From Judas and Jesus by Jean-Yves Leloup:
It was with great emotion that one Friday evening, shortly before the onset of the Shabbat, Judas received, from the hands of Judas the Galilean himself, his own dagger, the sica. This made him a Sicarius, a formal member of the Zealot group known as the Sicarii. He was struck by the curious resemblance between his own nickname, Judas of Keirot (his native town), and the new name that now applied to him: Judas Iscariot, or Judas the Sicarius. The “man from Keirot” was now the “man of the dagger”.
He promised himself, however, that he would not use this weapon in the way so frequently resorted to by the Sicarii: One of them would infiltrate a noisy and bustling crowd in which an enemy of God, a Roman collaborator, or a teacher of heresy had been detected, sneak up behind him and stab him mortally. Then the Sicarius would cry “Murderer!” and slash the throat of another whom he had chosen as a scapegoat, creating a tumult and confusion from which he could flee at the first opportunity.
Judas did not approve of this practice. Stabbing someone in the back and murdering a scapegoat seemed unworthy of a pious man. He would have selected a nobler tactic: to approach the enemy, look him squarely in the eyes, and, instead of greeting him with a conventional embrace, stab him in the heart.
I feel like this is just another illustration of our great desire to modernize the ancient world in such a way that we are able to find the issues more palatable.
Why ever would Judas, as a political terrorist, not find certain methods of murder to be ‘honorable’ enough? This action was not meant just to kill a powerful leader, but also to invoke fear in the hearts of those who benefited from the Roman occupation. ‘Terror’ is the root word of ‘terrorist,’ after all.
The sicarii murdered their own people at times, in order to create a sense of ‘ramification’ for the betrayal of the Jewish people. If you were to gain from your own people’s suffering, was that not a crime worthy of punishment? Yet, in order to maintain their numbers, they could not risk a crowd who could easily identify the killer who had brought justice on the traitor.
'Honor' was in the action of maintaining your people's freedom, not in meeting the eyes of the man you were assassinating. Those are thoughts of someone distantly removed from such thoughts.
These writings are not the thoughts of a man who has lost his country to occupation, but the fantasy material of a man who has never found himself in a circumstance created by true desperation.