Contradiction - How did Judas die?

Godistruth1 · Jun 25, 2018

I want to discuss this particular contradiction claimed in bible. How do you reconcile this? Surely if bible is word of God there must be only one version! A man can't die twice !!

Matthew 27:5 - Hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 - And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out

TuxAme · Jun 25, 2018

Both accounts suggest that some sort of height was involved. You can't hang yourself without going above ground level. No contradiction- Acts is just more specific.

Godistruth1 · Jun 25, 2018

TuxAme said:
Both accounts suggest that some sort of height was involved. You can't hang yourself without going above ground level. No contradiction- Acts is just more specific.

So if someone falls from an aeroplane and someone falls from a building is it the same because height is involved?

TuxAme · Jun 25, 2018

Godistruth1 said:
So if someone falls from an aeroplane and someone falls from a building is it the same because height is involved?

I'll answer your question with another question: if someone is said to have hanged himself by one person, and to have fallen headlong and been disemboweled by another, does that preclude the possibility that both happened?

Quid est Veritas? · Jun 25, 2018

To be fair, there are a number of ways here.

Firstly is the classical way, that this is just different aspects of the same event. This is how Augustine saw it, that Judas hung himself on the land of Akeldama and then his bowels burst forth as he fell down afterwards.

However, Papias also records a third tradition of Judas' death, that he became bloated and subsequently died in agony from sepsis - similar to how Herod the Great was said to die.

The Second way is to consider these two separate midrashic narratives. Matthew reports it as fulfilling Jeremiah, but he is clearly also refering to the silver from Zechariah. So he is positing a complex, multi-layered OT reading for Judas' death, which references how he is an archetype for us all, that we all 'betray Christ' as Israel betrays God. It is thus our guilt, our sin, that brought Christ to Judgement and Golgotha.
This is a deep reading which association with Luke's account in Acts does some violence to, in many peoples' opinion. For Acts also differs as to who bought the field of Akeldama, Judas or the Priests. This is obviously a aetiological explanation of an area in Jerusalem, associated with the Gospel account, so is perhaps a tad folkloric, but remains a narrative of sin begetting destruction.

So I really don't see the problem. It might be considered a 'contradiction', but you don't need to do so. Reconciliation is possible, but since the days of the Church Fathers, many have argued that they are about different aspects, so a 'contradiction' is immaterial. This is only a problem to the most literalist biblical reading, which has far worse incongruities. It is not really a problem to those who follow Church tradition or those who realise the various gospels are different narratives, with different aims, of the same events. Ancient historiography is not the same as modern history writing, after all. This particular inconsistency only became a real problem to many in modern times, which speaks more to the decline of our scholarship and education, than to a 'problem' in thr text.

Maybe try CS Lewis. He wrote about this, in fact used it as proof, that a strict literalist reading of the Bible is not only mistaken, but anachronistic to how the Bible has always been understood.

TuxAme · Jun 25, 2018

Matthew's gospel is concerned with the manner in which Judas died. In other words, the how. Luke, when writing the Acts of the Apostles, didn't seem too concerned with writing what others already had.

Godistruth1 · Jun 25, 2018

TuxAme said:
I'll answer your question with another question: if someone is said to have hanged himself by one person, and to have fallen headlong and been disemboweled by another, does that preclude the possibility that both happened?

Its not possible that both can happen.

According to Matthew 27:1–10, after learning that Jesus was to be crucified, Judas attempted to return the money he had been paid for his betrayal to the chief priests and committed suicide by hanging. The priests used the money to buy a field to bury strangers in, which was called the "Field of Blood" because it had been bought with blood money. The Book of Acts 1:18 quotes Peter as saying that Judas used the money to buy the field himself and, as he was walking through it, he "[fell] headlong... burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Another problem is did he himself buy the field or did he give the money to priests for them to buy it! Only one version can be true !!!

Godistruth1 · Jun 25, 2018

Quid est Veritas? said:
To be fair, there are a number of ways here.

