JUDAS’ GRUESOME END

by Glen on 2003-03-23 04:16:38

Both Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:15-19 record grizzly details about
what became of Judas after his betrayal of Jesus. But the details are
very different. In Matthew, Judas abandons the money he received at
the Temple; in Acts, he uses the money to buy some property. In
Matthew, he then went away somewhere and hanged himself; in Acts, he
seems to have fallen in such a way that his body burst open. Both
stories mention a place called the “Field of Blood,” but they have
different explanations for how the field received that name.

The stories are very different — different enough that many skeptics
point to Judas’s death as one of the greatest and most obvious of
biblical contradictions.

___ WHO BOUGHT THE FIELD? ___

But anyone who believes that they are two entirely separate and
contradictory stories will have a very difficult time explaining how
it is that they arose. It is hardly likely that two people sitting
down to make up a revenge story about Judas would both decide
independently to include the purchase of a field known as the Field
of Blood. The most probable way to explain the inclusion of this
detail in both stories is that the field was, in fact, connected with
the death of Judas in some way.

But in what way? Acts states simply that with his reward, Judas
bought a field. Matthew’s Judas buys nothing with the money, instead
throwing the money into the Temple and leaving. But wait. In Matthew,
the priests pick up the money and refuse to keep it. The reason that
they buy the field with it is that they will not accept it back
(Matt. 27:6-7). Thus, both stories are agreed that Judas’s reward
money was used to buy the field in question. Matthew has the chief
priests actually doing the purchasing, but with money that, since
they refused to have it back, could still be considered to be
Judas’s. In either story, the field would technically have belonged
to Judas after the purchase. Acts has simply streamlined the story in
a way which omits the priests altogether. It is a good editorial
choice, since relating the priests’ reasoning in the matter would
take some explaining. The more Jewish Matthew, perhaps, feels more
comfortable on this score.

___ WHAT GROSS END DID JUDAS MEET? ___
But we’re not in the clear yet. On the matter of Judas’s death, it is
Matthew who makes it sound simple. “He went away and hanged himself.”
Matthew gives no indication of where Judas died, only that it was
suicide by hanging. Acts, on the other hand, tells us that Judas died
on that field, but there’s no mention of suicide, instead it sounds
like some horrible climbing accident. “He fell headlong, his body
burst open and all his intestines spilled out.”

Again, it is easy to see why people who are skeptical about the Bible
would see in these accounts some reason for thinking that the authors
were not reporting facts but myths. None of them, however, seems to
notice just how unmythological both these accounts are.

The author Acts in particular does not shy away from spectacular acts
of divine judgement. Just a few chapters later, when Ananias and
Sapphira try to gain status in the church by pretending to give away
all their money, Acts records their death as sudden and clear divine
judgement. There is no accident: first he and then she simply falls
down dead, and Peter clearly announces her immanent demise to her
(Acts 5:5; 9-10). Though neither die, both Paul/Saul and the magician
Elymas are struck blind by God’s hand (Acts 9:4-8; 13:11). And
Herod’s death is similarly attributed to the direct action of God
(Acts 12:23).

If, as the skeptics suggest, the accounts of Judas’s death are merely
made up stories of revenge, how odd it is that they should resist
making up a story in which the hand of God specifically strikes Judas
down.

Mind you, both natural ends are gruesome enough, and this is, I
think, the key to the differences between them. It’s well known that
Deuteronomy 21:23 pronounces “anyone who is hung on a tree is under
God’s curse.” For Jewish Matthew, the suicide plus hanging
combination is a graphic description of how desolate Judas’s end was.

Gentile Luke and his readers however would not necessarily have found
anything terribly offensive or disgusting or sinful about either
suicide (which could be quite honourable) or hanging. But the
Graeco-Roman world would have found the disfigured dead body a rather
inauspicious end.

So have they each laboured to invent a story that their respective
audiences would find suitably horrific? Again, this has to be
rendered unlikely by the complete lack of the supernatural — both a
Jewish and a Gentile audience of that time would enjoy the suitable
divine retribution against such a one as Judas. What is admittedly
unprovable, but must be considered more likely is not that each
author invented a grotesque story for their audience, but rather that
each writer selected the elements of a single story on the basis of
which elements would have the desired effect. If the two stories are
read together and as supplementary rather than against each other and
contradictory, it is not hard to come up with a series of events from
which the authors could credibly have selected the bits that they
did: Matthew more interested in matters relating to Judaism: the role
of the chief priests, the hanging; Acts more interested in the gore
and disfigured state of the body.

Judas refused to keep his money and the chief priests refused to
accept it back, regarding it as still his, they bought the field in
his name and on his behalf. In that field, reminded thus of the
inescapable betrayal, he hung himself. But suppose his body was no
longer hanging by the time that it was discovered, but had fallen
from its suspended position to the ground where the partially rotted
corpse had split open.

___ THE NAME “FIELD OF BLOOD” ___
And if something like that did happen, then the different
explanations for the name are also no problem. Was it called “field
of blood” because it was purchased with “blood money” or was it given
that name because of Judas’s blood?

Imagine an American Football Superbowl game that turns out to be very
enjoyable to watch. The commentator then says, “Well, this really was
a SUPER sunday.” American viewer Mr. X says, “He called it that
because of the Superbowl being played today.” American Ms. Y says,
“He says that because the game was so good.” Are these contradictory?
No.

The field was given the nickname “field of blood.” This was
appropriate in many ways. It was appropriate because it was purchased
with the blood money of a suicide (Matt.); it was appropriate because
the suicide was remarkably messy (Acts).

___ SUMMARY ___

There is no necessary irreconcilable contradiction, rather there is a
quite obvious and simple harmonization. In recording the story of the
death of Judas the betrayer, the two writers show that they are
writing different versions based on the same events by the clear
overlap of unnecessary and insignificant details, like the relation
to the field, which cannot be explained otherwise. The fact that both
stories revolve around this field requires us to look for, if not a
harmonization, at least some explanation of what really happened that
would explain how both stories arose.

Similarly, the writers show that they are recording historical detail
rather than fantasizing or propagandizing by the fact that an obvious
opportunity for supernatural retribution to be written in was not
taken.

Even when the Bible records apparently different stories about the
same events, it seems likely to be trustworthy.