The narrative in the Acta (1""*) is strangely difl'erent. Nothing is said about the priests or tlie restoration of the money. On the contrary, Judas himself is said to have ' procured a field with the reward of his iniiiuitv.' There he fell headlong in such a way that 'his bowels gushed out' ; and hence the lichl was called 'the field of blood.' Thus a prophecy of David (Ps 69=» lOO^) was fulfilled. It IS possible to harmonize the two modes of death. Judas hung himself over a precipice, the rope broke, and lie was dashed to pieces. The Vulgate of Ac 1" suggests this method : suspensus crepuit 7iic(lius. But why should Matthew give only one half of the tragedy, and Luke only the other? And even so there still remain grave discrepancies between the two narratives. In the one Judas restores the money, in the other he keeps it ; in the one he procures the field, in the other the hierarchy do so ; in the one the name of the field comes from the blood-money, in the other from his bloody death. Moreover, in the one he plainly commits suicide, like Ahithophel (2S 17^-'), in the other his death may be accidental. In the Middle A"es two difl'erent spots were pointed out, one as ' the potter's field,' and the other as Akeldama ; and tlie ' tree of Judas' is still shown.
It is better to recognize the fact that we have here two difl'erent traditions, of which that in the Gospel is nearer in time to the event, and probably nearer to the truth ; but even that may have been influenced by the desire to harmonize facts with a sujiposed prophecy. The tradition learned by St. Luke is later ; and nopular fancy has ^'uessed at the meaning of ' the field of blood.' But it is an excess of .scepticism to say that nothing is known about the end of Judas. We may safely affirm that he came to a violent end, probably by his own hand. And the story of the return of the money and of the priests' treatment of it has every ai)pearance of truth. But it may be admitted "that, in the absence of e>'idence, a horrible end would inevit- ably have been invented for Judas. We may compare the cases of Dositheus the heretic and his successor Simon Magus, both of whom are represented as perishing by a violent death, and, like Judas in the Acts, by a fall (Clem. Horn. II. xxiv.; Apost. Const. VI. ix.). The accounts of
• They were perhaps arf^ing by analogy from Dt 2319. xhe wages ot sin cowl.l not be offered to God. But if Judas had •miied, how could they be (ruilUess?
t The dilticulty about the propliecy is not solved by assuming thai by a slip ot memorj' St. Matthew has written ■ Jeremiah ' 1 ^o i'''*''^''""'''' ' **^'- 'Barachias' for 'Jehoiada,' 233''). Zec 111.. 13 [loes not agree with the evangelist's quotation. Hebrew, L.\.\, and Matthew differ widely ; but there must be some con- nexion, and perhaps through aTargum.
the death of Arius exhibit a similar feeling (Socrates, HE I. xxxviii. ; Sozomen, II. xxx.).
This tendency is seen still more clearly in the legendary account of the end of .ludas, preserved in a fragment from the fourth book of I'apias (Thcophylact on Ac I", Cnienti ad Acta S. App.; Cramer, Oxford, 1838, p. 12; Patr. Apostullr, 0pp., Gebh., Ilarn., Zahn, I. ii. app.; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. ttTToTxii)). This story is an amplification of i\&KT}ffiv fi^aoi Kai ^^exi'Orj Tdvra tcl dirXa.yxi'a- avroi (Ac 1"), with details which seem to be borrowed from the death of Antioehus (2 Mac !)'"'•). Papias had heard that Judas became so enlarged by in- flammation that where a waggon couKl easily pass he could not ; — not even his head, which was 60 swollen that even the physician could not find his eyes. Worms and corruption proceeded from his body, and he sufl'ered horrible torments until he died ii> Wiy x'^P^V- The spot was shunned by every one, and for years afterwards an ofl'cnsive smell tainted the neighliourhood, intoler.ible to all who pa.ssed by. Another addition makes the narrative more harmonious with Ac 1"*, by stating that he was crushed by a waggon, wa-re to. lyKara ainov iKKfvwBiji'ai (Oecumenius, ad loc.). But we can hardly say that the story without this detail shows tliat Papias knew the Acts. lie knew a story which seems to have grown in part out of the narrative preserved in the Acts. But, in any case, here, as often, we are able to contrast the sobriety and probability of the Gospel narrative with the grotesque and revolting exaggerations in non- canonical sources.
It is not necessary to enlarge on the contrast between Peter and Judas in their fall and in their repentance. The one yielded to a sudden tempta- tion, was at once touched by his Master's reproach- ful look of love, and returned to his Lord in afl'ec- tionate confidence at the earliest opportunity. Judas deliberately sought and persisted in evil in defiance of all loving influences, and, in his dismay at the results of his act, tried to ease his conscience, without turning to Christ or to God for forgiveness. He thus ended, not in repentance, but in despair. See Euthymius Zigabenus on Jit 27°.