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.

[1213]

Rather than just flat out claiming it's plausible, please explain HOW it's plausible. This should be interesting...

I think it was said in the opening post. Judas hanged himself, the rope was cut off, or came off and Judas fell.

[1213]

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.

If you imagine it happened on flat field, then it could be really difficult, but if person can hang himself in prison cell to a bed like Epstein, I think this should be no problem.

[Jagella]

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. If he hanged himself like Matthew says, and the rope broke, then as he fell he would have had to lean forward getting into the prostate position before he hit the ground. In order to have enough time to do so, he would have had to hang himself from a very substantial height.

Consider also that Matthew and Luke were either not aware of the entirety of this story or didn't bother to tell the whole story.

If you imagine it happened on flat field, then it could be really difficult, but if person can hang himself in prison cell to a bed like Epstein, I think this should be no problem.

I don't doubt that Judas could have hanged himself. What seems unlikely to me is the series of events that would be necessary for Judas to have fallen after being hanged and then have his abdomen ruptured causing his innards to spill out. If we really think about the apologetic used by Christians to reconcile the two suicide stories in Matthew and Acts, we see how improbable that apologetic is likely to be true. It's comparatively very straightforward to just conclude that one or both of the stories of the demise of Judas was made up independently of the other story explaining the discrepancy.

If Judas did die so violently, I find it to be tragic and nothing to laugh at.

[Difflugia]

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.

Try to keep in mind that we're not discussing the plausibility of a single story that says that a hanged man fell and his bowels came out. This is two separate stories. One says that a man hanged himself, but didn't mention falling or intestines. The other says that a man fell and his guts exploded, but without a suicide or hanging.

The most important question isn't if the composite story could have happened, it's if a combined event could plausibly result in two stories that are so completely different. Let's assume the harmonization story that Judas committed suicide and then squirted guts. Does it make sense that Matthew left out the guts? Sure. The suicide is the most important detail. Acts didn't mention the suicide, though. That's the most important detail of the event. It's absolutely implausible that Luke had the same event in mind, but didn't find the suicidal hanging to be a noteworthy part of the overall death narrative. The only reason I can think of that Luke wouldn't mention the suicide is if the story Luke knew didn't have a suicide.

It's kind of like Mark neglecting the virgin birth. It's just a minor detail, right? Or that Jesus cleansed the Temple both at the beginning and end of his ministry, or gave a sermon on the mount and then the same one on the plain.

[Jagella]

Try to keep in mind that we're not discussing the plausibility of a single story that says that a hanged man fell and his bowels came out. This is two separate stories. One says that a man hanged himself, but didn't mention falling or intestines. The other says that a man fell and his guts exploded, but without a suicide or hanging.

That's correct. Not only is the "combined" story improbable, but the way the story is reported is improbable as well. Why two writers would record the same story while leaving out very important details is beyond me.

The only reason I can think of that Luke wouldn't mention the suicide is if the story Luke knew didn't have a suicide.

If Luke knew of a suicide on the part of Judas, then he would have included that suicide attempt in his story. So Luke obviously had no idea that Judas hanged himself. I don't see how such ignorance would be possible on Luke's part if he really knew how Judas died unless Matthew is wrong about how Judas died.

The same goes for Matthew. If he knew that Judas was disemboweled, then he would have included that element in his story. He didn't include that element. So Matthew knew nothing of Judas being disemboweled. So either Luke is wrong and there was no disembowelment, or Matthew didn't really know how Judas died.

So the only sensible conclusion to come to here is that either Matthew or Luke is wrong about the details of the death of Judas.

It's kind of like Mark neglecting the virgin birth. It's just a minor detail, right? Or that Jesus cleansed the Temple both at the beginning and end of his ministry, or gave a sermon on the mount and then the same one on the plain.

One apologetic I've heard is that the Jewish people in first-century Israel did not include a lot of detail in their writings. If that's true, it doesn't help much. Regardless of why the New-Testament writers left out a lot of important details, we still don't have those details, and without them, we have a tough time judging the accuracy of what we are reading.

[1213]

…we see how improbable that apologetic is likely to be true. …

I think the question was could it be plausible. Even if it is improbable it can be plausible.

…If Judas did die so violently, I find it to be tragic and nothing to laugh at.

I agree, I don’t laugh, or even smile to anyone’s death.

[1213]

…Try to keep in mind that we're not discussing the plausibility of a single story that says that a hanged man fell and his bowels came out. This is two separate stories. One says that a man hanged himself, but didn't mention falling or intestines. The other says that a man fell and his guts exploded, but without a suicide or hanging…

In the opening post the question was: “Is this apologetic for the death of Judas plausible?�. I have tried to answer to that. I think it is plausible. But I understand if you think it is improbable.

… The only reason I can think of that Luke wouldn't mention the suicide is if the story Luke knew didn't have a suicide…

Luke tells in the beginning of his story:

Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus; that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4

Now, according to that, Luke wrote what he heard from eyewitnesses. This means, it is possible that Luke doesn’t have all, if he didn’t hear all. It is also possible that Luke was like common atheist and thought, “they both can’t be correct at the same time� and wrote only that part that he thought was believable.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 27 by 1213]

... or Luke was perfectly aware of what happened, knew full well that both details could logically be harmonised (by rational people who are not rabid atheists whose critical thinking skills have been frazzled by the sparks from the axes they are busy grinding...) but chose for whatever reason not to include it in his narrative. Why does this possibility not get a mention? Because such an editorial decision is so utterly impossible it can't even be mentioned when considering the options?!

Luke is in all probability the writer of Acts, which includes Peter's recounting of the noisy and gruesome end of Judas. Unless one is suggesting Judas was murdered (or accidentily died while out for a peaceful walk to contemplate the wonders of creation), it seems the writer of Acts at some point was fully aware of Judas suicide. It's unlikely there were any Christians that didn't, both because it no doubt would have been common knowledge in the Christian community and, if available evidence is to be believed, Matthew's gospel was already long in circulation. So while there may well have been details that came to light between the wrting of the gospel of Luke (approx 56CE) and the book of acts (probably no more than 5 or six years later), there's absolutely nothing in the historical record to suggest Luke saw any difficulty with either Matthew's narrative or his own understanding of events.




JW

[Jagella]

…we see how improbable that apologetic is likely to be true. …

I think the question was could it be plausible. Even if it is improbable it can be plausible.

I'm sorry if my English confused you, but plausible and probable mean about the same thing.

Anyway, when determining what has happened, we rarely have enough evidence to be certain. As a result, we try to come up with the most probable explanation we can. So let's compare the following two scenarios that we can use to judge the stories of the death of Judas found in Matthew 27 and in Acts 1:

• 1. Apologists are correct. The rope Judas hanged himself broke, and he fell to his death face-down. His bowels gushed out as either a result of the fall or from the heat. Matthew reported only the hanging but not the fall or the disembowelment. Luke reported only the fall and the disembowelment but not the hanging. Neither Matthew nor Luke bothered to report the rope breaking.
  2. Either Matthew's or Luke's version of the death of Judas is a fabrication, and possibly both are fabrications. The discrepancies in their stories result from their not knowing or not bothering to use the details included in the other's version of the story.

I think that 1 seems unlikely because it involves a series of unlikely events. I think 2 is much more believable because the two versions of how Judas supposedly died are just too different to be sensibly reconciled.

[Jagella]

... or Luke was perfectly aware of what happened but chose for whatever reason not to include it in his narrative. Why does this possibility not get a mention? Because such an editorial decision is so utterly impossible it can't even be mentioned when considering the options?!

If Luke was aware of the details Matthew included in Matthew's version but left them out of the version of the story in Acts, then Luke was a very sloppy historian. Although it is possible that Luke would omit Matthew's details, it is not likely that he would do so.

I would point out that Luke is in all probability the writer of Acts which includes Peter's recounting of the noisy and gruesome end of Judas, so unless one is suggesting Judas was murdered, it seems the writer of Acts at some point was fully aware of Judas suicide.

In that case Luke appears to be telling us that Judas did himself in by leaping forward to disembowel himself. That's not a hanging.

Anyway, my point is that it's possible to go to great lengths to harmonize these stories. With enough ingenuity almost any apparent contradiction can be reconciled. However, doing so will probably not result in the most likely or sensible explanation. In this case it's much easier and simpler to just accept these stories as contradictory.