Judas the Iscariot - Biblical Contradictions

[TashMeyer76]

I've been troubled somewhat trying to determine what to believe....here.

The book of Matthew States the following - Matt 27:3-5

Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself.
​

Now if you go to read the following verse - Acts 1:18-19 (by Peter)

Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”

​

The questions I have...

a. Did Judas hang himself or die through holy intervention?
b. Did he return the money to the Pharisees or did he buy land with it?
c. Why are these 2 accounts narratted differently - aren't they supposed to "be the same somewhat?"

 

[mystdancer50]

a. Judas hung himself and it broke Jesus' heart. Realize that Judas would have been forgiven, much as Peter was forgiven, had he not killed himself and rather, had repented. Jesus would have had the disciples summon Judas to meet with the risen Lord, just as He singled out Peter.

b. He tossed the money to the Pharisees but they stated that they couldn't keep it or use it for the temple because it was tainted by the betrayal so they used it to buy a field and using it to bury the poor, called "Potter's Field".

c. Realize that Acts is Peter talking to the others and seeking to replace Judas. I believe that it varies only because Peter was expressing the death of Judas in his own words, just as we do when repeating news of someone's passing. We don't quote the story word for word, most times, but rather use the language that is more familiar to us. Realize, too, that Peter was very passionate and usually spoke out of turn, like most of us did. I think that he was still very angry with Judas and, in order to show this, he worded the hanging in a gruesome way, somewhat to warn the others that whoever they chose to take Judas' place would be expected to do far better than Judas did.

 

[ji]

I've been troubled somewhat trying to determine what to believe....here.

The book of Matthew States the following - Matt 27:3-5

Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself.
​

Now if you go to read the following verse - Acts 1:18-19 (by Peter)

Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”

​

The questions I have...

a. Did Judas hang himself or die through holy intervention?
b. Did he return the money to the Pharisees or did he buy land with it?
c. Why are these 2 accounts narratted differently - aren't they supposed to "be the same somewhat?"

a. No he hanged himself because of self-condemnation.God hates it when people do that.He was forgiven the moment he repented.That is God's Love.If you read the Gospels,the thieves who were crucified with Jesus mocked him according to one Gospel.On another Gospel,it says clearly,as they lay hanging there one of them repented,and listened to what Jesus said.I am glad that he(thief) couldn't move.Or maybe he would have also jumped from a cliff(due to self condemnation) hearing what Jesus said.Forgiveness is a powerful weapon of Love of God.Holy intervention convicted Judas but didn't judge.
Look at Peter.He forsook God and denied him 3 times.But look at what he did in the latter.In course of time,his repentance lead him to seeing the Risen Christ,made him a mighty Apostle and history says because of the uncontainable Love of God he wished and did get himself martyred by hanging upside down on the cross.

b.It's not important what he did with the money.This often happens in our lives.Sometimes we go to others in pursuit of pleasures of this world and those people who are filled with world deceives us because satan rules over them. satan hates Christians.So even when a Christian backslide,satan won't cease an opportunity to destroy him because he is afraid if the Christian goes back to God he is going rise many times stronger and mightier than the previous spiritual state.God does not leave an opportunity to bring a back slider back,and when he returns, God will be more strong in Grace and build him more stronger.If judas didn't betray Jesus,i don't think saul would have become Apostle Paul.(Saul came to Christ after another death.But it was a Blessed Death-the death of Stephen).So i think you know now How much God loved judas,especially when he didn't refrain himself from kissing judas calling him 'Friend' when judas was betraying him.That is the Love of God.And still many people do that in our present times.That money is 'blood-money'.It's a curse.The Land brought with corruption and massacres,are cursed lands.People can repent,but they won't.That's how corporate people around the world get their ticket to hell and eventually to lake of fire.

c. I think based on your question,you are asking why judas is mentioned among the God's faithful.It is because God favors no one.He is equal.He loved them all equally.

