Judas

According to the Gospel of Matthew 27:1-10, Judas is filled with remorse and tries to return the money he was paid for betraying Jesus. When the high priests say that that is his affair, Judas throws the money into the temple, goes off, and hangs himself. However, according to Acts 1:18, Judas was not remorseful, took the money, and bought a field from it, where he fell and died. I cannot understand this. Is this the same person in both texts? What does one make of this?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Criddle

Do you have commentaries on these passages that provide insight into your questions?

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247984#Comment_1247984

Do you have commentaries on these passages that provide insight into your questions?

The first question is, who bought the field, Judas or the high priests? In the first clause, ἐκτήσατο (3rd sg. aor. mid. indic. of κτάομαι, “acquire”) is likely an example of a causative use of the mid. voice (Wallace 425). Robertson defines the causative: “in one sense this idiom is due to the fact that what one does through another he does himself” (R 801). The debate as to whether the vb. is act. or deponent (see BHGNT 16) is rather irrelevant since both act. and mid. may express a causative idea; it is not really a function of the voice but the notion and use of the vb. in its context (R 808). If so, Judas set forth the activity of buying a field (χωρίον, acc. sg. neut., dir. obj.) by throwing the bribe (lit. “out of the wage of his crime”; ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας [ἀδικία, -ας, ἡ]) in the temple (Matt 27:5). Although some have suggested Judas died in the field, nothing in the text demands such an idea

L. Scott Kellum, Acts, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2020), 24.

I do but for one I wanted the insights of ones on the forum and in my opinion the commentaries are not adequately based.

Tony Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247985#Comment_1247985

in my opinion the commentaries are not adequately based.

[:|]

Thomas Pape

Read the view of Alfred Edersheim ... Alfred Edersheim Collection (4 vols.) | Logos Bible Software- Alfred Edersheim was born Jewish, but converted to Christianity through John Duncan.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247985#Comment_1247985

in my opinion the commentaries are not adequately based.

I'm a Literalist (found out there was/is? such a group, refusing later doctrinal overlays, and greek/hebrew squeeze-plays), so I don't need to force the text. It is what it is. NABre's notes are good in that regard. Differences are differences.

I don't know if your research uses the Fathers; interestingly they don't seem to blanche at the differences; they use the theological value of each Judas account. Origen's Commentary on John is interesting (my emphasis):

"Wherefore, also, when he [Judas] said as a word of justification, “I have sinned because I betrayed just blood,” and “went and hanged himself,”²⁸⁹ Satan, who was in him, led him to the noose and hung him, at which time the devil also touched his soul. For Judas was not such that the Lord could say to the devil on his behalf what he said on Job’s behalf, “But touch not his soul"

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247985#Comment_1247985

The John Gill commentary (NT published in 1748) in my Logos library (part of my custom Top Series) mentions several languages in Acts 1:18 =>

