Judas Contradictions

[JoeMama]

Matthew 27 NIV
The chief priests schemed to arrest Jesus and kill him. Judas Iscariot went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed.
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Acts 1:15-18
With the “blood money” he received for his betrayal, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

The two accounts above contradict each other in a couple of ways.

1. Matthew says Judas died by hanging, while Acts says Judas died in a fall.
2. Matthew says Judas gave the blood money back, while Acts says he spent it.

These two contradictions show that the Bible falsely teaches in some places, contrary to what is claimed in 2 Timothy 3:16:

“All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching.”

[TRANSPONDER]

....But the two stories do look like....

I think that is the difference between fiction and actual witness testimonies. Fiction can always be written so that it is easy to take without difficulties.

Who actually witnessed everything that Judas did in order to be able to write such a detailed account?

Detailed? I think it is not very detailed story. Luke tells that he wrote what he heard from others, he doesn't mention who they were that told him the stories. And the others, I think it is a matter of belief, I believe they were written or told by John, Mark and Matthew.

It is detailed enough to ask the question. Who saw Judas throw the money back at the priests? Who heard the priests' retort? Who heard their deliberations about why the money was spent buying a field? As I said, one has to postulate a priest who converted and told the disciples these details. But it works better if Matthew made it up. Mainly because Acts says nothing about that. In fact it apparently contradicts everything other than the end of Judas. It is the same problem with the nativity and indeed, the resurrection. One can make up hypothetical explanations or just appeal to 'I believe' (we do not know who wrote them) but invention of stories explains these problems better than such apologetics.

[brunumb]

....But the two stories do look like....

I think that is the difference between fiction and actual witness testimonies. Fiction can always be written so that it is easy to take without difficulties.

Who actually witnessed everything that Judas did in order to be able to write such a detailed account?

Detailed? I think it is not very detailed story. Luke tells that he wrote what he heard from others, he doesn't mention who they were that told him the stories. And the others, I think it is a matter of belief, I believe they were written or told by John, Mark and Matthew.

Detailed enough! So, what you are really saying is that we don't know where the account actually comes from, but we must accept it as true and any means we use to smooth out the crinkles is just cosmetic.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. There was another post here: this 'if you do not believe the Bible, you cannot believe any other book' argument. There are problems with histories, yet we believe them - why don't we believe the Bible?'

It is a fair question and the answer I really gave is that we are looking here not at reported history but supposed eyewitness report, or repeating it by John Mark or by Luke the Physician. Matthew is often presented as the most Jewish of the eyewitnesses. Luke as the most historically competent of them. John as a declared eyewitness. They are, it seems accepted as a reliable account and the discrepancies are indeed shrugged off, rather as we do with histories.

As I said about Tacitus and Josephus at Masada. There is evidence that Josephus was right - there are three camps and the assault ramp still visible. Tacitus must have assumed a single camp (guessing details) in reporting the general story. That he reports that Pilate executed Jesus is convincing evidence to me that it did happen. But he says that Pilate was a procurator. He wasn't, the Pilate stone says he was Prefect. This doesn't mean we toss out the history, but it argues that Tacitus was going by assumption, not knowledge. We go by the best evidence, not 'Believe - or not'.

In the same way there is little doubt that there was a battle of Kadesh, and we can credit that the Egyptians were surprised and the Hittites would have won were it not that they fell to plundering the camp and the last Egyptian regiment caught them napping. We may question that Ramesses II was as gloriously brave as the inscription claims, but there is no reason to doubt the Battle happened even though we could wish we had the Hittite version of the story.

We do have both versions with the Assyrian seige of Jerusalem. The Assyrians say they invested the city while king reduced Lachich: "See this? You're next!" and Hezekiah submitted.

The Bible version says that the Assyrians invested Jerusalem, Hezekiah submitted, The Assyrians besieged it anyway and were smitten and Jerusalem was saved. Historians have suggested the smit was camp disease (always a problem with old sieges) or mice eating the tent ropes (that is a guess or rumour for sure) and Jerusalem was saved divinely or by luck. But the Bible account makes no sense. If Hezekiah submitted right away, why the need for a siege? Also the rest of the campaign shows that the army was still strong. So isn't the more credible explanation that the Assyrians are telling the truth here?

