Apparent Bible contradiction about Judas's death

[James_2_24]

“Contradictions” In Matthew and Acts?

**
The relevant verses in Matthew are**:

3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." 7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, 10 and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." RSV Matt 27:3-10

**The relevant verses in Acts are:
**
15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’ RSV Acts 1:15-20

Please Read this article on the subject:
home.austin.rr.com/selliott4/papers/judas.html

Someone help me out with this one.

Thanks,
James_2:24

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I got this from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/08539a.htm

But there does not seem to be any great difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. For the field, bought with the rejected price of his treachery, might well be described as indirectly bought or possessed by Judas, albeit he did not buy it himself. And St. Peter’s words about the name Haceldama might be referred to the “reward of iniquity” as well as the violent death of the traitor. Similar difficulties are raised as to the discrepancies in detail discovered in the various accounts of the betrayal itself. But it will be found that, without doing violence to the text, the narratives of the four Evangelists can be brought into harmony

I’ve always been interested in why Judas betrayed Jesus in the first place. Anyway I hope this helps.

 

[Zooey]

This used to bother me, but then a couple of things came together in my head that helped me, & I hope will help you, as well.

The first was the discovery that a proper “hangman’s noose” was an 18th C. innovation. Before that, hanging was a slow, horrible death by asphyxiation, because the neck did not break; the person dangled there for hours, slowly suffocating. (This was actually used as a method of torture in Western Europe in the middle ages). During this process, the person loses control of all the body sphincters, discharging waste.

The second thing was actually the plethora of CSI programs on TV!! I have learned more than I ever needed to know about the process of death by many means. For one thing, the body does not decay at a uniform rate. The belly swells with gases as it decays, while the hands & feet–if not damaged by carrion–may last much longer. If this continues, the abdomen will eventually explode, expelling its contents, which will draw carrion, who will proceed to, well, feast…
Eventually, the process will cause the neck to give way, dropping the body. So you see, there is actually a lot of modern forensics that supports that the two Bible accounts are not contradictory; rather they are supplementary…
Now we all know more than we wanted to know about Judas’ death…

 

[Liberian]

Wildgraywolf:

I’ve always been interested in why Judas betrayed Jesus in the first place. Anyway I hope this helps.

If you can get your hands on a copy of Dorothy Sayers’ Man Born To Be King, you will find a very good possibility. This is a series of about a dozen radio plays on the life of Jesus. She portrays Judas as an idealistic young man who believes that Jesus is going to bring back the earthly kingdom of Israel–at the very least throw off the Roman yoke. When Jesus doesn’t do this after the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Judas tries to force his hand by turning him over to the authorities. Basically, Judas thought he knew Jesus’ business better than Jesus did. To speak honestly, I could easily have done the same thing; it is only by the grace of God that I have not been given the opportunity to mess up that badly.

• Liberian

 

[James_2_24]

Zooey:

The first was the discovery that a proper “hangman’s noose” was an 18th C. innovation. Before that, hanging was a slow, horrible death by asphyxiation, because the neck did not break; the person dangled there for hours, slowly suffocating. (This was actually used as a method of torture in Western Europe in the middle ages). During this process, the person loses control of all the body sphincters, discharging waste.

The second thing was actually the plethora of CSI programs on TV!! I have learned more than I ever needed to know about the process of death by many means. For one thing, the body does not decay at a uniform rate. The belly swells with gases as it decays, while the hands & feet–if not damaged by carrion–may last much longer. If this continues, the abdomen will eventually explode, expelling its contents, which will draw carrion, who will proceed to, well, feast…
Eventually, the process will cause the neck to give way, dropping the body. So you see, there is actually a lot of modern forensics that supports that the two Bible accounts are not contradictory; rather they are supplementary…
Now we all know more than we wanted to know about Judas’ death…

This all sounds like it supports the two Biblical accounts, but there are still some discrepancies. In the Acts account it says he fell “headlong”, if the neck just gave way he would’ve fell feet first, no?

Also, the discrepancy of how the money was used. In one Judas threw it on the ground and the Priests bought the field. In the other Judas bought the field.

 

[James_2_24]

One of the more striking differences between Matthew and Acts is the overall way that Judas is portrayed. It Matthew Judas is portrayed as being filled with remorse upon realizing what he had done, returning the money that he presumably felt he did not deserve, and then committing suicide. In Acts Judas is portrayed as buying a field with the money that he kept, and then dying a humiliating and grotesque death. The only adjective that is clearly applied to Judas in Acts 1:15-20 is “wicked” (RSV), which is found in Acts 1:18.

In other words, Matthew systematically portrays Judas in a more favorable light than Acts. If one were only to read either Matthew or Acts one would end up with a very different impression of Judas’ character.

 

[James_2_24]

bump

 

[Della]

There are discrepancies of this kind in more than the story of Judas’ death. The resurrection stories have them too. But, what does this tell us? That these stories cannot be trusted to tell us the truth? No not that, because they are not told as we tell stories about events in our modern newspapers, but as examples of things we ought to imitate or avoid.

