Excursus—On the Historical Problem of the Varying Accounts of Judas’ Demise

Ascension, Judas’ Demise, the Filling Up of the Twelve (Acts 1)

Vs. 1 The order of the treatise is given absolutely (πρῶτον) not relatively (πρότερος). Just as we should talk of the first volume, things there might be only his.

περὶ πάντων—‘all’ not absolutely for that were impossible (cf. John 21:25), nor, yet subjectively—everything that was known to St. Luke for he has omitted to mention a striking saying of the Lord, which is recorded incidentally in this second treatise (Acts 20:35), but ‘all’ relatively to the design that he had in view.

ὦ Θεόφιλε—speculation has been busy with Theophilus: but, as nothing can be concluded from the address κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, we have really no date (see Meyer, St. Luke, p. 198). May he not have been a Philippian? It appears from the narrative that St. Luke was left at Philippi by St. Paul on his second apostolic journey, and taken up on his third—for the first person plural is dropped on the one occasion and resumes again on the other at the same place Philippi. If we suppose that Theophilus was converted by St. Luke during this stay at Philippi, it will account for this use of the plural, not introduced by any explanation, but as if the writer were speaking to one who was acquainted with his connection with St. Paul. On the other hand, the consideration that he was writing, not for Theophilus only, but for the edification of the whole church would lead him to give its due prominence to the history of St. Paul’s preaching there. His design obliged him to narrate the facts while it suffered him to keep himself in the background. By addressing his narrative to Theophilus, he was enabled to do this.

ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Winer makes ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας explain ἤρξατο which Jesus began to do (and did), till the day when etc. ‘somewhat as’ Luke 23:5 (Gram. § 66 p. 775).

Vs. 2 The natural order attaches διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου to ἐντειλάμενος. Winer (Gram. § 61.p. 697) well remarks that this is more in accordance with the aim of the Acts. His note is worth reading. It is observable how the Greek Fathers have genuinely connected the words with the exchange. Language led them to the right conclusion.

οὓς ἐξελέξατο is added in accord with the design of the Acts to direct the thoughts of the readers to Jesus as the prime agent (see Baumgarten). ‘Der heilige Geist war das Medium (διά), durch welches (ἐντέλλή) Jesus aussprach, in der Apostel eingang’ (Meyer). This however is scarcely natural.

Vs. 3 τεκμηρίοις E.V. infallible proofs. See rightly Arist. Rhet. 1.c.12. ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις recalls St. Paul to our minds (1 Cor 15:1).

δι᾽ ἡμερῶν τεσσεράκοντα ‘during 40 days’ not ‘for 40 days continually.’ See Chrystost. ap. Aeg. ἐφίστατο γὰρ καὶ ἀφὶστατο πὰλιν. A period of 10 days is thus left between the Ascension and the day of Pentecost. διά with genitive is a temporal usage but has a different sense in Gal 2:1 ‘after an interval of.’

ὀπτανόμενος 1 Kings 3:8

λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ· Baumgarten (p. 14) is scarcely convincing in his application of this. βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ must refer to the future (cf. v. 6).

Vs. 4 συναλιζόμενος. An interesting word.

ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων μὴ χωρίζεσθαι. Luke 24:49 (cf. Baumgarten, p. 15). The Acts commences with this command not to leave Jerusalem, it closes with St. Paul’s conflict with the Jews at Rome. On every occasion the Gospel is offered to them first. ‘The Jew first and then the Gentile.’

ἡ ἐπαγγελία ‘the gracious offer.’ τοῦ πατρός cf. John 14:18, 26.

ἣν ἠκούσατε The instance of this usage of the oblique to the direct narrative in the N.T. are found apparently solely in St. Luke (cf. Luke 5:14; Acts 23:22). The cognate form is found in St. Luke (Acts 23:23-24). As the account here refers to the same discourse as St. Luke 24:49, the words ἣν ἠκούσατέ μου must allude to some promise not recorded in St. Luke: such as that which St. John refers to—the promise of ‘the Paraclete.’ This verse goes some way in showing that where St. Luke omits a fact, this is no evidence that he was not acquainted with it. This accounts too for the abrupt change from the oblique to the direct narrative that could have left the sense ambiguous. The fact that St. Luke had not narrated the incident in the gospel obliges him to say something on it here.

