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.”

[JoeMama]

... need to make up such lies...

...You have to stop being so dishonest...

Moderator Intervention

Cut it out!

______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

I think Transponder's patience with 1213 was justifiably exhausted. When forum members make egregiously absurd claims, others should have the right to allege that an offender is being deliberately and blatantly disingenuous. (I don't dare use the "L" word here.)

[TRANSPONDER]

... need to make up such lies...

...You have to stop being so dishonest...

Moderator Intervention

Cut it out!

______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

I think Transponder's patience with 1213 was justifiably exhausted. When forum members make egregiously absurd claims, others should have the right to allege that an offender is being deliberately and blatantly disingenuous. (I don't dare use the "L" word here.)

Thanks, but while I intended to correct rather than insult, the Moderator is right to do his (or her - I never check) job.

[Purple Knight]

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.

This is the one I pick out as odd.

The usual apologetic is that he got the field from the priests in exchange for the money, hanged himself there, and after some period of decay, his body fell and spilled open.

While I don't buy the usual reconciliation, because I see it as a stretch, there is definitely something odd going on with the Acts recounting. Do people usually burst open when they trip and fall in a field? Is this so believable and ordinary that someone would include it as part of an intentionally made-up account? Doesn't headlong mean he would have split his skull, not his belly? I get that Judas was fat, but fat people aren't overfilled balloons that pop if they have the slightest inclination that a small child, anxiety-stricken woman, or PTSD soldier is about and they can sacrifice their existence to terrify someone for a second.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This is how it works. The skeptic side points up problems in the Bible, the believers explain them, and anything will do, because in their view it is true, however it looks. The bias accusation gets tossed about. That doesn't matter; what matters is the case. I reckon that setting out the timeline shows that even the usual excuses don't work because even trying to make the priests buying the field with Judas' money the same thing as his buying it doesn't work as the timeline refutes it. The apologist could even argue against it (1) but the explanations are too far fetched and rely on making different things mean the same.

Your point is exactly that. It is stretching a point too far that Peter referred to the bursting open but not the hanging that was before it. Add to that the difference between Judas buying the field and the priests buying it and the chronological problem, not to mention the mess of the prophecies, and too much credibility is stretched. Clearly both sides will not agree. So convincing the believer is not the point. It is setting out the case to the ones still questioning, and which of them whose mind is not already made up to believe the Bible, whatever it looks like, will buy the trained explanations of the apologists? That's where the Bible - critical side wins. But only if the general bod knows the arguments. The best help the Believer side has is that the public doesn't know.

I think the public love to see the mighty fallen - If they are not blind supporters of the mighty. I think they will be tickled by seeing the excuses of Bible apologists made to look absurd, frankly. But only if they get to hear it. The only chance the apologist side has is not their apologetics (even if they think it is) but in keeping the public from hearing how poor these apologetics excuses really are.

(1) The anointing, Judas gets miffed and sells Jesus out for money. After the last supper (where he shows that he knows that Judas will betray him) Jesus is arrested. Put on trial and condemned, Judas throws the money back at the priests, then goes and hangs himself. The priests then buy that place where Judas is still dangling for the burial of foreigners. About a month later, his body falls and bursts open and a week or so later, Peter refers to the hanging as falling and bursting open, and the purchase of the field by the priests as Judas buying it. It can be wangled, but is it plausible?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

1. Acts tell that Judas fell, not that Judas died in a fall. Why atheist need to make up such lies to make Bible look contradictory?

2. The word bought would be better to translate acquired or obtained. Judas obtained the field by his betrayal, which is why it is said "bought a field out of the reward of unrighteousness".

I have to address the first point, not that it hasn't really been covered. Yes, weaving the two stories together can be explained as Judas died by hanging himself. Eventually he fell and being a bit past his sell -by date, burst open, but was already dead. Yes, that point is taken. One can also argue that Judas didn't spend his money on that field. He threw the money back at the priests and they bought the field in which he'd been hanging for a month and it was maybe fitting to use it as a burial ground for foreigners as it had been defiled for any other use.

To anyone wanting to believe the Bible, it will do. But the two stories do look like Peter saying that Judas bought that field himself and fell and burst open in it and that was how he died. There is no mention of his hanging himself, which is suspicious considering there are other really unarguable discrepancies between Matthew and Luke, like the nativities and the resurrections. So 'clean hands' makes this look like it is a real contradiction. It is also doubtful his body would be just left dangling for a month, but (with my theist hat on) I can excuse that, too.

