(An attempt to rationalize the different accounts of Judas' death
THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:
Acts 1:18 tells us, "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." However, Matthew 27:5-7 reads, "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them a potter's field."
Is there a contradiction?
RESPONSE:
Luke indicates that Judas purchased it, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is not a contradiction, but a difference of perspective. Indeed, the chief priests conducted the transaction for the field, hoever, it was not with their money. Nor would they have claimed the money. In verse 6, the abominable nature of this money is spoken of. They would not permit it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of in some fashion. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field (nor did they want the money or the field). The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was his field.
There is no contradiction.
49 comments
Fundie Beliefs #3 - Biblical Inerrancy
The Bible is inerrant. That means it never makes a mistake. Seeming inconsistencies always have simple explanations. For example, in Matthew, Judas threw away the money and hanged himself; but according to Acts, he bought a field with the money and fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Now some smart-aleck, college-educated atheist liberals have suggested this is an error. No. The explanation is simple: obviously, he hanged himself in his field, then the rope broke, or maybe his corpse rotted and fell, and then he burst open from the fall. Or maybe he was carrying a rope, tripped and fell and hanged himself and burst open at the same time. Or maybe the Greek word for hanging really means falling on the sword. And remember, the priests bought a field with the money Judas threw away in Matthew’s version (and he waited until the conclusion of the transaction to hang himself), so technically, Judas "bought" a field in both stories*. Only an idiot would fail to see these are all obvious explanations.
* It’s suspected that a lawyer came up with this latter explanation ...
You missed the point- try explaining how those two verses- which are describing two blatantly different ways of dying!- are not contradictory!
For pity's sake- it's a contradiction worthy of an introductory case in Phoenix Wright!
I didn't take your wallet; it was a difference of perspective. You handed me your wallet of your own free will, which was entirely unrelated to the gun I was pointing at your spleen. Therefore you weren't robbed, and can't press charges.
Or it could be that the authors of Acts and Matthew both thought they were writing the "real" story of Jesus and never for a minute expected that anyone would be fool enough to try and put their story together with others into a New Testament.
Naw, no one would ever believe that!
"There is no contradiction."
Except that there is. You can't say that Judas bought the field if the chief priests bought it. Nor did you address the two differing accounts of how Judas died.
I love the lengths of how bible apologists always try to show how the bible never contradicts itself. The more complicated & convoluted their explanation gets reminds me of why I stopped believing in Christianity. I simply got tired of jumping through all the mental hoops that these people seem to never get tired of.
"RESPONSE: Luke indicates that Judas purchased it, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is not a contradiction, but a difference of perspective."
In other words, both books were written by different people, neither of whom was actually present when Judas supposedly topped himself, and aren't the infallable word of God at all. Gotcha.
I think the contradiction of how Judas died is a much more glaring contradiction. Funny how the response completely ignores that point.
Plus, "the field was purchased by means of Judas" is a deceptive statement, given that Judas had no intention of purchasing the field and had given up his rights to the money once he cast it away. The transaction was entirely that of the chief priests, and the only thing Judas had to do with it was basically giving the money away.
Except that Jesus, after rising, appeared to "the eleven disciples". Later, he showed himself to the one who wasn't there, Thomas (doubting Thomas), who then believed in the resurection.
Therefore, Judas couldn't have killed himself by this point in the story. He was one of "the eleven" that saw Jesus.
Which was rather nice of Jesus. Considering the Judas has been unfairly cast in the evil role. I mean, without Judas doing what he did, Jesus couldn't have died the way he did, and the whole purpose of his existance would have been for naught.
Or, the writers pieced together bits of legened and none of it actually happened. In which case, they all got bits of their zombie novel from different sources, and Judas has still been unfairly cast as evil.
Yay Judas!
I've heard the phrase 'mental gymnastics' before but never 'illiterate gymnastics'.
There's a reason for this. See above. This is 'nonsense' and only proof you don't understand the word 'Contradiction'
His logic is impeccable. Think about it. It means if you give someone a money, and they buy something with it then actually you're doing the buying.
We can buy beer by proxy through children, and that's legal.
Now, while a little refrigerated, that logic isn't horrible, just not good. However, did Judas get disemboweled or did he hang himself?
Frankly, looking at this text, I think the bursting asunder was a later addition. There is no direct logical progression from buying a field to tripping and falling so hard that you explode (also, I'm pretty sure you'd need a sheer drop from a significant height onto hard rocks to achieve such an effect - both rather hard to come by in the average field).
The placement of the semicolon and the structure of the sentences also very strongly suggests amendment - it seems quite plausible that early versions simply said Judas bought a field (a potent status symbol) with his blood money and left it at that, in the confidence that this callousness and greed would suitably appall readers, but later someone was unsatisfied and decided it needed immediate and bloodthirsty retribution added to it so people could feel good about Judas getting his comeuppance.
As for the fundie's response to the apparent contradiction, that's desperate flailing even by the standards of all the other desperate flailing we've seen fundies do over these verses.
Pathetic!
So by a change of perspective, Judas is a Chief Priest!
Also, there are two different versions of Judas's end. They do not mesh. Now riddle me that!
Come on Drax, that is simple. You see...he tried to hang himself, but the rope broke, and he burst his bowels on the fall. See how perfect gawds babble is?
I guess next time some fundie is telling me I will be going to hell, perhaps I will use this convoluted "perspective" argument with them. Afterall, those bearing false witness are going to hell, and anybody that makes such an answer about Judas is obvioulsy a false witness. So they are the actual sinners, and I am on the fast track first class ticket to heaven.
Hey, NonProphet, what the hell did cheesecake automatic fishtable ever do to you?
Comparing it to these retards... that's just cruel, man!
Well, the quote doesn't explain it but begs the question.
Clearly, however, Judas fell, burst open, gushed his bowels out, wrapped his colon around his neck, threw it over a tree branch, and hung himself. No contradtion, QED.
i'm reminded of that simpsons episode where they were asked "what is the deal with smithers?" and they showed a bunch of clips of him being gay for burns and replied, [s you can see, waylon smithers is mr burns' assistant." do they really think that we think the contradiction in those verses is over the land purchase?
For those who complain that they didn't resolve the contradiction about Judas's death, it's resolution is just in another section
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20011118.htm
And yes it's just as stupid as everyone thought.
If Judas hung himself, and then the rope broke, causing him to fall and burst open, he still bloody hung himself and the description in Acts is wrong!
If I leave $10 on the sidewalk and somehow find out that someone picked it up and bought a sandwich with it, I could not jump in and say that was my sandwich.
Also, how the hell did they know how he got the silver in the first place?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.