The Death of Judas (Both Versions of the Story)

[Jagella]

The New Testament includes two versions of the story of the death of Judas. Matthew 27:5 tells us that Judas hanged himself, and Acts 1:18 says that Judas fell head-first and was disemboweled from the fall.

Most people might read these passages and see that there is a conflict between these two stories. Since these two stories are contradictory, at least one of them must be untrue, and we would then know that the Bible has at least one error in it.

Christian apologists cannot tolerate any errors in the Bible or in their beliefs, so they must reconcile these two conflicting stories. But how?

I am acquainted with an apologetic that is popular with Jehovah's Witnesses which they use to resolve the two stories of the death of Judas. According to at least two Jehovah's Witnesses I've spoken to, Judas hanged himself like Matthew 27:5 says, but the rope broke. Judas then fell, and the fall disemboweled him like we are told in Acts 1:18.

Question for Debate: Is this apologetic for the death of Judas plausible?

I can think of at least two reasons why the proposed reconciliation of the paradox of the death of Judas is not plausible. For one thing, nowhere does the Bible say that the rope Judas used to hang himself broke. Matthew tells us Judas hanged himself, and if Judas did hang himself, then hanging was the cause of his death. He could not have died that way if the rope broke.

The second objection I can raise is that if Judas fell headfirst like Acts tells us, then he could not have fallen that way if he hanged himself! Unless, of course, apologists wish to argue that Judas hanged himself by his feet.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Jagella in post #1]

I feel like people lack imagination. Neither verse says the event itself killed him, BTW. Matthew doesn't say Judas hung himself until he was dead. And Acts doesn't say he died from his bowels gushing out, so we actually don't know which event killed him.

It could have gone down either way.

1. Judas hung himself on a tree next to a cliff. The rope broke before he died. His foot got caught on some roots hanging out of the side of the cliff. This turned him around sending him head first down to the sharp rocks below, which gutted him.

2. Judas hung himself. He died. The branch broke. His foot got caught on some roots. This turned him around head first, flying to the rocks below that burst his corpse open.

[Difflugia]

I feel like people lack imagination.

Imagination is only necessary for those turning the stories into something they're not.

Neither verse says the event itself killed him, BTW.

It was probably plague.

Matthew doesn't say Judas hung himself until he was dead.

Matthew wrote that he hanged himself with no other modification. Do you think that Matthew expected us to understand what he wrote? It beggars belief to claim that Matthew intended us to understand that he survived the hanging to later die of plague, for example. If you disagree, perhaps you could find another instance anywhere where an author described someone as hanging themselves without further modification and expected us to come to the conclusion that the victim survived the ordeal.

And Acts doesn't say he died from his bowels gushing out, so we actually don't know which event killed him.

"His middle violently and loudly burst open, expelling his bowels. Later, he died of plague."

It could have gone down either way.

1. Judas hung himself on a tree next to a cliff. The rope broke before he died. His foot got caught on some roots hanging out of the side of the cliff. This turned him around sending him head first down to the sharp rocks below, which gutted him.

2. Judas hung himself. He died. The branch broke. His foot got caught on some roots. This turned him around head first, flying to the rocks below that burst his corpse open.

You certainly don't lack imagination! Unfortunately, you left off all of the other equally probable, but imaginary possibilities, like that Judas later died of plague or that he was assassinated by time-travelling ninjas.

As far as reasonable conclusions go, we have three:

1. Judas committed suicide by hanging. Matthew is right and Acts is wrong.

2. Judas died when his middle burst open. Acts is right and Matthew is wrong.

3. Both Matthew and Acts tell stories of Judas' death for theological reasons rather than recounting an historical event.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #43]

I reject all your ideas, sorry.

"His middle violently and loudly burst open, expelling his bowels. Later, he died of plague."

Or, like I said, he died of hanging and then fell and burst open.

If this event was known to the audience the writers are writing for, there would be no reason to do anything but shorthand. Matthew focused on how he hanged and Luke focused on how he burst open. The people they were writing to knew the whole story, so they only need to hear a snippet to know what is event is being discussed.

I can say the twin towers fell. I don't need to say anything else, and you should know the whole story.