Firstly is the classical way, that this is just different aspects of the same event. This is how Augustine saw it, that Judas hung himself on the land of Akeldama and then his bowels burst forth as he fell down afterwards.

However, Papias also records a third tradition of Judas' death, that he became bloated and subsequently died in agony from sepsis - similar to how Herod the Great was said to die.

The Second way is to consider these two separate midrashic narratives. Matthew reports it as fulfilling Jeremiah, but he is clearly also refering to the silver from Zechariah. So he is positing a complex, multi-layered OT reading for Judas' death, which references how he is an archetype for us all, that we all 'betray Christ' as Israel betrays God. It is thus our guilt, our sin, that brought Christ to Judgement and Golgotha.
This is a deep reading which association with Luke's account in Acts does some violence to, in many peoples' opinion. For Acts also differs as to who bought the field of Akeldama, Judas or the Priests. This is obviously a aetiological explanation of an area in Jerusalem, associated with the Gospel account, so is perhaps a tad folkloric, but remains a narrative of sin begetting destruction.

So I really don't see the problem. It might be considered a 'contradiction', but you don't need to do so. Reconciliation is possible, but since the days of the Church Fathers, many have argued that they are about different aspects, so a 'contradiction' is immaterial. This is only a problem to the most literalist biblical reading, which has far worse incongruities. It is not really a problem to those who follow Church tradition or those who realise the various gospels are different narratives, with different aims, of the same events. Ancient historiography is not the same as modern history writing, after all. This particular inconsistency only became a real problem to many in modern times, which speaks more to the decline of our scholarship and education, than to a 'problem' in thr text.

Maybe try CS Lewis. He wrote about this, in fact used it as proof, that a strict literalist reading of the Bible is not only mistaken, but anachronistic to how the Bible has always been understood.

A person can't die in two different ways. If one dies by accident and the same person is claimed to have died by natural death. Only one can be right

Godistruth1 · Jun 25, 2018

TuxAme said:
Matthew's gospel is concerned with the manner in which Judas died. In other words, the how. Luke, when writing the Acts of the Apostles, didn't seem too concerned with writing what others already had.

Luke does say he died of headlong... burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Quid est Veritas? · Jun 25, 2018

Godistruth1 said:
A person can't die in two different ways. If one dies by accident and the same person is claimed to have died by natural death. Only one can be right

You are free to interpret it that way if you wish. It is doing violence to the sources though. Augustus died by eating a poisoned fig, or naturally. Often even good ancient historians differ on when and of what someone died. This does not invalidate either historian, especially if that fact is totally immaterial to the purpose of the narrative. Ancient texts were written with teleology implicit within, not brutely recording facts. The various foreshadowings in the Biblical narrative and typology within it, should make this plain.

Besides, even more recently you'll find different accounts. Napoleon was poisoned, died of peptic ulcer, or sepsis, etc. Even accounts on events surrounding people's deaths differ. George V either died the thursday or the sunday, depending on whether or not you believe sources of the time.
It also matters how things are phrased or surrounding criteria. I can say someone died by strangulation, asphyxiation, cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, hypoxia, etc. Each of these are different things, but may all be present, and valid causes or explanations, of the death of a hanged man. But saying someone died of hanging, or of cardiac failure, sounds very different, even contradictory perhaps! Likewise you could say someone hanging themselves a 'natural' progression of depression (though I find such thinking abhorrent myself), so call a suicide a natural death.

Rather read the Church Fathers, familiar with the original language and the implication of such terms and language used in the first century, than importing implicit English meanings of the words used in translation or exposition thereof; such as 'accident', suicide or ''natural'. As I said, this is more a modern problem of interpretation, than one innate to the understanding of the text.

Godistruth1 · Jun 25, 2018

Quid est Veritas? said:
You are free to interpret it that way if you wish. It is doing violence to the sources though. Augustus died by eating a poisoned fig, or naturally. Often even good ancient historians differ on when and of what someone died. This does not invalidate either historian, especially if that fact is totally immaterial to the purpose of the narrative. Ancient texts were written with teleology implicit within, not brutely recording facts. The various foreshadowings in the Biblical narrative and typology within it, should make this plain.