Vs. 5 The opening of this second period is thus paralleled with the first period or preface (cf. St. Luke 3:16-17 where the Baptist says: ἐγὼ μὲν ὕδατι βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί [Mark 1:8 omits καὶ πυρί; cf. its ommission in Mt 3:12]). Though the expression καὶ πυρί may have a much wider application, the idea received at least a partial and literal fulfillment on the day of Pentecost (cf. John 1:33).

Vss. 6-7 Οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες. This verse is better translated (not as E.V.) ‘They then who were gathered together.’ Meyer supposes that the Lord repeated his warning about the promise of the Father on several occasions in order to reconcile the account here with St. Luke’s Gospel.

ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ not the more restricted (with Meyer) ἡ μετὰ πολλ. τάυτ. ἡ.

‘Chronos,’ quantitative, a duration or measure of time, but ‘kairos’ qualitative, a season of, possibly an opportune time? (cf. 2 Tim 3:1, καιροὶ χαλεποί).

χρόνους ἢ καιροὺς Luke here and also St. Paul separate the two by repeating the article. εἰ ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ a diffident way of interrogating—a hesitating interrogative doubtful of reply. It is remarkable that St. Paul, speaking of the same event, uses the same words. 1 Thess 5:1. περὶ δὲ τῶν χρόνων καὶ τῶν καιρῶν, ἀδ. κ.τ.λ. (cf. Mark 13:32; Mt 24:36).

ἔθετο ‘fixed . . .’ Not as the E.V. has it.

ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ in the exercise of His own—Mt 21:23 [Luke 20:2].

Both in the question of the apostles, and in the answer of our Lord, it seems to be taken for granted that the kingdom could be restored. The question of the disciples might have been prompted by the command of the Lord that they should not leave Jerusalem. And also, as Meyer truly remarks, by the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, which the words of the prophet Joel connect with Messiah’s reign cf. Joel 3:1; Acts 2:16. It is not the expectations of the disciples but their impatience to which the answer is directed.

Vss. 8-9 ἀλλά. ‘This knowledge is withheld from you because it is not necessary for you, but such powers, as shall enable you to spread my Gospel, shall be given.’

ἐξουσίᾳ. Freedom from control likely of action, authority—δύναμις power, the ability to do.

ὑπέλαβεν ‘caught him up.’

Vss. 10-11 καὶ ὡς . . . καὶ ἰδοὺ cf. Acts 10:17; Luke 7:12. There is an anacoluthon in the sentence, the sentence is framed as if there had been more. ὡς is Greek protasis (Meyer cf. p. 516). ὡς ἀτενίζοντες ἦσαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν. ἀτενίζοντες peculiar to St. Luke and St. Paul? See ἀτενίζειν.

ἄνδρες Γαλιλαῖοι. cf. John 7:52; Mark 14:70. ἀληθῶς ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ, καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖος εἶ. Και ἡ λαλία σoυ . . . So Julius the apostate styled the Christian ‘Galileans.’

οὕτως ἐλεύσεται. cf. Daniel 7:13.

Vs. 12 Ἐλαιῶνος only found here. In Luke 19:29; 21:37 we have εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον Ἐλαιῶν—so we read as here, and not ἐλαίαν, as the word cannot be rendered, and we should require Ἐλαιῶνος. Josephus Antiq. vii.9.2. has διὰ τοῦ Ἐλαιῶνος ὄρους.