The major elements of these two accounts of Judas’ demise agree quite well with one another considering they were given to us by two very different people with two very different reasons for relating them. Whenever we look at a passage of Scripture to determine what it is telling us, we have to first understand what the author was attempting to convey to his readers, who his readers were going to be, as well what truth is being told.

That Matthew was less hard on Judas than Peter says volumes about who the targeted readers Matthew and Luke (remember Acts was written by Luke) were trying to reach. In Matthew’s case it was fellow Jews, in Luke’s case it was a non-Jewish man, so how they told their stories were very much based on that.

Neither one “lied” about their facts, really. The field was bought with blood money. Judas did kill himself out of despair. He was guilty of betraying Christ. These are the things that are truly important for us to draw from these accounts, not quibbling about how the stories were related in every detail.

 

[DeFide]

Let’s speculate:

Remember that the rope back then was not nearly as strong as modern rope. It wasn’t nylon. It could have been camel hair! He could have hanged himself, and the rope could have broke causing him to fall headlong and either through trauma (pointy objects), decay, or a manner of speaking for defacation, his bowels could have gushed out.

If he or someone else bought the field, the net effect could be considered that “he bought it”… it’s his.

 

[Zooey]

If the field was bought with Judas’ money, then it was his field. (It could well have been referred to as his field. I live in the town I grew up in; the house that the town doctor of my childhood sold in the ‘50s is still “Doc’s house”; my house is still referred to as my grandparents’ house. Such is life in an area where everybody pretty much knows everybody else.)
Also, we need to remember that inspiration does not mean that God took away the freedom of expression of the writers of scripture. Luke & Matthew had slightly varying perspectives on the personality of Judas.
This is normal. It happens all the time in every day life. Our opinions of people are based on many factors in our own experiences. And, as has been pointed out, there was a difference in the target audience.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Liberian:

If you can get your hands on a copy of Dorothy Sayers’ Man Born To Be King

, you will find a very good possibility. This is a series of about a dozen radio plays on the life of Jesus. She portrays Judas as an idealistic young man who believes that Jesus is going to bring back the earthly kingdom of Israel–at the very least throw off the Roman yoke. When Jesus doesn’t do this after the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Judas tries to force his hand by turning him over to the authorities. Basically, Judas thought he knew Jesus’ business better than Jesus did. To speak honestly, I could easily have done the same thing; it is only by the grace of God that I have not been given the opportunity to mess up that badly.

• LiberianThanks, I will!

Have you ever seen the movie Jesus of Nazareth; It came out in 1977 with Robert Powell playing Jesus? The motivation for Judas in the movie is like you described in your post. Another interesting theory I came across says that Judas decided to betray Jesus because of John 6:51-60. It was after this point that Judas decided to betray Jesus.

I don’t have a problem with the “apparent contradictions” there are a number of missing details. For one we don’t know how long Judas was dead before his body was discovered. I can’t imagine a cemetery for foreigners as a very popular “hang out” for the locals and certainly not during Passover. And let’s not forget that Jerusalem was in an “upheval” before, during and after the Crucifixion. So it is quite possible Judas’s body wasn’t discoverd for quite some time.

Rotting corpses do burst - espicially at the abdomen (I saw it happen to a “road kill” deer once - really very gross). Also, I doubt it would have taken long for a corpse to rot in a hot climate and ropes do break. In Judas’s apparent state of mind I doubt he was looking for the best quality rope, it’s more likely that he just used what was available.

Anyway I see Matthew’s account more of a summary than Peter’s account in Acts; and Peter we know was there when it happened.

 

[estesbob]

I had a client confront me about this-it was a real AH HA! Moment for him. He was crestfallen when i told him I could not care less how Judas died. I explained that our Church does not embrace the doctrine of Sola Scrptura nor did we beleive that every word of Scripture was literally correct. It was obvious he did not have a clue what “Sola Scriptura” was and rather than display his ignorance he changed the subject.

By all accounts Judas betrayed Jesus and died a horrible death becuase of it. the “How” does not ineterest me at all-the “Why” does

 

[Liberian]

estesbob:

I had a client confront me about this-it was a real AH HA! Moment for him. He was crestfallen when i told him I could not care less how Judas died. I explained that our Church does not embrace the doctrine of Sola Scrptura nor did we beleive that every word of Scripture was literally correct. It was obvious he did not have a clue what “Sola Scriptura” was and rather than display his ignorance he changed the subject.

By all accounts Judas betrayed Jesus and died a horrible death becuase of it. the “How” does not ineterest me at all-the “Why” does

estesbob,

I certainly appreciate your practical approach to the subject. The question of how Judas died is not at all important in and of itself. It concerns me only as an example of an apparent contradiction in the Bible when I am trying to defend the Church’s teaching that all of Scripture, when properly interpreted, is without error in what it is trying to teach. (I’m not sure of the exact wording of the doctrine, but I’m sure you recognize it.)