Besides, even more recently you'll find different accounts. Napoleon was poisoned, died of peptic ulcer, or sepsis, etc. Even accounts on events surrounding people's deaths differ. George V either died the thursday or the sunday, depending on whether or not you believe sources of the time.
It also matters how things are phrased or surrounding criteria. I can say someone died by strangulation, asphyxiation, cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, hypoxia, etc. Each of these are different things, but may all be present, and valid causes or explanations, of the death of a hanged man. But saying someone died of hanging, or of cardiac failure, sounds very different, even contradictory perhaps! Likewise you could say someone hanging themselves a 'natural' progression of depression (though I find such thinking abhorrent myself), so call a suicide a natural death.

Rather read the Church Fathers, familiar with the original language and the implication of such terms and language used in the first century, than importing implicit English meanings of the words used in translation or exposition thereof; such as 'accident', suicide or ''natural'. As I said, this is more a modern problem of interpretation, than one innate to the understanding of the text.

Is bible not inspired word of God? People or historians can make mistakes but God knows everything, even future so God cannot tell two different versions to two different people!

Quid est Veritas? · Jun 25, 2018

Godistruth1 said:
Is bible not inspired word of God? People or historians can make mistakes but God knows everything, even future so God cannot tell two different versions to two different people!

I don't understand the objection. God is interested in something very different than keeping side details unambigious. It really is not about that at all, but the Atonement and Salvation through Christ.
Does the font of a science textbook matter beyond being legible? Should we reject it for not following the rules of calligraphy? This is really silly.

Anyway, it hasn't been established it is contradictory. That is an assumption and the onus of proof lies with those that would show it so. As I said, the text itself isn't explicitly so, as there are various ways or means to reconcile the superficial one, and Matthew and Luke (written by the writer of Acts) are both synoptics. I have attached an article on this point.

bcbsr · Jun 25, 2018

Godistruth1 said:
I want to discuss this particular contradiction claimed in bible. How do you reconcile this? Surely if bible is word of God there must be only one version! A man can't die twice !!

Matthew 27:5 - Hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 - And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out

He hung himself off a cliff. The rope broke and his fell headlong ....

Godistruth1 · Jun 25, 2018

bcbsr said:
He hung himself off a cliff. The rope broke and his fell headlong ....

Do you think if someone hanged himself that would be omitted to be mentioned by the person narrating his death? Acts says he fell headlong and then died later.

bcbsr · Jun 25, 2018

Godistruth1 said:
Do you think if someone hanged himself that would be omitted to be mentioned by the person narrating his death? Acts says he fell headlong and then died later.

Why not? Have you compared the resurrection accounts? Some neglect to say what others have said.

Barney2.0 · Jun 25, 2018

Godistruth1 said:
I want to discuss this particular contradiction claimed in bible. How do you reconcile this? Surely if bible is word of God there must be only one version! A man can't die twice !!

Matthew 27:5 - Hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 - And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out

It could mean he was hanged, then his body fell from its position and was smashed asunder. See here for more information:

How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down? | CARM.org

How did Judas die?

Do the two accounts of Judas' death in Matthew and Acts contradict? | Evidence for Christianity

How did Judas Iscariot die? Why two biblical stories can\'t both be right, and why it matters

How did Judas Die?

TuxAme · Jun 25, 2018

Godistruth1 said:
Its not possible that both can happen.

According to Matthew 27:1–10, after learning that Jesus was to be crucified, Judas attempted to return the money he had been paid for his betrayal to the chief priests and committed suicide by hanging. The priests used the money to buy a field to bury strangers in, which was called the "Field of Blood" because it had been bought with blood money. The Book of Acts 1:18 quotes Peter as saying that Judas used the money to buy the field himself and, as he was walking through it, he "[fell] headlong... burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Another problem is did he himself buy the field or did he give the money to priests for them to buy it! Only one version can be true !!!