Chrysostom’s hint is unnecessary. A Sabbath day’s journey is a measure of length—very natural in describing the position of a place not that distant from the mother city. Josephus calls the distance of the Mt. of Olives in one place 5, in another 6 stadia. Epiphanius reckons a Sabbath day’s journey at 6 stadia. The Peshitta probably by an error, translates it here ‘7 stadia.’ It is rather probable that the Syriac translates the exact distance and so inserted it in place of strictly translating the original. The coming of Christ and judgment is connected with the Mount of Olives, cf. Zech 14:4.

Vs. 13 εἰσῆλθον so [i.e.] εἰς τὴν πόλιν.

τὸ ὑπερῷον See Winer Real. § 6 ‘Haüser.’ There would be one flight of steps leading direct to the street (possibly the house of Mary the mother of John, Mark 12:12). Nothing towards the temple. E.V. is wrong here. Luke 24:53 does not imply this. (The order of D, E etc. ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον is much more natural).

ὅ τε Πέτρος ‘Petro, primo, articulus pro ceteris’ (Bengel).

Ἰωάννης καὶ Ἰάκωβος So A, B, C, D, al., vulg., Tisch. James was the elder brother and in the Gospels is always mentioned first (except in Luke 8:51; 9:28, in the latter of which perhaps one rightly transposes the words). In the Gospels, John is the brother of James; in the Acts (12:2), James is the brother of John. Henceforth John’s importance as an apostle gives him precedence over his brother. James is never mentioned in the gospel of St. John (οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου John 21:2, but they are not placed in the usual order, after Peter).

In the list of the apostles in Luke 6:14, the order is Peter, Andrew, James, John—the brothers being pairs; here they are separated for the same reason that John is put before James. The same as Luke 6:14 (exc. Judas) with the exception of some slight differences in order. The other lists are Matthew 10:2. Mark 3:18, in both of which Σίμων ὁ καλούμενος ζηλωτής is called Σίμων ὁ Καναναῖος (the one being the Greek and the other the Hebrew for the same thing).

’Ιούδας Ἰακώβου is called in Matth. Ζεβεδίος or (Θαδδαῖος or Λ. ὁ ἐπικληθείς θ. or ὁ ἐπικλ. Λ.). But these seem to be attempts to harmonize (though the first is read by B, al, vg, it, cdd, al). Observe the text runs Ιάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καὶ Λεββαῖος and St. Mark Θαδδαῖον, though there again have been some attempts at harmonizing. The names of the apostles are given here and qualify the general expression and to show that it was not all those mentioned in v. 6 who abode together.

Luke places the scene of the ascension at Bethany (24:50: Ἐξήγαγεν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἕως πρὸς/εὶς Βηθανίαν). This was about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (John 11:18 ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων δεκαπέντε, which is not exact). There must always be a great deal of uncertainty in any common reckoning of distance, as there will be practically no established point from which to calculate (from a large town). It is certain that Bethany is somewhere in the immediate neighborhood of the Mount of Olives. Luke 19:29 ὡς ἤγγισεν εἰς Βηθφαγὴ καὶ Βηθανία[ν] πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον Ἐλαιῶν (refer to Philo Apocryph. i.619.)

Vs. 14 σὺν γυναιξὶν cf. Luke 24:10

καὶ Μαριὰμ for the idea of sister wives cf. 1 Cor 9:5. The last mention of the Lord’s mother in the New Testament.

καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ Apparently not apostles at least not of the 12. When we last heard of the Lord’s brothers, they are unbelievers (John 7:3ff.). Now we find them associated with the apostles. Whence this change? The Lord appeared to James after His resurrection. 1 Cor 15:7. Tradition is unanimous in holding that this James, mentioned by St. Paul, is the Lord’s brother.

Vss. 15-17 It is not ὁ ὄχλος τῶν ὀνομάτων which even then would not necessarily imply that the whole body of believers were there but ὄχλος ὀνομάτων. There was a number of persons, gathered together.

Πέτρος the first exercise of his primacy.

Vs. 16 ἔδει πληρωθῆναι In what sense fulfilled?

Vs. 17 ὅτι ‘for’ and therefore the prophecy implied this.