However the stories do read like Judas actually bought the field himself. He had to do that before the action of the arrest and trial. Thus the money would be gone before he could throw it back at the priests. While I get the apologetic, wouldn't anyone not determined to believe there is no contradiction doubt that Peter would say that the priests bought the field in which Judas had bought the farm, not that Judas had bought the field with his reward? So the contradictions can be explained away but, is it going to convince anyone who doesn't already want to be convinced?

I recall a deconversion story where a believer read those two stories together and described feeling cold, like he'd had a bucket of ice water tipped over him. He saw it didn't look the same story. If it doesn't look like it works together for a believer, why would it work for a doubter, or anyone undecided?

And of course, there is no reconciling the 'prophecies'. But one can say that is wrong. Ok, it was just Peter's idea and Mathew's idea. It doesn't make the stories wrong. But it does show how these writers wangle their 'prophecies'.

[1213]

....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.

...So the contradictions can be explained away but, is it going to convince anyone who doesn't already want to be convinced? ...

Maybe so. On my behalf it is enough, if there is a possible way to have it without contradiction. As long as it is so, I don't think it can be honestly said Bible has contradiction. And I believe Bible was written by humans. It would not be a problem for me, if there would be a mistake or even contradiction. I just don't want to accept such accusations, if they are only based on how person wants to see the text.

[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.

...So the contradictions can be explained away but, is it going to convince anyone who doesn't already want to be convinced? ...

Maybe so. On my behalf it is enough, if there is a possible way to have it without contradiction. As long as it is so, I don't think it can be honestly said Bible has contradiction. And I believe Bible was written by humans. It would not be a problem for me, if there would be a mistake or even contradiction. I just don't want to accept such accusations, if they are only based on how person wants to see the text.

On the contrary, and I don't want to be nasty because you are doing your honest best within the mental box of faith. I can see that. But you have to understand that "if there is a possible way to have it without contradiction" put through Google translate (Theist to English) comes out as 'any excuse that allows me to believe it could be true". What is at the bottom of it is God and Biblefaith. "It must be true so any excuse or even none is not enough to make me doubt".

Which is why it isn't about you or me. I will not persuade one who will grab any explanation or even 'maybe something will come up' ( you know they use that one) as a pretext to dismiss what seems forensic and courtroom evidence that the claim -story is not credible. And your apologetics will certainly not persuade me. It has been for a long time the hearts and minds which is why getting the message out (in the face of intense and well - funded global Christian evangelism) is of more importance than getting any believer to give up their Dear Faith.

[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?

[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?

Ah. Well, anything can be made up, like some Priest repented and converted and told everything. Or 'someone must have seen', If one takes the view that 'It's all true' then 'There must be some explanation' is going to be enough.

Yet it is a good point. and it links up with this 'fireside tales' apologetic that explains how people all knew these things (They all talked about them after Jesus was gone) but then they argue that not everyone knew everything that happened, so as to explain the omission of important things like the raising of Lazarus, the Transfiguration missing from John and the spear - thrust from the synoptics, the tomb - guard, the penitent thief, the Nativity, the messianic declaration at Nazareth, the best of the parables from anyone but Luke, the important theology of John, all missing from the synoptics.

No. taken together, the excuses will not do. Even minor problems like Jesus arriving (maybe midday) and going straight to the Temple while in John it seems the next morning after breakfast, or Jesus going to Jerusalem with the disciples vs Jesus doing secretly alone, all come cross as what we get for sure with the test - case, the Nativities: they differ because they were written separately (using existing materials common to more than one, and sometimes all four) and of course they will differ in descriptions of the same event, just as witness testimonies are shown unsound when they are interviewed separately.

Their lawyer or advocate may try to laugh it off as slips of memory or 'really the same thing' (one says he threw a brick through a window and pinched the jewellery, the other claims he knocked a bloke down and stole his wallet... well something of Great Price was stolen, so it's the same thing, really...) No, it isn't and no Jury will buy it, which is why we aren't trying to get the lawyer to say 'All right.... my client is obviously guilty', but we talk to the Jury - the bods and lasses out there.

And like the fellow with the ice water bucket, when they know how the gospels read like independently made up stories because they know things thy shouldn't have known and didn't know (or say) things they should, the smart lawyer will not sell them 'There really aren't contradictions, not when you read it properly'.

That it is not eyewitness and is invented stuff (based on existing text) explains everything. And that works perfectly, while trying to wangle together the apparently different accounts of the end of Judas really does not. And I commend this paper to the house.

[1213]

....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.