As another posted already said- you're approaching the Bible in a literalistic way, ignoring all literary devices. Matthew wanted to stress prophetic fulfillment when he mentioned that the priests purchased the field. The fact that the potter's field was purchased is significant because it alludes to the prophet Jeremiah, when God called the prophet to go to a potter's field to hear His words- and he was later instructed to buy such a field.

Why? Because after witnessing the vessel [the potter] was making of clay [spoil] in [his] hand, he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do, God told Jeremiah (I urge you to read it in its entirety- it's all critically important):

O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your doings. Jeremiah 18:6-11

You see, Israel did not repent of its sins- not then, when God first spoke this prophecy, nor later, when Matthew applied this prophecy also to priests- who represented Israel- who handed Jesus over to be crucified. In Jeremiah 19:1-15, it is described how Jeremiah is instructed to take a pot to the valley of the son of Hinnom, to a gate, and proclaim to the people His judgement. God tells Jeremiah to say:

"Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon this place that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle. Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by burning incense in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents"

Blood of innocents is a curious term, which jumps out at us because of Judas' own words to the chief priests and elders after betraying Jesus, I have sinned in betraying innocent blood (Matthew 27:4). He goes on:

"Therefore, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when this place shall no more be called To′pheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter."

This calls to mind the note Matthew leaves in 27:8, that the location where Judas killed himself became known as the Field of Blood. Ancient tradition says that this Field of Blood is the very same valley of Hinnom, where Jeremiah made this proclamation. And what was spoken of by Jeremiah was fulfilled, which says:

Men shall bury in To′pheth because there will be no place else to bury. Jeremiah 19:11

As for the 30 shekels, this calls to mind Zechariah 11, when the Lord (the "Good Shepherd") tells the traffickers in the sheep to count out the wages He is owed. They count Him to be worth only 30 shekels, so the Lord rejects it and tells them to toss it to the potter. In the gospel account, the priests and elders don't desire to put the money returned to them (which was rejected by Judas) into the treasury, because it is blood money- so they do precisely what those in Zechariah are told and "throw it to the potter", buying the field. Because of their actions, the wicked shepherds (and Jerusalem) are cursed. And such resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

To sum all of this up, the purpose of these prophecies in Matthew's gospel is to proclaim the judgement that has been declared on Jerusalem for killing the Messiah. Maybe the priests bought the field, maybe Judas did- both Matthew and Luke had a message to convey. Matthew wished to describe Jerusalem's role (and fate) for denying the Messiah, and Luke desired to explain Judas' particular fate.

JackRT · Jun 25, 2018

Perhaps we could start by considering whether Judas was an actual literal character in the narrative.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 25, 2018

Godistruth1 said:
I want to discuss this particular contradiction claimed in bible. How do you reconcile this? Surely if bible is word of God there must be only one version! A man can't die twice !!

Matthew 27:5 - Hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 - And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out

Actually, no. The Bible doesn't have to be only 'one' version to qualify as the Word of God. All God has to do is work through human agents and motivate them to report as best they can, and recollect and reconstruct as honestly as they can, representational accounts regarding the testimony of God's prophets and Jesus' Apostles. That's it. That's all that's needed. There doesn't have to be some kind of singular Book falling from the sky, perfect somehow in every detail. If God wanted that, He should have written it Himself directly, and He didn't do that. Really, all that matters is that what Jesus said will be, will be ...

...and in the end, Judas died, no matter how the accounts are sliced and diced precisely.

JackRT · Jun 25, 2018

JackRT said:
Perhaps we could start by considering whether Judas was an actual literal character in the narrative.

2PhiloVoid just rated this post of mine as "funny". I just want to point out that this was an entirely serious post.

Contradiction - How did Judas die?

Well-Known Member

Quis ut Deus?

Well-Known Member

Quis ut Deus?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Quis ut Deus?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Well-Known Member

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Attachments

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Quis ut Deus?

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads