These two accounts seem to agree that he fell for some distance, whether from a precipice or a tree. …] So I would go with Mathew that Judas hung himself because the Acts account doesn’t go contrary to hanging but just dosen’t get specific to the details.
Just to correct you, and to do a little thought experiment here: if you read Matthew - just on his own - he doesn’t say anything about a fall. All that is said is “he went and hanged himself.” You’re probably supplying that detail about Judas falling from Acts.
Oh, and Acts - again just reading the text without any preconceived image - doesn’t necessarily state that Judas “fell for some distance.” Literally translating the Greek, he ‘became prone (leaning forwards/face down)’ (
prēnēs). But even if we stick with the traditional understanding (in English at least) of Judas “falling headlong,” it wouldn’t necessarily equate to him “falling for some distance.” He could have ‘fell’, but whether he fell from a cliff or from a tree or from a building, or whether he slipped or just drop to the ground (dead?) is
not stated explicitly in the text.
We Christians don’t often notice these kind of things because we’re so used to filling in and harmonizing the details with our minds.
And since the Pharisees didn’t want his money back, it doesn’t seem likely that he was murdered by them.
Correction: “the chief priests” “the Pharisees.” Admittedly, two out of the four gospels, Matthew and John, don’t quite distinguish the two neatly at a few places and so later Christians sometimes confuse the two parties (especially since “the Pharisees” are presented as Jesus’ opponents in the earlier half of the story), but all four gospels routinely mention “the chief priests” (= the temple authorities) plus “the scribes” (= legal experts, not necessarily Pharisees) and “the elders” (= the Jerusalem aristocracy) as the ones who are involved in Jesus’ death, which is historically correct.
“The Pharisees” don’t even appear in Mark’s and Luke’s passion narratives
at all, while in Matthew and John they are only mentioned once or twice in passing (as in the other two gospels, “the chief priests” are the main actors), and even then some folks think that the mentions of them there are probably an anachronistic detail.
The rule of thumb is, that “the Pharisees” just drop out of the the gospels midway through Holy Week while “the chief priests” take their place as the antagonists.
Papias said the following.
If Mathew hadn’t said what he did, then I might have gone with the idea of typeology.
This account is difficult for me to accept as real, because to me he would have already been deceased. This I think would be typology if it were scripture.
My personal (emphasis on ‘personal’ - I’m not trying to convert you or anyone to my opinion here, just giving out my two cents) idea would be the opposite: I think it is
Matthew who is indulging in typology here,
precisely because he “said what he did.” In fact, maybe
both Matthew
and Luke: we may not know exactly what exactly Judas’
historical cause of death was, but typologically, he died like a traitor who betrayed a king (Ahitophel), a coward (“falling face-down”), and an evildoer (the swelling - some ancient stories have a cliche that traitors and calumniators end swelling up and dying horribly).
Anyway it isn’t earthshaking about the circumstance of his death. What is earthshaking is why he didn’t go back to Jesus for forgiveness as Peter did. I have long thought on this and the one conclusion that seems satisfying to me is that he judged Jesus instead of letting Jesus judge him.
In a way, that’s probably what makes Judas a rather fascinating figure for some people. Personally, I find it an all too human reaction: it takes a whole lot of courage just to say ‘sorry’. Matthew’s Judas does feel some sort of regret, but it’s not enough. He “changes his mind,” but note that the verb used in that passage is
not the usual term Matthew uses for “to repent.”
May God be generous to you.
I hope that He would. And to you too.
P.S. re: the Papias quote: I’ve just read that scholars actually think the long version of the quote has later interpolations on it (which make Judas’ end seem much worse). It’s difficult to reconstruct the text, but one scholar (Arie W. Zwiep,
Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26) reconstructs it like this (though he does concede that the original version may well have contained the gory details):
His flesh was so swollen up that where a wagon could easily pass through, not even the bulk of the head. (…) Now after many torments and plagues he died, it is said, in his own place.
In fact, as I mentioned there’s another (later?) version of the quote; in this one, there’s a description of Judas apparently dying in a sort of traffic accident, which brings the variant stories of Judas’ death to
four.
Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.
)