CHAPTER VI
From Judas to Jesus
The four Greek writers do not agree as to the names and persons of the Apostles. In Luke's Gospel and the Acts we have one Thaddeus, whereas the other Gospels mention instead an Apostle of the name of Judas, distinct from Judas Iscariot. According to two of the accounts, this Judas is the brother of James, and all four writers mention the two James. One of these is represented to be the brother of John, while the other, according to the two authorities mentioned, is the brother of Judas. These two James, the brother of John and the other who is designated by Paul James the brother of the Lord, are both alleged to have been killed by the authorities in Jerusalem.
But what we especially desire to bring before the reader's attention is the fact of this last being called the Lord's brother. The reason given by some for this designation is very unsatisfactory. It is alleged by them that the expression does not imply that he was a blood-relation, but only that he was a brother in the faith, as one of the Apostles. If so, it is difficult to understand why he should be so signalized when the rest of the Apostles are identified under mere natural relationships, one as the brother of John and another as the brother of Simon Peter. It is natural, therefore, to conclude, that as the designation was used literally in regard to them, it was so used also in regard to him. The difficulty is further enhanced by additional particulars which are supplied us by Paul and John. Paul thus writes to the Galatians, chap.
1: 1 8-20: — “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none save James, the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not." (KJV)
There being two of the same name among the Apostles, it was necessary to distinguish one from the other; and how is this done? By identifying one of them as James the Lord's brother. It could not be because he was an Apostle that he was accounted the Lord's brother, but because he was literally a blood-relation. No other conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the language; and as the fact is vouched for by Paul on oath, it should be accepted as authentic, at least by those who have faith in him as a reliable authority. Fourteen years after this visit to Peter, Paul again went up to the Jerusalem, where, as he says, he a second time met the same Apostle, along with others. But let us read his own account, to see how, by the comparison of it with that of John, the Greek writers are in this matter at variance with him no less than with one another. Paul states, Galatians 2: 8, 9: — “For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: and when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." (KJV)
Hear what John says, chap. 1: 35-42: — "Again, the next day after, John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith. Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them. What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Master), where dwellest thou? He saith unto them. Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day; for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him. We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. . . . And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a stone.” (KJV)
Here the reader will remark it is alleged that Simon Peter and his brother Andrew were originally disciples of John the Baptizer, who is the cousin of Jesus, but who affects not to know him except as the "Lamb of God” as though he knew him only in his heavenly and not at all in his earthly relationship. These disciples leave the service of John the Baptizer to become the Apostles of Jesus, while Jesus is seemingly unaware of their ever having been the Apostles of John, or of his ever having pointed him out to them as being the Lamb of God. How men can boast of their being eye-witnesses, and yet not be accurate as to whose Apostles they were?
According to John's narrative, Jesus, without being publicly told, knows at once the name of Simon, and says, “Thou shalt be called Cephas.'' Now, though there is no mention here of the name of Peter, there is no doubt, from the relationship given, that Peter is meant, and that he is here called Cephas; and yet this Cephas is unaccountably sundered from the person of Peter, and the two names become by and by the names of two separate persons; for Paul, as we have seen, testifies that James, Cephas, and John (the same John who testifies that Cephas is Simon), were all seen by him in the flesh as distinct personalities, and "gave him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship." Here then is one of the Evangelists furnishing an account which Paul declares upon his oath as an eye-witness to be false. We do not know to whom to award credibility in this case, with such an experience of their historical inaccuracy and with such estimates of their unreliability handed down to us by their contemporaries. As, however, Paul's statement is given on oath, and he speaks of the actual presence on the occasion referred to of John, Peter, and Cephas, we are forced into the belief that Peter and Cephas must have been two separate individuals, and not, as in the account of John, two names for one and the same person.
In the course of our inquiries we find it impossible to pursue a direct line, in consequence of the confusion of contradictory statement which we everywhere encounter. Therefore, we are obliged at this stage to make what might seem a digression, and to quote from Matthew. In Matthew 16: 13- 17 we read: — "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said. Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father which is in heaven.” (KJV) This last statement brings us face to face with a perfect network of inconsistencies. The revelation which is here declared, not to have been revealed by flesh and blood, is asserted by John the Evangelist to have been revealed to this very Simon and Andrew his brother by John the Baptizer who was literally the flesh-and- blood cousin of Jesus himself, while the account given above by Matthew of the first introduction of Andrew and Simon to Jesus implies that neither was introduced by the Baptizer, if they even were disciples of his at all. And not only do these two writers contradict each other in regard to the introduction of Peter to Jesus, and the manner of the revelation of the latter to the former, they are equally opposed in their statement of the occasion when the Cephas or rock-title was conferred. John says it was when John the Baptizer introduced him to the Messiah on the banks of the Jordan; Matthew that it was when the revelation was first made by God in heaven. So that it appears, and it is that it may appear we mention it, these documents are historically unreliable.
But it is another inquiry which in connection with this presses for answer. Why is James called both the Lord's brother and that of Judas? Can it be that Lord and Judas denote the same person? May we not surmise a connection between the Judas here and the Judas of Josephus? Whence then the change of name from Judas to Jesus? This it will be our business to explain in a subsequent chapter.
Meanwhile, remark how very imperfectly this whole subject has been investigated. Take, for instance, the criticism of the relationship which is said to have existed between Jesus and John the Baptizer. According to the Gospel accounts, they must have been mutually aware of their relationship to each other. Their respective mothers, the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth, had, it was known, both been visited by the Angel Gabriel, and intimations were supernaturally vouchsafed them of the great future in store for their offspring. It is incredible, after miraculous communications such as these, known, as they were, and recorded by the Apostles, companions of Jesus and John the Baptizer, that the knowledge of the fact was concealed from the two principals themselves. Yet Jesus speaks of his cousin John as the greatest of the prophets, and John extols the greatness of Jesus, while both hold such communication with each other as if neither was conscious of any fleshly relationship to the other, and the Apostles themselves seem to forget that they had spoken of any other connection. A possible clue to the circumstances of this relation we have seen referred to and explained by only two scholars, namely Arthur Heulhard in Le Mensonge Chrétien (op. cit.) and Robert Eisler in The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist According to Flavius Josephus (1931)
It is out of our power, in a work so limited as this, to deal fully with this great subject as it deserves. The leading points we have sought to establish in the course of our argument are these: — That the only religious sect new to Josephus and the Judea of his day was founded by Judas of Galilee; that James the Lord's brother was the brother of Judas; that Judas the Apostle (not Iscariot) is not represented as the brother of Jesus the Lord; that James is not spoken of as the brother of Jesus but is called the brother of the Lord and the brother of Judas only. And we conclude with asking if there is not in all this a presumption that the original name of the Lord of the traditional Gospels was, not Jesus, but Judas? This possibility was first enunciated by Emil Walter in New Discoveries in Christianity (1900.) May not the Gospels in this way bear witness to the fact? How the name Judas was changed into Jesus will appear in the chapters that follow.