It is not 'believe - or not' but assess all the evidence. Make a hypothesis, but be ready to change if something comes up. I won't go on about the 'king David' discussion or the Exodus debate but the way to do it is discussion and question, not blanket acceptance and dismissal of problems, much as the Bible - believers would like it to be.

[1213]

...So, what you are really saying is that we don't know where the account actually comes from, but we must accept it as true and any means we use to smooth out the crinkles is just cosmetic.

All history is a matter of belief. I believe things went as told in the Bible. But, I don't say other must believe it. You are free to reject it, if you want so.

[1213]

...Who saw Judas throw the money back at the priests? Who heard the priests' retort? Who heard their deliberations about why the money was spent buying a field? As I said, one has to postulate a priest who converted and told the disciples these details. But it works better if Matthew made it up. Mainly because Acts says nothing about that. In fact it apparently contradicts everything other than the end of Judas. It is the same problem with the nativity and indeed, the resurrection. One can make up hypothetical explanations or just appeal to 'I believe' (we do not know who wrote them) but invention of stories explains these problems better than such apologetics.

The problem with that is, your opinion may work in your mind, but it is still just your opinion.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Who saw Judas throw the money back at the priests? Who heard the priests' retort? Who heard their deliberations about why the money was spent buying a field? As I said, one has to postulate a priest who converted and told the disciples these details. But it works better if Matthew made it up. Mainly because Acts says nothing about that. In fact it apparently contradicts everything other than the end of Judas. It is the same problem with the nativity and indeed, the resurrection. One can make up hypothetical explanations or just appeal to 'I believe' (we do not know who wrote them) but invention of stories explains these problems better than such apologetics.

The problem with that is, your opinion may work in your mind, but it is still just your opinion.

And the problem with that is the rejection of evaluation of evidence, indifference to use of reason and dismissal of weighing up of probabilities. It may be a matter of 'opinion' to you, but that is opting out of the discussion. Maintaining your 'opinion' in the face of real arguments and questions may seem like a win to you but it really isn't and will not seem like it to anyone but other devoted believers. i hate to labour the point but this is the well - known fingers in the ears, dismissal of evidence and logic after both had been wagged about (1) as support for the bible, initially ('you just have to Understand it and read it correctly') This means coming up with any explanation or if that fails, none, and dismiss the problems with faith, essentially. It is about the best case rather than you admitting it is the best case.



I have mentioned before that the apologetics of the three kinds is arguing on the evidence, then fiddling the evidence and I hope we don't get to the third stage.

(1) Evidence and logic, history and consistency support the Bible. The gospels will stand up in a court of law (I love that one ) and when it doesn't work, evidence and logic go in the bin and it's about belief again.

[Falling Light 101]

.

Even though that Judas had given back the money he received for his participation in identifying Yahashua it was still his money that he earned in an agreement. Judas gave the money back and soon thereafter went to the field and committed suicide ....

in his death two things happened to his body,

1 - - he placed a rope around himself and hung himself

2 - - in the process of hanging himself from a specific height above the ground he fell to the ground headfirst and busted up his body and all his bowels gushed out. 

the money was used to purchase the very field he died in as a place to burry the dead. Judas did not personally make the purchase but the money that belonged to him was used for the purchase.

the idea was to leave the dead body of Judas in the very field he had died in and burry him there, also to take the very money that had belonged to him and apply his money in the purchasing of the field.

much of the Bible is written by many numerous and different authors, one author will provide a set of detail and other authors will provide additional details none of these details are contradicting or in disagreement

- rather they are " EYEWITNESS " accounts and viewpoints of what each author remembers or what they have found or have been told by others., we could take the information from one author and know about an event and understand the authors message and point they make - - but adding additional information from another author - provides even more details about the matter and gives a description of the details involved in the matter written,

[brunumb]

1 - - he placed a rope around himself and hung himself

2 - - in the process of hanging himself from a specific height above the ground he fell to the ground headfirst and busted up his body and all his bowels gushed out.