Or someone else could say Terrorists destroyed the twin towers, and equally, you should know the whole story.

[Difflugia]

I reject all your ideas, sorry.

I've yet to see a more concise and accurate summary of Christian apologetics.

"His middle violently and loudly burst open, expelling his bowels. Later, he died of plague."

Or, like I said, he died of hanging and then fell and burst open.

Yes. Both conclusions are equally imaginary because neither reflects what the authors actually wrote.

If this event was known to the audience the writers are writing for, there would be no reason to do anything but shorthand.

You keep making the same argument that your imaginary story details are somehow more reliable than mine. "The branch broke and he fell on sharp rocks" has exactly as much textual support as "invisible space banditos infected him with plague, from which he later died." In your narrative, the only evidence you've offered is that an imaginary audience knew the imaginary details.

Matthew focused on how he hanged

Because that's how Matthew's Judas character died.

and Luke focused on how he burst open.

Because that's how Luke's Judas character died.

The people they were writing to knew the whole story,

Which is that Matthew and Luke were both writing theological narratives that weren't served by the real story of space banditos and plague.

so they only need to hear a snippet to know what is event is being discussed.

But since we don't have that information, your argument is based entirely on speculation. This is the conflation of possible and probable that lay at the core of nearly all Christian apologetics.

I can say the twin towers fell. I don't need to say anything else, and you should know the whole story.

Or someone else could say Terrorists destroyed the twin towers, and equally, you should know the whole story.

And yet, someone will invariably come along and say that the poor victims didn't die from the collapse, but that the branch broke, they fell on rocks, and then they died of plague.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Jagella in post #1]

I feel like people lack imagination.

I'm offended! Not really. However, it seems you missed reading the entire thread because I gave quite an imaginative story in post #8 viewtopic.php?p=975640#p975640

Neither verse says the event itself killed him, BTW.

You're kidding right? The authors mentioning hanging and disembowelment, but expects the reader to infer survival after that? Is that how you use English in modern times?

A: "Oh, poor Fred hung himself last week!"
B: "You don't say! When's the funeral?"
A: "Oh, he didn't die. No, the rope snapped, a gust of wind flipped him head over heals, and he dashed his head on the ground"
B: "My gosh, and that didn't kill him?"
A: "No, after dashing his head he crumpled up and fell into a spike just sitting there. He was disemboweled".
B: "Wow, that was a bad day for Fred. Shall we pop over and visit him?".
A: "Sure, let's go before his wife kills him for peeing on the toilet seat again".

Matthew doesn't say Judas hung himself until he was dead. And Acts doesn't say he died from his bowels gushing out, so we actually don't know which event killed him.

It could have gone down either way.

Or neither could have happened. Maybe he's still wandering around with a neck scar and entrails hanging out since neither of those says he died?

1. Judas hung himself on a tree next to a cliff. The rope broke before he died. His foot got caught on some roots hanging out of the side of the cliff. This turned him around sending him head first down to the sharp rocks below, which gutted him.

2. Judas hung himself. He died. The branch broke. His foot got caught on some roots. This turned him around head first, flying to the rocks below that burst his corpse open.

Naw, not imaginative enough for me. I like my unicorn theory the best!

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #43]

I reject all your ideas, sorry.

"His middle violently and loudly burst open, expelling his bowels. Later, he died of plague."

Or, like I said, he died of hanging and then fell and burst open.

If this event was known to the audience the writers are writing for, there would be no reason to do anything but shorthand. Matthew focused on how he hanged and Luke focused on how he burst open. The people they were writing to knew the whole story, so they only need to hear a snippet to know what is event is being discussed.

I can say the twin towers fell. I don't need to say anything else, and you should know the whole story.

Or someone else could say Terrorists destroyed the twin towers, and equally, you should know the whole story.

IMO, you are only enforcing the notion that there was not an all powerfull, all knowing God inspiring the writing of the Bible. An all knowing, all powerful God would have known how such poorly written texts would be construed down the line and would have inspired more clarity. This goes well beyond just the Judas story as we all know.

[tam]

Peace to you all,

I think that is plausible and good explanation. And because of it, person who is honest, can’t claim Bible has error in this case.

Can an honest person conclude that a hanged man fell headfirst and disemboweled himself?

It depends much of what place it was. I think it is possible that there is a place where one could fall headfirst, if the rope is cut off, or came off. For example, some kind of hill and cliff.

I've been corrected being told that "headlong" doesn't mean headfirst but face-down (a rather subtle distinction considering that the face is part of the head). So according to Acts, Judas fell face-down or in a prostate position.

There does not appear to be any word 'fell' or 'falling' in the verse.

The word being translated as 'falling' is actually a word that means to become (or something similar). I do not know why the word 'falling' is being used.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... lexResults

That sounds like it should mean that Judas 'became' (or something similar) headlong/face down... something that could easily happen if your body fell from having been hung (and perhaps that is how the word 'fall' came into use, but I am just guessing). Depending upon how long a body hung (a few days or a little less in the heat), bloating and swelling will occur and a fall may then cause skin to burst and intestines to spill. That can happen even without a fall, depending upon the conditions.

I read another theory that the word being translated as fall (but meaning 'to become' or something similar) actually comes from the root word that means 'swollen, to swell up'. I do not know if that is correct or not, but it might be worth looking at how the word might otherwise be translated, rather than just say these two accounts are contradictory, therefore, everything is false. Just an idea ; )

Other than the link I posted above that shows the translation word for word, here are a couple articles I read (doing just a quick internet search). I am not saying everything must be correct in these articles, only that they provide some food for thought regarding translation and grammar:

https://avraidire.wordpress.com/2010/07 ... -and-acts/
http://www.bible-apologetics.com/histor ... -judas.htm


Peace again to you all.

[Conversator]

Judas represented Judaism, the enemy of the Church. I seriously doubt he was a historical person, but rather an antisemitic depiction of Jews in general. Whether, Judas committed suicide or spontaneously exploded is beyond the intentions of the two authors, i.e., Judaism was damned by Jerusalem's destruction in 70 CE.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #47]

That doesn't follow.

If God inspires me to write a poem, it doesn't mean God writes the poem through me. It means he moves me to write a poem about a topic. I choose the words I write. I choose how I tell the story for whatever topic I was moved to write about. I am human, so my story will not be perfect. I will use my understandings I have now, which seems correct now as science is, but perhaps 2000 years from now, humans will laugh at our science for how primitive and wrong it was. They might say, hey this guy was very wrong about science.

But they missed the point of my story. It was not to teach science. I used our present scientific understanding of the world and included that in my story. My story was to teach a moral lesson, let's say. The fact that my present scientific understanding of the world turns out to be totally wrong has nothing to do with if God inspired me to write the story.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #43]

I reject all your ideas, sorry.

"His middle violently and loudly burst open, expelling his bowels. Later, he died of plague."

Or, like I said, he died of hanging and then fell and burst open.

If this event was known to the audience the writers are writing for, there would be no reason to do anything but shorthand. Matthew focused on how he hanged and Luke focused on how he burst open. The people they were writing to knew the whole story, so they only need to hear a snippet to know what is event is being discussed.

I can say the twin towers fell. I don't need to say anything else, and you should know the whole story.

Or someone else could say Terrorists destroyed the twin towers, and equally, you should know the whole story.

This is a familiar ploy in apologetics - use the claim as the evidence. Just as with the Nativities (demonstrably contradictory) and also the resurrections. It is to reiterate the claim as though it was the evidence (Judas died) and ignore the contradictions that make the story dubious. If anything, the attempt at sweeping those contradictory aspects under the carpet in a rather blatant way makes us more suspicious.

To reiterate for any who missed it, not only does Judas hang himself in Matthew and fall and burst open in Acts, the priests buy a field to use for burying foreigners and inb the other version, Judas buys it, himself. Despite the efforts (and I have seen many) to prete4nd that one really means the other, it does not.

In addition, the wretched efforts at concocting 'prophecies' should trash the credibility of these writers, even if the stories agreed. So I reject your excuses. Sorry. And it's worth saying again: it doesn't matter that the believers sees the apologetics as enough to tell themselves that it's all true, it will not do for anyone with their minds still ajar.