is found in the circumstance, that the epistle which bears the name of the latter, was not for several centuries received by the Syrian churches, though generally adopted throughout all Christendom, as an inspired apostolic writing. But surely, if their national evangelizer had been identical with the apostle Jude who wrote that epistle, they would have been the first to acknowledge its authenticity and authority, and to receive it into their scriptural canon.