The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?
Skeptics accuse Christians of not paying attention while theyâre reading their Bible. If they didnât rush through their daily devotional, theyâd catch some obvious contradictions. One of the more famous of these contradictions is the two accounts of the death of Judas. Hereâs Biblical scholar and critic Bart Ehrman:
âThe two reports give different accounts of how Judas died. However mysterious it may be to say he fell headlong and burst open, at least that is not âhangingâ oneself. And they are flat out contradictory on two other points: who purchased the field (the priests, as per Matthew, or Judas, as per Acts?) and why the field was called the field of blood (because it was purchased with blood money, as Matthew says, or because Judas bled all over it, as Acts says?â
Jesus, Interrupted p. 53
Ouch. Both of these accounts canât be reconciled. Or can they?
Reading the Texts
Letâs read the passages for ourselves. Hereâs Matthewâs account:
âThen when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, âI have sinned by betraying innocent blood.â They said, âWhat is that to us? See to it yourself.â And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.
But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, âIt is not lawful to put them into the treasury since it is blood money.â So, they took counsel and bought with them the potterâs field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore, that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.â âMatthew 27:3-8
And hereâs Lukeâs version:
âNow this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness and falling headlong he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.â â Acts 1:18-19
One Proposed Solution from A Scholar
Noted New Testament Scholar I. Howard Marshall suggests the following solution:
- Judas hanged himself (Matthew.), but the rope broke, and his body was ruptured by the fall (possibly after he was already dead and beginning to decompose).
- What the priests bought with Judasâ money (Matt.) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency. (Acts)
- The field bought by the priests (Matt.) was the one where Judas died. (Acts)
Now you might say that this scenario smacks of harmonization, but is it really all that implausible? Letâs think about it for a sec.
Dealing with Judasâ Death
Judging by the text, Matthew seems to focus on Judasâ suicide. Lukeâs focus is on the final state of Judasâ body. According to Jewish laws and customs, the Jews would not have wanted to go near a dead body. (Numbers 19.11) This would be especially true when that dead body belonged to a traitor.
But how would someone who hanged himself have their guts burst out? This gruesome story doesnât seem to make a lot of sense. Or does it? The Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology says:
âBetween 3 and 7 days, ever-increasing pressure of the putrefying gases associated with colliquative changes in the soft tissues may lead to softening of the abnormal parietes resulting in bursting open the abdomen and thorax.â
P. 91
So, we actually do have some medical data that fits with what we read in Matthew and Luke. Someone eventually cutting Judasâ corpse down, or the rope giving out, would explain how his body would have burst on the ground. Therefore, Matthew and Luke arenât contradictory; theyâre better viewed as complimentary. Each account ties up a loose end of the other.
There are also cliffs that overlook the valley of Hinnom. Those cliffs could very well be the place where Judas hanged himself, and his dead body fell. Falling against the rocks, this could explain why he fell facedown.
But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?
Jewish law says that it was wrong for the priests to keep Judasâ blood money. (Numbers 35:31) Why then was it OK for them to buy a field with it? Lukeâs story gives us a possible answer: it wasnât. Thatâs why the priest bought the field in Judasâs name.
The priests were acting as intermediaries. Them purchasing the field in Judasâ name was as if Judas bought it himself. You might say this is special pleading, but we see this elsewhere throughout the Gospels. See for yourself:
- Matthew 27:59-60 âAnd Joseph (of Arimathea) took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.â
Did Joseph, a rich man and a member of the Sanhedrin, bury Jesus himself? No, he had his servants do it.
- Mark 15:15âSo Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.â
Did Pilate, a Roman prefect, grab a whip and get himself bloody scourging Jesus by himself? Again, the answer is obviously no. He sent his soldiers to do it.
- John 4:1-2âNow when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)â
Here John says that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than John but then stops to clarify that Jesus didnât himself baptize; it was the disciples. This type of ârepresentationâ speech is also found in the alleged contradiction of the healing of the Roman Centurionâs servant, which I wrote about here.
Plus, the priests had the motivation to do this. It avoids the paper trail that ties them to buying a field with blood money. This would have been a ritual impurity for all the public to have seen.
The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.
You might say this is all conjecture. But itâs impossible to avoid conjecture if you want to suggest what may have happened. But a classical historian wouldnât see these discrepancies and be troubled by them. We have a strong historical tradition of the death of Jesusâ betrayer. And we have an event associated with a specific field named. These differences donât undermine their historical value.
Notice also that each Gospel writerâs account is consistent with their profession. As a tax collector, Matthew is interested in legal and financial details that are involved with Judasâ death. Heâs the only gospel writer that talks about the thirty pieces of silver. Lukeâs a physician. He gives us more of an autopsy report.
These accounts arenât hopelessly contradictory. In fact, they complement each other quite nicely.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (DVD)
Erik Manning is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Heâs a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OuSZHA
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!