In a recent issue of THE ADVOCATE appeared an article from the pen of Elder W. R. Coovert, headed, "Two Different Men," in which he endeavors to prove that the Judas of Matt. xxvii. 5, is a different man from the Judas mentioned in Acts i. 18, 19. It seems that the subject had been under discussion at the Iowa S. S. Convention, in which Bro. C. was in the minority. He hence desired our opinion, and said: "Will you please give your opinion, through THE ADVOCATE of these passages?" We did so very briefly by saying: "It is our opinion that the brother is in error, and that his reasons are weak and untenable. We believe both passages refer to the same person."

      This will explain the following letter from another brother in Iowa:

WAPELLO, Louisa Co., Iowa,	}
July 8, 1875

      BRO. FORNEY: I notice in THE ADVOCATE of June 30, an article by Elder Coovert, expressing his opinion of the passages found in Acts i. 18, 19 and Matt. xxvii. 5. His arguments you call "weak and untenable." Such being the case, I am in the dark. Would you give your explanation, and reasons, of these passages. Would like you to harmonize the word 'hanged' and 'falling.' What are we to understand by the parentheses which enclose the 18th and 19th verses of Acts?

      We shall first attend to the reasons advanced by Elder C. for his opinion that two different men are referred to in Matt. xxvii. 5 and Acts i. 18, 19. His first reason is: "Because Judas remained till he saw that Christ was condemned. Then he brought the thirty pieces of silver back and threw them down in the temple. Hence, if he had bought the field he could not have brought the money back." The point in this reason is, that bringing the money back into the Temple, and buying a field with it, are inconsistent actions. These two things could not have been done by the same man with the same money. But Matthew explains the buying. The chief priest said: "It is not lawful to put them [the pieces of silver] into the treasury." Hence they took them, not as Temple money, but as the money of Judas "and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called the field of blood, unto this day." This is the field that Peter in Acts says "this man purchased with the wages of iniquity." He adds: "So that that field was called, in their own tongue, Aceldama, that is, Field of Blood." Hence, the first reason is "weak and untenable."

      The second reason assigned by Elder C. is: "Because after he brought the money back he went and hanged himself (Matt. xxvii. 5)."

      Very well; in view of the points above given this is simply no reason at all. He brought back the money. He went and hanged himself. The chief priests took his money and bought the field, says Matthew; and Peter says Judas bought it. That is, it was by Judas' act and with his money.

      Third reason: "Because hanged is an irregular verb of the indicative mood and past tense, denoting a real past fact or action."

      Yes, and so the hanging was very irregular, very indicative, very moody, and when Matthew wrote and Peter spoke it was "a real past fact." But when this "irregular verb of the Indicative mood and past tense" has to do with Judas we would like to know. The brother is not now reciting a plain lesson in grammar, but seeking to explain away the identity of the Judas of Matthew and Peter. This reason has no more to do with the question than if we should say this Judas of Matthew is not the same with the Judas of Peter because Matthew wrote in Hebrew and Peter spoke in Greek.

      Fourth reason: "Because it don't say he went to hang, or tried to hang, or that he fell hanging himself; but that he 'hanged himself.' If he fell in the act he would have merely tried to hang himself, and not have hanged himself."

      This reason assumes that "falling headlong" and "hanged" are inconsistent of the same person. Not at all; and hence the reason is "weak and untenable." The possibility of a man really hanging himself, and after death (or before) falling, as did Judas, renders the argument untenable. There is no contradiction; there is no inconsistency.

      Fifth reason: "Because most persons hang themselves by the neck, and if Judas had so hanged himself he could not have fallen headlong very conveniently, but feet first."

      Really we can hardly treat such a reason seriously. Falling headlong does not mean falling with the head down or foremost; but it means to fall prone, prostrate. If a man falls full length to the ground he is said to fall preenees, according to the Greek. But even adhering to the proper meaning of the English headlong, it is quite possible, nay, very common, for a man falling from a considerable height to strike the ground first with his head.

      Sixth reason: "Because the man that fell is the man that purchased the field; and purchased denotes the transaction which this man performed that fell."

      We have already explained the purchasing as done by the chief priests, yet so that rhetorically it could justly be said that Judas purchased it. Hence, if from other reasons it appears evident that Matthew and Peter spoke of the same man the point here referred to would require no consideration.

      Seventh reason: "Because the field was bought after Judas had hanged himself."

      This reason is involved in several others, and so requires no separate answer.

      Eighth reason: "Because the man that fell after the field was bought, after the transaction was performed, and Judas brought back the pieces, made the confession, went away and hanged himself. It was not lawful to put the money in the treasury. They took counsel and bought the field. After the field was purchased the man fell. The counseling, the purchasing, the falling, all transpired after Judas had hanged himself. Hence it could not be Judas."

      There is nothing new in this reason. It only has an existence in the writer's mind because he fails to see how Peter could call the act of the chief priests in buying the field with Judas' blood-money Judas' act. There is no difficulty at all in this, as we have already stated several times.