Vss. 18-19 There is a difficulty of reconciling the two accounts of Judas’ demise.

Whatever may be the real amount of the difficulty, even if we suppose that the accounts of the two writers are irreconcilable, as we shall hope to show they are not, what is the conclusion? Not surely that the writers are in the main unworthy of credit, not surely that the facts are untrue. This must depend on the general trustworthiness of the narrative, not on any special difficulties, at all events it is not so that we judge of ordinary writings, or of facts in history. In the case of the former, we judge of the credibility or the whole mass of evidence and of the latter, we accept as much as is free from discrepancies, what is stated by all the writers, rejecting that on which they disagree.

Excursus—On the Historical Problem of the Varying Accounts of Judas’ Demise

Consider a parallel instance in dealing with the death of another famous person. The accounts of Thucydides (viii.92) and Lycurgus seem utterly irreconcilable, though Lycurgus appeals to a public document. Thucydides has ἐν τη ἀγορά πληθαση, Lycurgus . . . παρα την κεννην εν τοις σισθιοις. Thucydides ὁ μὲν πατὰξας διεφυγεν, ὁ δὲ ευγεργος. αργειος ανθρ. ληφθτις και βασανζομενος, etc. Lycurgus—Τατων (αποδδοδοις και φρανβαλα the murderer) ληφθεντων καὶ εὶς τὸ δεομωτηριον άποτεθεντων, etc. Besides, there are other particulars that cannot be reconciled. Again we have a third account from Lysius, which fits neither with the one nor the other (e.g. He calls Thrasyl[lus] . . . a Calcydonian and Apollodorus something else). Thucydides says the latter was caught. Lysius’ words are . . . χορτο φτυγοντες. Lysius tells us that they were both caught and imprisoned. Observe that this man was a leading statesman and a notorious character and that his murder was the turning point in the political history of Athens. Might we not have expected greater uniformity in the accounts?

At all events the accounts of the death of Judas force upon us one of two conclusions—either St. Luke had seen St. Matthew’s account, and felt that there was nothing irreconcilable in his own statement, or he had not, in which case we must view this testimony on points in which they do agree, as independent. In attempting to solve the difficulty we must observe that St. Matthew professes to give the history of Judas’ death, while in St. Luke it is introduced by way of allusions—either by St. Peter in his speech or by St. Luke in explanation of it. Is the account St. Peter’s, or is it the writer’s own? The explanation of St. Luke cannot begin with οὗτος μὲν οὖν, for the particular μὲν οὖν evidently implies a continuity in the narrative, nor yet with καὶ γνωστὸν ἐγένετο for these words are too closely connected with what precedes to allow of their being separated. All then that St. Luke can have added is ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν and τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν χωρίον αἵματος. Are these words added by the writer? On this point only three suppositions can be made. Either:

(1) They were actually used by St. Peter. This seems to be out of the question. For although those present were mostly Galileans, they can scarcely have been all so, and though the Galileans’ dialect was different, the difference was probably one of accent, and at all events cannot have rendered such an explanation necessary.

(2) They are simply attributed to St. Peter, regardless of all historical propriety (so De Wette). But this is quite alien to the character of the writer, who is either an honest writer, narrating instances of which he is well informed, or if a forger, is a most consummate artist. De Wette would attribute to him a blunder, which the most stupid bungler would not have fallen into.

(3) St. Luke intended the words for his own explanation—though he has not made this clear from the form of expression. This is the most probable of the three suppositions. There are other instances where the sacred writers attach their own explanation or reflections to the narrative of the language of another without giving any notice: so that it is difficult to discover the exact point where the writer begins to speak (e.g. St. Paul narrating the conference with St. Peter at Antioch [Gal 2:14] or St. John narrating the testimony of the Baptist in John).