 

[Dan58]

The questions I have...

a. Did Judas hang himself or die through holy intervention?
b. Did he return the money to the Pharisees or did he buy land with it?
c. Why are these 2 accounts narratted differently - aren't they supposed to "be the same somewhat?"

A. Judas hung himself
B. The Jews bought the field in Judas' name, on his behalf. It was with the money that had been given to him for his betrayal of Christ and was the same money he threw back at them. The Jews could not use the money since it was blood money and they bought Potter's field in his name. This is why it says that Judas acquired the field, it was his money.
C. Both accounts say the same thing, Matthew just includes more detail.

 

[TashMeyer76]

Thank you - that clears it up.

 

[thecreationtutor]

I've been troubled somewhat trying to determine what to believe....here.

The book of Matthew States the following - Matt 27:3-5

Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself.
​

Now if you go to read the following verse - Acts 1:18-19 (by Peter)

Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”

​

The questions I have...

a. Did Judas hang himself or die through holy intervention?
b. Did he return the money to the Pharisees or did he buy land with it?
c. Why are these 2 accounts narratted differently - aren't they supposed to "be the same somewhat?"

do some research on the internet 30 minutes = do the work yourself if you have this doubt

 

[4enlightment]

I've been troubled somewhat trying to determine what to believe....here.

​

The questions I have...

a. Did Judas hang himself or die through holy intervention?
b. Did he return the money to the Pharisees or did he buy land with it?
c. Why are these 2 accounts narratted differently - aren't they supposed to "be the same somewhat?"

A potter's field is where pottery that a potsherd doesn't need, and so they tossed them in a place. You can't live on a land with broken sharp pieces of pottery lying around; and so the land is considered worthless. From I see that Judas had received the money before the offense and purchase the property, but after the death of Christ, he has given back the property to the original owner of the property and the money he went to the pharisees, and tossed it at the one that has given the money to him, and then he went back to the property that he once has own which most likely that it was a valley with a cliff where the potter has tossed their pottery over into the valley. And it was probably a tree that was on the cliff which Judas has hanged himself on, and like most rotten fruit that falls from a tree, it splatters. But the pharisees didn't wanted to have nothing to do with the money because they had knew that Jesus were innocent of the crime, but instead, they had made it look as if the money hasn't left Judas hands by buying the property that Judas had once own.

 

[NightRevan]

Judas two deaths

There is short answer here (first answer, though look at the rest if you like ).

Also something else to bear in mind, when historians approach historical biographies (I know the gospels are more then just that, but contemporary scholarship has made it clear as a genre they belong with Greco-Roman bioi (or ancient biographies) ) and have two documents say for example Arrian or Plutarch's accounts of Alexander the Great's campaigns (drawing on earlier now lost biographies written in Alexander's generation) and encounter apparent discrepancies, they don't take them as a sign usually that nothing happened, but rather something did unless the two reports outright contradict each other (an example would be, one said Judas repented and rejoined the Twelve alive and well, while another reported he killed himself in remorse). So no matter what, what these two gospels drawing of the various eyewitness reports retained through oral tradition (which we now understand through in societies like the 1st Jewish and Greco-Roman ones to be quite developed and reliable means of transmission, as it was a time many were unable to read or write) would mean is that whatever differences in authorial style and sources used, it means not that nothing happened, but rather something very much did, that being Judas Iscariot killed himself during the that Easter weekend when the Lord was crucified, buried and rose again.

Hope all the posters, and what is here might help a little

 

[dcontroversal]

I've been troubled somewhat trying to determine what to believe....here.

The book of Matthew States the following - Matt 27:3-5

Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself.
​

Now if you go to read the following verse - Acts 1:18-19 (by Peter)

Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”

​

The questions I have...

a. Did Judas hang himself or die through holy intervention?
b. Did he return the money to the Pharisees or did he buy land with it?
c. Why are these 2 accounts narratted differently - aren't they supposed to "be the same somewhat?"