The Expositions of John Gill (3 vols.)">
Ver. 18. Now this man purchased a field, &c.] This verse, with the following, seem to be the words of Luke the historian, which should be read in a parenthesis; for there was no need to have acquainted the disciples with the manner of Judas’s death, which was so well known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; nor would Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of it, be mentioned with that propriety by Peter, when he, and those he spoke of, were upon the spot; nor could there be any necessity of his explaining a word in their own tongue, which they understood, and that in a language unknown unto them; nor does it seem likely, that in so short a time as five or six weeks, the field should have obtained the name of Aceldama, and be commonly known by it. The Ethiopic version calls this field, a vineyard; and so it might be, and yet the potter’s field too. It is somewhat difficult, that Judas should be said to purchase it, when Matthew says the chief priests bought it, Matt. 27:7. Both are true; Judas having received his money of the chief priests two days ago, might not only intend to purchase, but might really strike a bargain with the potter for his field; but repenting of his sin, instead of carrying the money to make good the agreement, went and threw it to the chief priests, and then hanged himself; when they, by a secret providence, might be directed to make a purchase of the same field with his money; or he may be said to purchase it, because it was purchased with his money. The Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions render it, he possessed it; not in person, unless he was buried there, as he might be; and so all that he got by his wretched bargain, was only so much ground as to be buried in; or the sense may be, he caused it to be possessed; by returning the money which the chief priests used this way; with the reward of his iniquity; that is, with the thirty pieces of silver, given him as a reward for that vile action of his betraying of his Lord and master: so the reward of divination, or what Balaam got by soothsaying, which was an iniquitous and wicked practice, is called, the wages of unrighteousness, 2 Peter 2:15 and falling headlong he burst in the midst; either falling from the gallows, or tree on which he hanged himself, the rope breaking, upon a stone, or stump, his belly was broke, and burst; or falling from the air, whither he was violently snatched up by Satan, who was in him, and by whom he was thrown down to the earth, and who went out of him by a rupture made in his belly; or being in deep melancholy, he was strangled with the squinancy, and fell down on his face to the ground, as the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions render it, and burst asunder: and all his bowels gushed out; through the rupture that was made. So we read of a man that fell from the roof of a house, פקעיה כרסיה ונפיק מעייניה, and his belly burst, and his towels came out. And this was the miserable end of Judas. The death of Arius, as related by Athanasius^m, from Macarius the presbyter, who was present, was much after the same manner; who reports, that having swore to the orthodox faith, and being about to be introduced into the church at Constantinople, after the prayer of Alexander, the bishop of it, he went out to the scat, to ease nature; when he, on a sudden, fell down headlong, and burst in the middle, and immediately expired: and Epiphanius compares his exit with this of Judas, who observes, that he went out in the night to the vault, as before related, and burst asunder, as Judas of old did; and came to his end in a filthy and unclean place. Ruffinus says^o, that as he sat, his entrails, and all his bowels, came from him into the vault; and so he died in such a place, a death worthy of his blasphemous and corrupt mind. As to the seeming difference between the Evangelist Matthew and the Apostle Peter, it may be reconciled by either of the ways before mentioned; see the note on Matt. 27:5. though it seems most likely, that Judas not being able to bear the torments of his mind, he hanged himself, as Achitophel did, and was not strangled by the devil, or by any disease; and that he fell down from the tree on which he hung, either the rope breaking, or the tree falling; and so the things happened to him which are recorded: or he might fall from hence, either through a violent strong wind which blew him down; or through the rushing of wild beasts against the gallows, on which he hung; or by the devil himself, who might throw him down from hence after he had dispatched himself, as some have conjectured: or, which seems best of all, he might be cast down from hence by men, either of themselves, or by the order of the civil magistrates, not enduring such a sight, that one that had destroyed himself should hang long there; and which, according to the law, was not to be admitted; and these not taking him down, in a gentle manner, but using some violence, or cutting the rope, the body fell, and burst asunder, as is here said: and it should be observed, that the Evangelist Matthew speaks of the death of Judas, in which he himself was concerned; and the Apostle Peter reports what befell his carcass after his death, and in which others were concerned. The Vulgate Latin renders it, and being hanged, he burst in the middle; as if this happened to him upon the gallows, without falling.

John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 2, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 144.

Gill's phrase "he caused it to be possessed;" (from Latin Vulgate & Arabaic translations) appears to be consistent with an Exegetical Guide published 272 years later.

The first question is, who bought the field, Judas or the high priests?

After reading Gill's comments on Acts 1:18, reading Matthew 27:3-10 answered first question for me.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247994#Comment_1247994

Yes this is very interesting. I too like the Church Fathers' on many Gospel passages.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1248002#Comment_1248002

Yes this is very interesting. I too like the Church Fathers' on many Gospel passages.

Don't know if you have Moulton & Milligan (forgot your lexicons), but they go to a bit of trouble to try to get the Acts 'acquire' to allow indirectly. On the latin (KSFJ), I think it's a bit of a stretch (not even a 'might be').