Bearing in mind then that St. Matthew’s is the narrative, and St. Peter’s a passing allusion, we must seek for the key to the difficulty in the character and point of this allusion. St. Matthew distinctly states that Judas is in a fit of remorse. Attend to some particulars, namely:

(1) ἀπήγξατο ‘hanged himself’—for the word, independent of any modification of sense which it may derive for a context, can scarcely mean anything else.

(2) that the chief priests after consultation purchased a field with the money, which Judas had returned, which was called Akeldama.

With regard to (1) there is a church tradition that Judas lived on after his attempt at suicide, and that the account in the Acts has reference to his subsequent death, but this is evidently an attempt to reconcile the two accounts. At all events St. Matthew can have had no knowledge of any such fact: else he could not have written simply ἀπήγξατο. And on this, see what Bengel says about Judas. This latter supposition is not unlikely, if Judas had bargained for the ground and then seized with remorse, returned the money to the chief priests. They, after consultation agreeing that the money could not be put in the treasury, and being obliged therefore to lay it out, would naturally conclude the bargain that Judas commenced.

Turning to St. Luke’s account then, we remark that St. Peter evidently supposes his hearers to be acquainted with the main facts, and therefore feels it unnecessary to give the detailed narrative he selects those facts only that have a bearing on his immediate purpose. In fact he does not give an account of Judas’ death at all. It is on his connection with this parcel of ground that he dwells. He contrasts the lot that Judas abandoned for that which he found—the unsearchable riches of Christ that he rejected—with the material wealth which he coveted and which he obtained. But real wealth has a far different sense from that which he had sought—the place in the Heavenly Kingdom, which he lost with the place of earthly degradation which he found, betokening too the torments which awaited him in the world to come. He contrasts his Christian office with the shocking spectacle of his violent death—the ministry of reconciliation with the field of blood. How is this contrast brought out? ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας—ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας. And the intended spirit of St. Peter is caught by those present.

Let us view the allusion to Judas (Acts 1:18-19) in this light. He obtained the lot in this ministry. He betrayed this and he lost it. He obtained for himself a parcel of ground purchased by the reward of his iniquity—with the very money for which he had sold and betrayed his Master, that field was purchased which was destined to be the scene of his ignominy—so it was he procured for himself a parcel of ground. He had thought to obtain an inheritance with the wages of unrighteousness. So he did, but it was one far different from that which he had expected. He obtained a few feet of ground in an unhallowed spot where his corpse was thrown out and exposed as that of a malefactor, and where it presented the shocking spectacle to which St. Peter here alludes.

If we supposed with Bengel, and as we have seen, there is nothing unnatural in the supposition, that this place, which was the scene of his ignominy, had been actually chosen by him as an inheritance to be handed down to his descendants, it adds more point to the application of the first passage from the Psalms. Then the words ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτοῦ would find their explanation in the text itself by direct inference. ἐκτήσατο would have a fuller meaning. But this is not necessary, and, as it rests on mere conjecture, no stress should be laid on it. His habitation was left desolate by his untimely death. He obtained a parcel of ground, where his body was exposed (cf. Aeschylus Sept. C. Theb.).

πρηνὴς γενόμενος then may be explained of his carcass left in this place, lying with the face to the ground. A passing allusion suffices St. Peter, who presumes on the knowledge of the facts in his hearers, and the circumstances which are then given point to the work of decomposition which might have produced the result here described, especially if any weight is to be attached to that very early tradition recorded on the authority of Papias, that Judas was very obese—Μέγα ἀσεβείας ὐποδεγγμα εν τουτω κοσμω περιπατησεν Ιυδας. πρησθεις γαρ επι τουτον την σαρκα. Ωστε μη δυνασθαι διελθειν αμαξης παδιως διερχομενης. Υπο της αμαξης επιεσθη, ωστε τα εμκατα αυτω εκκενωθηνας. The reader may wish to ask several questions of these remarks:

(a) Is it truly attributed to Papias and if so, is the text free from corruption? It is certainly unintelligible as it stands at present. And Papias may have said nothing more than that he grew so large that he could not pass where a normal man could.

(b) Who was Papias?