The Pharisees took the money and purchased the field which was attributed unto Judas Matthew 27:6-10

 

[Cycel]

The Pharisees took the money and purchased the field which was attributed unto Judas Matthew 27:6-10

And yet this does not explain the discrepancy between Matthew and Acts. It only ignores it. As you correctly point out in Matthew Judas is said to throw away the reward money which the priests then pick up and use to purchase the field which comes to be called the Field of Blood because, it is said, it was purchased with blood money. In Acts Judas purchases the field himself, but it gains its name because he fell over there and burst open, spilling his blood. Hence it is called the field of blood. The explanations are very different. The other difference is that in Matthew he hangs himself and in Acts he falls over and bursts open. Again, a contradiction.

I understand why believers do not want to acknowledge the presence of contradictions in scripture, but ignoring them or creating fanciful explanations does not make them go away.

 

[Cycel]

In scripture Judas clearly has two different causes of death. In Matthew he hangs himself, but in Acts he topples over and bursts open: "and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out"? Very strange indeed. Doesn't anyone else think this is odd? It seems apparent to me that Matthew and Acts are using two very different accounts for the death of Judas. If memory serves me correct I have seen elsewhere a very similar, but more detailed account of this death of Judas by bursting. When I find it I will post it.

 

[dcontroversal]

And yet this does not explain the discrepancy between Matthew and Acts. It only ignores it. As you correctly point out in Matthew Judas is said to throw away the reward money which the priests then pick up and use to purchase the field which comes to be called the Field of Blood because, it is said, it was purchased with blood money. In Acts Judas purchases the field himself, but it gains its name because he fell over there and burst open, spilling his blood. Hence it is called the field of blood. The explanations are very different. The other difference is that in Matthew he hangs himself and in Acts he falls over and bursts open. Again, a contradiction.

I understand why believers do not want to acknowledge the presence of contradictions in scripture, but ignoring them or creating fanciful explanations does not make them go away.

I did neither and it is also easy to understand why lost men will look for pieces of straw in a barn yard of hay as there are no contradictions in the scriptures.


Having said that, if you are serious about truth why not study it from the original languages as it seems that all accounts put together give the whole story as Judas did indeed hang himself and fell from the tree he was hanging on and burst open.

 

[Karraster]

And yet this does not explain the discrepancy between Matthew and Acts. It only ignores it. As you correctly point out in Matthew Judas is said to throw away the reward money which the priests then pick up and use to purchase the field which comes to be called the Field of Blood because, it is said, it was purchased with blood money. In Acts Judas purchases the field himself, but it gains its name because he fell over there and burst open, spilling his blood. Hence it is called the field of blood. The explanations are very different. The other difference is that in Matthew he hangs himself and in Acts he falls over and bursts open. Again, a contradiction.

I understand why believers do not want to acknowledge the presence of contradictions in scripture, but ignoring them or creating fanciful explanations does not make them go away.

In those days, "to hang" ones' self could be by falling on your sword. (Saul)

 

[Cycel]

In those days, "to hang" ones' self could be by falling on your sword. (Saul)

This is what I would call a fanciful explanation, but yes, I would agree with you that Jesus followers were probably equipped with swords. Interestingly it has been suggested that the name 'Iscariot' is a corruption of the word Sicarii, which I think means knife-man. Appropriate for Judas, yes?

 

[ji]

This is what I would call a fanciful explanation, but yes, I would agree with you that Jesus followers were probably equipped with swords. Interestingly it has been suggested that the name 'Iscariot' is a corruption of the word Sicarii, which I think means knife-man. Appropriate for Judas, yes?

As far i see it,the passage where Jesus says to His disciples to carry sword just before He was betrayed meant was to be equipped in His Teachings.Not literally a sword.Word of God is a sword.But they couldn't grasp what he said.
Especially Peter took it literally.It's a little outside of the topic discussed.Just saying,don't eat me for saying this.

