Russ Kwitkowski
29 February 2000
Although all three synoptics write about the account of Judas’ betrayal to the Messiah, only Matthew elaborates and tells his audience what happens to the dagger-carrier after Jesus was arrested. Why does Matthew do this? Why would Matthew hinder a flow of an exciting story by placing this dramatic sidebar prior to Jesus’ sentencing by Pilot? In her article, "The Fate of Judas," Audrey Conard contributes a general exploration of the Mt 27:3-10 pericope by investigating Matthew’s use of Jeremiah, Zechariah, Judas’ actions and function, along with the concept of death by "handing-over." She limits her analyses to Matthew’s redactional agenda -- to view the work of the author and his use of Old Testament sources and themes to discover how the character of Judas Iscariot functioned for Matthew and his motives for constructing the pericope as he did.
First, Conard looks over Matthew’s use of Jeremiah material since Matthew mentions the prophet Jeremiah in verse 9-10. Conard emphasizes that the attribution should in fact be made towards Zechariah, because the thirty pieces of silver is identical with Zech. 11:13. Matthew does not describe how these events fulfill prophecy. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah breaks a potter’s flask in the Field of Slaughter in Jer. 19 and purchases a potter’s field in Jer. 32:7-9. Conard uses excerpts from Donald Senior and M. J. J. Menken to explain that the rejection and suffering of Jesus parallels Jeremiah’s. Senior and Menken explain that Jeremiah preached judgment on an unrepentant people, challenged leaders, insisted his word was the ancient word of the covenant, and gave blasphemous sermons. Furthermore, Jeremiah did all of this during the destruction of Judah by the Babylonians and the destruction of Jerusalem -- events similar to what Matthew was experiencing in 70 AD. Conard states, "Jeremiah’s situation fits with Matthew’s larger gospel themes: the rejection of Jesus by the chief priests and elders as a sin of Israel worthy of judgment, and a rationale for the extension of the covenant to the Gentiles."
With this in mind, Conard moves on to examine the Zechariah material. It is the Zechariah narrative in which the 30 shekels of silver used to betray Jesus is derived (given to the shepherd of ‘the flock doomed to slaughter’). Matthew (who is the only author to specify the exact amount of silver paid for the betrayal) takes Zechariah’s silver amount and the proceeding events of throwing the money into the treasury found in Zech 9-14. The problem Conard brings up is determining who in Matthew’s Gospel is the shepherd -- Judas, Jesus, or the priests? After all Jesus is abandoned and Israel is the ungrateful flock. Then again, Judas is the one depicted throwing the coins to the ground. On the other hand, it is the chief priests who give the coins to the potter. Conard attempts to argue that in Matthew’s time, narrative correspondence is not as important as the meaningful elements -- the echoes of prior usage.
Having differentiated between the two Old Testament passages, Conard places the references together to discover why, instead of casting the silver into the Temple treasury, Matthew chooses a potter’s field. Jeremiah shatters a potter’s vessel to symbolize the disasters which will strike Judah and Jerusalem because of their idolatry and because of innocent blood (Jer. 19:4). Conard makes reference that "the purpose of the prophet’s action is to announce God’s judgment upon Jerusalem" (162). The money either has to be thrown to the treasury (Zech.) or to a potter (Jer.). As a result, Matthew creates a web of links and at the center are the chief priests.
The chief priests, according to Conard, "are the element of the pericope that is purely Matthew, and likely the reason for its composition" (162). Matthew places them in the center of the pericope to fulfill his intent for the entire Passion Narrative: to place the final blame on the heads of the chief priests and elders. At this point in her analyses, Conard emphasizes the importance of resisting the psychological motivations of Judas. This is a good item to address since Conard is doing a redactional analyses of Matthew and trying to determine Judas’ role in the drama. Whether or not Judas repented (and Conard does interpret different definitions of the word "metameletheis" to describe Judas’ state) is not as important as the real emphasis: Judas returned the 30 pieces of silver. Matthew is the only author to place the silver in the hands of Judas from the priests and back to the priests again -- Judas washes his hands of it. Even though the priests say "See to it yourself" (27:4), they ultimately take responsibility for the blood money, because they are the last to touch its taint. Conard explains, "It is a dramatic necessity on the story level that Judas hand over Jesus; on the level of Matthew’s special agenda it is equally necessary that he hand over the money - and blame - to the chief priests" (163). Consequently, staying with the drama analogy, it is necessary that Judas dies in order to be gotten off-stage -- so that he is not pointed to as the guilty party. As a result, Judas hangs himself after confessing his betrayal of innocent blood.
Conard briefly explains the similarities between Judas’ death and Ahithophel’s suicide in 2 Sam 17:23. She uses Van Unnik’s explanation that the similarity only falls on two phrases, alone: "having departed" and "he hanged himself." There is no evidence that Ahithophel betrayed David. There is no expression of guilt. It is Van Unnik’s case that Judas hung himself to do away with the curse upon him by shedding innocent blood.
The expression of "innocent blood" is in fact where Conard’s attention is captured -- not Judas’ suicide. And I think this is wise because it does away with the psychoanalyses of the pericope and keeps us focused on Matthew’s reasoning. Throwing down the silver leaves Judas off the hook, according to Conard. He is out of the story, but the responsibility -- and Matthew’s main focus of the pericope -- continues forth: "it is not Judas who delivers Jesus to crucifixion; he has delivered Jesus to the chief priests and elders; they deliver him to Pilate (27:2). Pilate, on the other hand, also washes his hands of the innocent blood, and blames the people for his execution. As a result, Conard emphasizes that it’s the chief priests and elders who are responsible for the destruction of the Temple. The fact that the chief priests tell Judas to "See to it yourself" but then deny to place the silver in the treasury, displays the hypocrisy of the Temple -- knowing that it is innocent blood money, indeed. They know Jesus is innocent, but they do not care!
Overall, I believe Audrey Conard’s article is very useful in the exegetical study -- using redaction-history and literary criticism. Of most of the research I have acquired on the fate of Judas, Conard’s is one the easiest to comprehend and most insightful. She touches upon many aspects of my research in the pericope and uses reliable sources to explain her views -- especially Donald Senior (who I am acquiring the most modern research on Judas from).
My only areas of concern are: 1) Conard does not fully address who Zechariah’s shepherd in Matthew is (Jesus, Judas, Priests, or if there even is one -- which I doubt); 2) no attention is given to the fate of Judas in Acts which fulfills Jesus’ prophecy in Mt 26: 24, that says it would be better for the betrayer never to have been born. How can death by hanging be the horrible fate that Jesus announced? Acts refers to a more horrific account of Judas’ death; 3) Conard fails to explain the appearance of two distinct pericopes in this selection: verses 3-5 and 6-10. The first deals with the character of Judas and the latter deals with the priest discarding the money. Could the one be an earlier oral tradition Matthew uses? These are some questions I would like to investigate when I conduct my research. On the whole, Conard does an excellent job of explaining how Iscariot’s character in Mt 27:3-10 is used by Matthew to shift the blame from one man to a nation.