Gregg

Matthew 27:5
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Matthew says Judas threw the money in the temple and then went and hanged himself. The chief priests then took the money and used it to buy a potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.

Acts says Judas bought a field, where he fell down, split open and died.

OK, here are the best apologetics I can muster for this apparent contradiction:

Acts is merely using poetic language. Judas did not actually keep the money and buy the field himself; nevertheless he still "bought" it because the chief priests used the money he threw into the temple to buy it.

After throwing the money into the temple, Judas went and hanged himself. Several days later somebody noticed the smell, found him, and notified the priests. The priests got somebody with a cart and had the swollen, rotting body cut down. For some reason, they decided to bury him in the foreigner's cemetary, even though it is nowhere indicated that Judas was a foreigner (and frankly you have to wonder why they didn't treat him with more honor, since he helped them get rid of that pesky Jesus--but I guess nobody likes a traitor). Anyway, up on arrival at the field, the cart broke an axle or tilted over or something, and the body fell out and split open.

Afterwards, Matthew decides to write about Judas' death but chooses not to say anything about his body ending up in the field the priests bought with the blood money (he seems more concerned about claiming that the priests buying the field was a fulfillment of prophecy). Then Luke (supposedly the author of Acts) decides to tell us about Judas' (apparently dead) body winding up falling and splitting open in the field, but neglects to tell us how Judas got dead and how his body got to the field in the first place. He also words his story so it sounds like Judas bought the field directly, rather than indirectly.

"Matthew" and "Luke" could write like this because everybody already knew the full story of what happened to Judas anyway (even though the full story somehow never got written down anywhere), and could fill in the blanks.

How did I do, Magus?

Mageth

I think the apologists should look into the two different Judases theory I proposed...

Roland

Is this a serious response or is it tongue-in-cheek? Please tell me the latter.

"Then he [Judas] threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself." Matt 27:5

What person who is honest with himself would read this as "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged HIS HEAD IN SHAME"????????????????????????????????????????

This is why discussing contradictions with apologists is pointless.

Gregg

Indeed. They have apologetics for their apologetics.

Roland

Judas, by the way, is invisible in Christian writings outside the gospels and Acts for about the first hundred or so years after Jesus' alleged death.

moester

I was thinking- Judas may have been mentioned in one of the books thrown out by the founding church fathers.

I wonder how many contradictions could be "fixed" by a quick gander at the Vatican libraries full of heretic writings? Go censorship! woo hooo! -- moe

jbernier

Thanks for this, Mageth. I was about to go look it up on www.greekbible.com but you beat me to the punch. Note, also, that the verb is passive (probably meant reflexively) - thus it has the likely meaning of doing something to oneself. If it simply meant "hanging his head" it would much more likely be in the active tense. Of course, the passive v. active morphology is somewhat redundant given the semantics, anyways.

jbernier

To be honest, if Judas was a real person who really betrayed the person you consider to have been the presence of God on earth would you really want to talk about him that much?

That having been said, I think that the jury must remain out on whether or not Judas was a real person or a literary element used by the gospel writers. I think that the evidence is too ambiguous. My inclination is to say that he was likely real because there is so little moralizing that goes on around his role in the gospels - if he was, indeed, a motif to show what happens to those who betray Jesus I would think that the gospels would make a bigger deal about him. That having been said, this is far from conclusive - or even strong - evidence.

Autonemesis

Nobody's mentioned the two irreconcilable accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2... oh wait... I just mentioned it, and I'm somebody. Never mind.

Magus55

Nope, the context is what shows its not referring to that generation. Jesus was speaking of the generation that sees the end times signs ( like the moon turning to blood). Why whould the Apostles need to tell themselves that they are the generation to see the signs? They knew the Bible wouldn't be finished. This verse was written so the future generation, that sees those signs, will know that this is the generation that shall see the coming of Christ. It is not referring to the 1st Century.

So no, I don't have a bit of a problem.