      Ninth reason: "Because in the New translation by the American Bible Union, the 18th and 19th verses are enclosed with two dashes, and the dash is often used instead of the parenthesis. (See Clark's Grammar). It denotes an abrupt transition, and transition means a changing in rhetoric, a passing from one subject to another. (See Green's, Clark's and Howe's Grammars, and Webster's unabridged dictionary). Hence, this don't refer to Judas as the antecedent understood, but to the man that fell. Hence the dashes show that the Apostle changed his subject to speak of the man that purchased the field, proving what I claim, that Judas brought back the money, made the confession, and went and hanged himself. Then the chief priests took counsel and bought the field, and the man that performed the transaction fell and burst asunder, and not that Judas furnished the money, hung himself, fell and burst asunder."

      The material point in this reason is the assertion that there is a change of subjects in Acts i. 18; that in verse 17 Peter spoke of Judas; that in verses 18 and 19 he spoke of another man, and in verse 20 recurs again to Judas. This is an assumption. It is worse than that. It conflicts with the language and perverts the meaning of dashes or parentheses to a great extent. It is not true that there are any dashes or parentheses in the Greek, as one might be led to infer from these words of Elder C. Neither is it true that there is a change from one subject to another where parentheses are used. Let the brother look at the following texts: Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark ii. 10, vii. 11; Acts xiii. 8, 9; Ro. ii. 13, iii. 22, 23, et al. Such a change of subjects as is here implied by our brother would be an anomaly for which we know no precedent. The construction of the original text unmistakably indicates that Peter is speaking throughout of the same person. Hence this reason is "weak and untenable."

      Our next point will be to show that Matthew and Peter spoke of the same person. Matthew spoke of Judas. He says: "Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying: I sinned in betraying innocent blood. And they said: What is it to us. Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the Temple, he departed; and he went away and hanged himself." This is all clearly spoken of Judas.

      Now, what does Peter say: "Men, brethren, it was necessary that the Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spoke before concerning Judas, who became guide to those who took Jesus. Because he (Judas) was numbered with us, and obtained the office of the ministry. Now this man." Who? We answer, Judas. Here the difficulty is raised, and it relates to two points only: 1. The purchasing of the field; and, 2. The hanging, and the falling headlong.

      As to the first there is no special trouble in reconciling the two statements of Matthew and Peter. Matthew tells us in detail how the field was bought. It was bought with the [4] blood-money of Judas, by the priests, It would not have been bought but for the fact that Judas threw this money down to the priests and they got conscientious about making any other use of it. Peter does not tell us how it was bought, except with the reward of iniquity which Judas had received. True, he says, "This man purchased," but it is a well known fact that such an expression is not in any wise contradictory of the manner of the purchase as detailed by Matthew. That both refer to the same event appears in the following points of agreement: 1. It was the same field that was purchased--the field of blood (Acts i. 19; Matt. xxvii. 5). It was bought with the same money--the reward of iniquity (Acts i. 18; Matt. xxvii. 6). Hence the houtos--this man--of Peter is unquestionably the Judas of whom he speaks in verse 16. The Greek narrative runs right along. Peter says: Concerning Judas, who became guide to those who took Jesus. Because he was numbered with us, and obtained the office of this ministry. This [man] indeed therefore bought the field."

      The "hanging" and "falling headlong" are not inconsistent. It is not only possible that Judas should hang himself, and that the rope or the bough of the tree should break with the weight of his dead body, but the two narratives make it certain. Matthew had his mind upon what Judas did, as the entire narrative shows; while Peter had his mind upon the dramatic part, the things that Judas did not do himself, but which followed from his act, and which would not have taken place but for him and his sin.

      There is, in this view, no greater discrepancy between these two narratives than between many others recorded by the different evangelists. We thus harmonize the hanging and the falling to which the brother from Wapello calls our attention. And as to the parenthesis, that is not found in the Greek as written by Luke, or as printed in Greek Testaments. And if it were, it would only indicate the same that it does elsewhere, viz.: The introduction of what is not vital to the discourse, or of an explanatory note, or a matter of minor consequence. The office of the parenthesis as defined by authorities is to mark a sentence, or certain words inserted in a sentence, which interrupt the sense or natural connection of words, but serve to explain or qualify the sense of the principal sentence."

      We know of no authority that is against our view of this subject so far as the identity of the Judas of Matthew and of Peter is concerned. They explain the manner of his death differently, but do not differ as to the man. And it was to us a perfect surprise to find a minister who would venture upon such untenable ground as that occupied by Bro. C. However, as the question is of no practical moment, with these protracted thoughts we purpose letting it entirely rest so far as we are concerned. If our argument has not convinced either of the brethren to whom we have referred, time and thought no doubt will.

[The Church Advocate 40 (July 28, 1875): 4, 5.]

      Christian H. Forney's "Matthew XXVII. 5 and Acts I. 18, 19" was first published in The Church Advocate, Vol. 40, No. 13 (July 28, 1875), p. 4. The electronic version has been transcribed from a copy of the article printed from a microfilmed edition of the newspaper held by the State Library of Pennsylvania. Thanks to Adams Memorial Library for arranging for the interlibrary loan, and to St. Vincent College Library for the use of its microfilm reader/printer.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. In the printed text, an extended quotation is set off by the absence of leading between lines; in the printed text, it is set off as a block quotation. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 28 June 1999.
Updated 13 July 2003.