To fall head first he would have had to hang himself by his feet. Do you think that is at all feasible? hanging by a rope around the neck would result in a feet first fall.

Even when people fall from multi-story buildings, they do not burst open and their bowels do not gush out. Falling a few feet from a tree would likely just lead to broken bones and little else.

[TRANSPONDER]

.

Even though that Judas had given back the money he received for his participation in identifying Yahashua it was still his money that he earned in an agreement. Judas gave the money back and soon thereafter went to the field and committed suicide ....

in his death two things happened to his body,

1 - - he placed a rope around himself and hung himself

2 - - in the process of hanging himself from a specific height above the ground he fell to the ground headfirst and busted up his body and all his bowels gushed out. 

the money was used to purchase the very field he died in as a place to burry the dead. Judas did not personally make the purchase but the money that belonged to him was used for the purchase.

the idea was to leave the dead body of Judas in the very field he had died in and burry him there, also to take the very money that had belonged to him and apply his money in the purchasing of the field.

much of the Bible is written by many numerous and different authors, one author will provide a set of detail and other authors will provide additional details none of these details are contradicting or in disagreement

- rather they are " EYEWITNESS " accounts and viewpoints of what each author remembers or what they have found or have been told by others., we could take the information from one author and know about an event and understand the authors message and point they make - - but adding additional information from another author - provides even more details about the matter and gives a description of the details involved in the matter written,

This is rewriting the Bible. Acts is specific that Judas bought the field himself, it was not bought on his behalf, even if the priests used the money they got back from him. Peter would not say that Judas bought a field with the money (which had to be done before the events after the Last supper) which would mean that he no longer had the money to throw back at the priests. I know it is tempting to say the buying of a field was the same thing, even if it actually isn't. Even if the priests buy the field, where improbably Judas is left swinging until a month later, the rope breaks and (as Brunum says) he breaks his legs falling feet first, not on his head. So I know it is tempting to wangle the stories together, but they really don't wash to say that two definitively different stories are somehow the same, because you don't want to admit they contradict.

As usual, you can profess to believe the 'woven together' account, but what you prefer to believe doesn't matter. Will it convince the bod in the street? Will they take it that Priests buying the field with Judas' money is the same as him buying it? That the rope breaking would result in a headlong fall, assuming he's been left there till the rope broke. I have to undermine the credibility of Matthew and Acts by showing how they fiddled and altered the OT to get prophecies out of it. Not to mention many other cotradictions between these two. At the end, will the Mr Everyman swallow your apologetic? Well, I hope we can ask every one of them.

[Falling Light 101]

..

There could be a number of ways that Judas fell forward, it could be that the rope had broken at some point during or after his hanging and his feet hit the ground firstly - then falling, tilting forward upon a rocky hard surface where his stomach and head landed upon a rocky area

it could be that he hung himself upon a hill

it could be that when they were cutting him down, the person holding him let his body rotten stinky body tip forward and he fell forward and he hit ground and burst , he could have been dead for many days and cut down or the rope had broken

this is not a contradiction or conflicting details it is just the COMMON CONSISTANT basic " STYLE - FORM - MODE and writing style in which the entire Bible is written by many multiple authors and eyewitnesses.

regarding the purchase of the field, there is no contradiction whatsoever LET'S LOOK AT EXACTLY what the scriptures say.

Act 1:18  Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. .... ...... and it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;

the Priests took the money and purchased the very field where Judas had died NOTICE - it was purchased by Judas " with the reward of iniquity " it is not saying that Judas had personally used the literal physical money to make the purchase....

the reward of iniquity is how the purchase was made - it is not saying that Judas literally went and purchased the field but with the reward of iniquity Judas purchased the field because the Priests made the physical purchase of the field in the name of
Judas - the field where Judas committed suicide was purchased with the money that belonged to Judas.