 

[nathan3]

The questions I have...

a. Did Judas hang himself or die through holy intervention?
b. Did he return the money to the Pharisees or did he buy land with it?
c. Why are these 2 accounts narratted differently - aren't they supposed to "be the same somewhat?"

We see he repented. The people he was dealing with Just murdered a innocent person, Christ. And Judas just made a deal with the same people, but threw the money on the floor of the temple in front of them. He couldn't then have brought the field if he wanted nothing to do with that money, also throwing it on the temple floor .

It makes sense those responsible for the Lord's death on the cross, brought the field .

After that, we see Judas hanged and his insides all out. Think about it a moment:

I don't think a person can hang themselves then cut themselves open from neck to stomach . Seems like he had a little help. The translation from the Greek to English around the passages about Judas, is probably what is not allowing it to be more clear for most, as it is for some. From those scriptures there, its enough for me to believe Judas was murdered.

I'll most from the Bible about it in another thread and post a link

Here are some good notes for you to read in a different thread - http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-his-death-bible-study-notes.html#post1404277

 

[Cycel]

I understand why believers do not want to acknowledge the presence of contradictions in scripture, but ignoring them or creating fanciful explanations does not make them go away.

I did neither and it is also easy to understand why lost men will look for pieces of straw in a barn yard of hay as there are no contradictions in the scriptures.

My apology, perhaps you did not notice the apparent contradictions even though they were pointed out by Tash in the part of his post you quoted. Also, I did not mean to imply that you used a fanciful explanation; you did not -- but you do in the next sentence.

Having said that, if you are serious about truth why not study it from the original languages as it seems that...

I wish I possessed that natural gift to learn foreign languages that comes so easily to some.

... all accounts put together give the whole story as Judas did indeed hang himself and fell from the tree he was hanging on and burst open.

I don't accept the notion that contradictory stories can be put together and melded into one coherent tale.

Matthew: Judas reconsidered his actions and returned the blood money to the priests who used it to purchase a field, that came to be known as The Field of Blood because the land was purchased with blood money. He then hung himself.

Acts: Judas purchased the field with the silver coins that he received from the priests and then he fell over and burst open upon the ground. Because of his spilled blood the place came to be called The Field of Blood.

These are two divergent accounts.

 

[dcontroversal]

My apology, perhaps you did not notice the apparent contradictions even though they were pointed out by Tash in the part of his post you quoted. Also, I did not mean to imply that you used a fanciful explanation; you did not -- but you do in the next sentence.


I wish I possessed that natural gift to learn foreign languages that comes so easily to some.





the ground. Because of his spilled blood the place came to be called The Field of Blood.

These are two divergent accounts.

Thanks and accepted... apologize for being mouthy myself....back to the languages and the seeming contradictions...there really are no contradictions as this is how I have always taken the stories together as I had questions as well when I studied thru the first time in 1990...

Judas throws the money back to the feet of the Pharisees
Judas hangs himself
Judas falls from the tree he was hanging in
Judas burst open
the priests use the money to buy the field where Judas hung himself and fell bursting open
The field was attributed unto Judas as it was still his money as the money could not be used by the priests as it was blood money that had been paid to Judas for the sell out of Jesus

This is what all accounts point to....

 

[Karraster]

This is what I would call a fanciful explanation, but yes, I would agree with you that Jesus followers were probably equipped with swords. Interestingly it has been suggested that the name 'Iscariot' is a corruption of the word Sicarii, which I think means knife-man. Appropriate for Judas, yes?

Not fanciful at all. Even secular history speaks of means of suicide.

 

[Cycel]

And Judas just made a deal with the same people, but threw the money on the floor of the temple in front of them. He couldn't then have brought the field if he wanted nothing to do with that money, also throwing it on the temple floor .

Reasonably stated. The priests purchased the field with the silver coins Judas returned to them. The opposing claim from Acts that Judas purchased the field might be true in itself, but this contradicts Matthew's account of events.

Either account of the land purchase might be true, but not both of them. In this I think we are in agreement?