The parcel of ground which was purchased with the price of the blood of the betrayed and polluted with that of the traitor, might well be called Akeldama even by those who did not recognize the divine mission of Jesus but looked upon him as a misguided and dangerous enthusiast, or even as an actual imposter. St. Luke does not imply that the sole reason why the name was given was owing to the death of Judas. The words ὥστε κληθῆναι τὸ χωρίον ἐκεῖνο τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ κ.τ.λ. may refer as well to ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας, as the later part of the sentence.

There is a sort of irony in the ἐκτήσατο. This after all was the inheritance—which agrees well with the rhetorical character of the whole passage. It is not an historical account of the event, but a rhetorical allusion to it (cf. Sept. C. Theb. 881. Εμορασαντο δ᾽οδθκαρδιοι κτημαθ ωστε ισον λαχειν).

Akeldama is here spoken of as an accursed place, and the type of the world of torments. Just as the valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), the place where the impious sacrifices had been offered to Molech, and the common place of burial, suggested the same notion to the mind of a Jew. Though St. Peter speaks here of the external and invisible, his mind is dwelling on the invisible and spiritual. The traditional site of Akeldama was an exhausted clay-pit potter’s field.

Vs. 20 γέγραπται γὰρ Ps 69:26. Peculiarly a messianic Psalm (cf. v. 9. The zeal of thine house etc.). τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κ.τ.λ. Ps 109:7—The E.V. ‘bishopric’ is too special though derived from ἐπισκοπή.

Vs. 21 Elliptical expression.

Vs. 22 ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος Ἰωάννου designating a portion of time.

μάρτυρα τῆς ἀναστάσεως—the crowning miracle—1 Cor 9:1. ‘have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ?’ The external testimony to the resurrection formed an important part of St. Paul’s teaching (1 Cor 15:3) and was evidently dwelt upon at great length.

The circumstance is a security that the apostles are not misled, that they were especially careful about their words, and not, accustomed to the language held by some in the day, careless about external testimony, unable to weigh evidence. It was not sufficient in the case of Matthias that he had an internal conviction.

Vs. 23 Ἰωσὴφ τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν. Not improbably a brother of that Judas Barsabbas mentioned in Acts 15:22. Especially as Barsabbas is a patronymic. Ἰοῦστος ‘Justus’ a common surname with the Jews. Cf. Col 4:11; Acts 18:7 and the case of St. James the Bp. Cf. Acts 18:7 εἰς οἰκίαν τινὸς ὀνόματι Τιτίου Ἰούστου σεβομένου τὸν θεόν. Justus—δίκαιος—relating to the strict observance of the Mosaic covenant.

Vs. 24 σὺ κύριε. St. Peter leads the prayer in which they join. καρδιογνῶστα (cf. Acts 15:8). St. Peter’s words (προσευξάμενοι) however must imply that prayer had been made before they uttered these words.

ἐξελέξω didst choose in the eternal counsels; not has chosen since the office was vacant (cf. Acts 1:25)

Vs. 24 might well be applied to Judas. ‘Let the things that should have been for their wealth etc.’ The Psalm has a special fulfilment in the person of Judas, but note that its reference is far more general. And this, though it was spoken beforehand of Judas, by the Spirit has reference to all the enemies of Christ, who go in the way of Judas.

Vs. 25 λαβεῖν τὸν τόπον (the corr. reading) τῆς διακονίας ταύτης καὶ ἀποστολῆς πορευθῆναι εἰς τὸν τόπον.

λαβεῖν τὸν τόπον corr. Lect.

τόπον τὸν ἴδιον the place of the wicked—they would allude to a place of torments as implied mysteriously in the Akeldama, the accursed spot and common charnel house.

Vs. 26 ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς should mean ‘they assigned lots to them’ but perhaps ‘put in for them’ cf. Josh. 18:10.

συγκατεψηφίσθη the decision was confirmed by those present—though probably not by an actual vote.

↑ Back to top