(Sekaryuta.) Origen also, the oldest of the Christian commentators, (A. D. 230,) gives the word without the initial vowel, “Scariot.” It is most reasonable therefore to conclude that the name was originally Scariot, and that the I was prefixed, for the sake of the easier pronunciation of the two initial consonants; for some languages are so smoothly constructed, that they do not allow even S to precede a mute, without a vowel before. Just as the Turks, in taking up the names of Greek towns, change Scopia into Iscopia, &c. The French too, change the Latin Spiritus into Esprit, as do the Spaniards into Espiritu; and similar instances are numerous.
The very learned Matthew Poole, in his Synopsis Criticorum, (Matthew x. 4,) gives a very full view of the various interpretations of this name. Six distinct etymologies and significations of this word have been proposed, most of which appear so plausible, that it may seem hard to decide on their comparative probabilities. That which is best justified by the easy transition from the theme, and by the aptness of the signification to the circumstances of the person, is the First, proposed by an anonymous author, quoted in the Parallels of Junius, and adopted by Poole. This is the derivation from the Syriac
(sekharyut,) “a bag,” or “purse;” root cognate with the Hebrew סכר (sakhar.) No. 1, Gibbs’s Hebrew Lexicon, and סגר (sagar,) Syrian & Arabic id. The word thus derived must mean the “bag-man,” the “purser,” which is a most happy illustration of John’s account of the office of Judas, (xii. 6: xiii. 29.) It is, in short, a name descriptive of his peculiar duty in receiving the money of the common stock of Christ and his apostles, buying the necessary provisions, administering their common charities to the poor, and managing all their pecuniary affairs,——performing all the duties of that officer who in English is called a “steward.” Judas Iscariot, or rather “Scariot,” means therefore “Judas the STEWARD.”
The second derivation proposed is that of Junius, (Parall.) who refers it to a sense descriptive of his fate. The Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic root, סכר (sakar,) has in the first of these languages, the secondary signification of “strangle,” and the personal substantive derived from it, might therefore mean, “one who was strangled.” Lightfoot says that if this theme is to be adopted, he should prefer to trace the name to the word אשכרא which with the Rabbinical writers is used in reference to the same primitive, in the meaning of “strangulation.” But both these, even without regarding the great aptness of the first definition above given, may be condemned on their own demerits; because, they suppose either that this name was applied to him, only after his death,——an exceedingly unnatural view,——or (what is vastly more absurd) that he was thus named during his life-time, by a prophetical anticipation, that he would die by the halter!!! It is not very uncommon, to be sure, for such charitable prophetic inferences to be drawn respecting the character and destiny of the graceless, and the point of some vulgar proverbs consists in this very allusion, but the utmost stretch of such predictions never goes to the degree of fixing upon the hopeful candidate for the gallows, a surname drawn from this comfortable anticipation of his destiny. Besides, it is hard to believe that a man wearing thus, as it were, a halter around his neck, would have been called by Jesus into the goodly fellowship of the apostles; for though neither rank, nor wealth, nor education, nor refinement were requisites for admission, yet a tolerable good moral character may be fairly presumed to have been an indispensable qualification.
The third derivation is of such a complicated and far-fetched character, that it bears its condemnation on its own face. It is that of the learned Tremellius, who attempts to analyze Iscariot into שכר (seker,) “wages,” “reward,” and נטה (natah,) “turn away,” alluding to the fact that for money he revolted from his Master. This, besides its other difficulties, supposes that the name was conferred after his death; whereas he must certainly have needed during his life, some appellative to distinguish him from Judas the brother of James.
The fourth is that of Grotius and Erasmus, who derive it from איש יששכר (Ish Issachar,) “a man of Issachar,”——supposing the name to designate his tribe, just as the same phrase occurs in Judges x. 1. But all these distinctions of origin from the ten tribes must have been utterly lost in the time of Christ; nor does any instance occur of a Jew of the apostolic age being named from his supposed tribe.
The fifth is the one suggested and adopted by Lightfoot. In the Talmudic Hebrew, the word סקורטיא (sekurti,)——also written with an initial א (aleph) and pronounced Iscurti,——has the meaning of “leather apron;” and this great Hebraician proposes therefore, to translate the name, “Judas with the leather apron;” and suggests some aptness in such a personal appendage, because in such aprons they had pockets or bags in which money, &c. might be carried. The whole derivation, however, is forced and far-fetched,——doing great violence to the present form of the word, and is altogether unworthy of the genius of its inventor, who is usually very acute in etymologies.
The sixth is that of Beza, Piscator and Hammond, who make it איש־קריות (Ish-Qerioth or Kerioth,) “a man of Kerioth,” a city of Judah. (Joshua xv. 25.) Beza says that a very ancient MS. of the Greek New Testament, in his possession, (above referred to,) in all the five passages in John, where Judas is mentioned, has this surname written απο Καριωτου. (apo Cariotou,) “Judas of Kerioth.” Lucas Brugensis observes, that this form of expression is used in Ezra ii. 22, 23, where the “men of Anathoth,” &c. are spoken of; but there is no parallelism whatever between the two cases; because in the passage quoted it is a mere general designation of the inhabitants of a place,——nor can any passage be shown in which it is thus appended to a man’s name, by way of surname. The peculiarity of Beza’s MS. is therefore undoubtedly an unauthorized perversion by some ancient copyist; for it is not found on any other ancient authority.