• Liberian

 

[dancus]

One person here had a strange concept, that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus because of something Peter wrote. SAY WHAT? The gosple of Peter was written long after the fact. It may be helpful to read John 21:22-23. Jesus was asked that question, fate of Judas Iscariot. “If I wish him to tarry (live), what is that to you?” As far as Tradition goes, if that makes you feel superior go with it. At least with the Traditionalist view you don’t have to clutter your mind with Bible reading or thinking. Before anyone starts down the wrong road. I was Baptized Catholic, made First Communion and Confirmation. I just don’t happen to rely simply on Tradition, I follow what Jesus said.

 

[Liberian]

dancus:

One person here had a strange concept, that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus because of something Peter wrote. SAY WHAT? The gosple of Peter was written long after the fact. It may be helpful to read John 21:22-23. Jesus was asked that question, fate of Judas Iscariot. “If I wish him to tarry (live), what is that to you?” As far as Tradition goes, if that makes you feel superior go with it. At least with the Traditionalist view you don’t have to clutter your mind with Bible reading or thinking. Before anyone starts down the wrong road. I was Baptized Catholic, made First Communion and Confirmation. I just don’t happen to rely simply on Tradition, I follow what Jesus said.

dancus,

I beg your pardon? I’m a little confused by your post. You are absolutely right that any of Peter’s writings that we have were written long after Judas died–although the so-called “Gospel of Peter” is not in the Bible and was not written by Peter either.

John 21:22-23 refers to “the beloved disciple,” which most people agree is John and is definitely not Judas (see John 13:23-26).

As far as following Tradition allowing me not to clutter my mind with Bible reading and thinking, that is such a low and scurrilous charge that I will not dignify it with an answer.

• Liberian

 

[dancus]

Liberian: I stand corrected on Peter, I was thinking of his letters(1&2), These most believe were by the author. If you have proof they weren’t please let me know, this is the first I’ve heard that. If you had written that Revelations wasn’t Johns work, I’d shrug my shoulders and think ‘So what’s new’. As far as Tradition, I have found many who allow that to override Biblical teaching. As far as contradictions, I could point out an apparent case. I’m on a litle shaky ground on the first, the Lion being King of beasts. I believe ii is found in Mishle(Proverbs) however I’m not certain. I’ve been through that book as a read but not to study. In another book, Job 41:33-34, the Crocodile has that honor. Don’t take this too serious, it’s nothing more then a game. A Professor in College used this to test our Biblical knowlege. I’m sure you’ll see through this with a little thought. Dan

 

[happycamper]

I know about impaling. Hanging by a pole. bowels gush out by hanging that way.

When someone was hung, during certain times, Russia a good example many centuries ago, they were thrown (put) upon a sharpened pole, sticking upright out of the ground. It was called hanging(not as we are accustomed to) or impaling.

I dont know if it was common or done at all during the time of Judas though.

Just a theory for the mix, but anyway, the two accounts in Scripture are both true even if we dont understand it.Whatever way it was. Faith.

 

[Liberian]

dancus:

Liberian: I stand corrected on Peter, I was thinking of his letters(1&2), These most believe were by the author. If you have proof they weren’t please let me know, this is the first I’ve heard that. If you had written that Revelations wasn’t Johns work, I’d shrug my shoulders and think ‘So what’s new’. As far as Tradition, I have found many who allow that to override Biblical teaching. As far as contradictions, I could point out an apparent case. I’m on a litle shaky ground on the first, the Lion being King of beasts. I believe ii is found in Mishle(Proverbs) however I’m not certain. I’ve been through that book as a read but not to study. In another book, Job 41:33-34, the Crocodile has that honor. Don’t take this too serious, it’s nothing more then a game. A Professor in College used this to test our Biblical knowlege. I’m sure you’ll see through this with a little thought. Dan

Dan,

I have heard that II Peter was not actually written by St. Peter, but I haven’t heard any evidence that would cause me to believe that. I also follow the school of thought that the same person did indeed write John’s Gospel, John’s three letters, and Revelation. Again, I haven’t seen any convincing evidence to the contrary.

When I said that the supposed Gospel of Peter wasn’t written by Peter, I meant exactly that; there is an apocryphal book called the Gospel of Peter that did not make it into the Bible and was not written by St. Peter.

If you have any examples where the authorized Tradition overrides the properly interpreted Bible, that would make an interesting subject for a thread over in the Apologetics Forum. Will I see you there?

• Liberian

 

[dancus]

Liberian:Since it is getting late her on the East Coast I’ll give you some insight on Revelations. Many scholors are of the opinion it was written sometime during the second century. John wrote in Greek with perfect syntax, even elegantly at times. The Greek of Revelations is very poor with grammatical mistakes. Also, nowhere in that book do you find Johns main themes, love, truth, faith and light. As you may know, for John there we no twilight Christians, he recognized no shades of gray. Only darkness and light, the dividing line is love and truth. Incidently, the scholors I speak of cover a wide spectrum, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish. Before anyone says it, I’m aware that Jewish scholors dealing in the NT are a paradox. Now it is getting late(1:48 am) and I have a full schedule today. Dan