How exactly did Judas die?

Did Judas hang himself? Or did he fall to his death?

I'm ok with either. The problem is that both are mentioned in the Bible.

Death by hanging

Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Matthew 27:5

and

Death by falling
Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
-Acts 1:18

So which is it?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I think he hung himself , but after the hanging, his weight could not hold him and he fell.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


well I read somewhere that he went into some field and sliced his guts open and died... I am sure it is in the bable....



oh yeah, just read the OP's post and the second one is what I read. Could be anything though, the bable has been changed that many times

I think he hung himself form an Olive tree if memory serves me correct.

Originally posted by andy06shake
I think he hung himself form an Olive tree if memory serves me correct.

edit on 20-1-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

well it wouldn't be a fir tree, obviously



i keel myself

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

I think he hung himself , but after the hanging, his weight could not hold him and he fell.

That would be my understanding.

Often, the apparent inconsistencies in the biblical narrative are readily resolved when one realizes that the same story is often told by different people. As is always the case, different witnesses will have varying perspectives.

On this instance, it could well be that one witness (Matthew) simply recalled the straightforward fact that Judas hung himself, while the other (Luke) was so appalled by the fact that his guts burst open when the rope broke and he fell, that this is simply what predominated in his memory. Considering that Luke was a physician, that might follow.

Hence, we get a bigger and clearer picture from a multiplicity of witnesses than we would from one witness.

reply to post by rainychica


I think wee use them Fir trees for Xmas time, Jesus's birthday if we are to believe the Catholics. So no it cant be a Fir tree im afraid. LoL

Point being the New Testament is so badly written.... its impossible to know how exactly Judas killed himself.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Point being the New Testament is so badly written.... its impossible to know how exactly Judas killed himself.

Badly written? How so?

It is a collection of documents written by various people over an extended period of time, in different places and from different perspectives. Yet it is cohesive and holds to theological and philosophical integrity.

I'd bet I've spent more time than you sounding out its depths. I am qualified to say this.

reply to post by incoserv

Badly written? How so?

Tell me how Judas died.

Was it death by hanging? Or was it death by falling from a high place?

And try substantiating your reply with a direct quote from the bible.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by incoserv

 

Badly written? How so?

Tell me how Judas died.

Was it death by hanging? Or was it death by falling from a high place?

And try substantiating your reply with a direct quote from the bible.

edit on 20-1-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

It helps to actually read the thread...

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


It was niether, he was one of the two other criminals crucified with Christ.The one that cursed him out.Hung himself as in our expression of shooting yourself in the foot. Meaning when he threw the silver coin's back at those who gave it to him.He was arressted and crucified along with Christ and Simon.The Simon who was carrying the cross behind Christ.He was not carrying the same cross as Christ or helping him.He was carrying his own cross behind him.It was Simon the apostle.He came to rescue Christ and was captured.He was carrying his own cross and was the third crucified that day.The second nameless alledged criminal.
People don't realize that Peter hated Christ, Peter turned his back on Christ. Peter was Peter Iscarot.Judas's father.
Peter cursed Christ for the death of his son and went on to found his own Anti-Christ religon.Hence the patron saint of Rome.You know those who crucified Christ in the first place.Bit upside down is it not? Hmmm much like Peter Matyring himself with a upside down crucifixion.Thiesis and anti-thiesis.

With the exception of what I have said about Peter, read the crucifixion scenes again and you will see it with new eye's.Eye's to see and ear's to hear.As for Peter, you can find him referanced as Iscarot in one sentance.

Also Judas=
Spilled his gut's = Gave up Christ to authorities.
Bought the farm with his silver = Kicked the bucket.
Cursed farm/land where nothing would grow = Graveyard/Skull Hill

Even written in different tongue and time,nothing much has changed in language or meaning.People over reach.
Now read it again.

Judas was like Rasputin. He threw himself from a great height and burst open, then got up and dusted himself off, then hung himself, then later walked home to eat dinner. Even though Judas is now a metaphor for "dick" and "EPIC FAIL", he probably didn't think they were going to kill the guy, just give him some more promotion. He's not the fall-giuy (another play on words for the OP) for the inner-space-opera, the priests and romans would have found Jesus anyway and played out the scene. It's not like Jesus was hiding out, he pretty much jumped the shark when he messed with the moneychangers.

The problem is that both are mentioned in the Bible.

Why is that a problem? The point of the New Tesatment is that it was written by men. That is necessary for it to be a historical document.

The Koran, in contrast, doesn't aspire to historical status. Christianity is a historical religion, offered for its historical witness. Koran is an extra-historical religion, offered for tis founders' alleged visionary experiences.

Which you prefer is up to you, but they are dissimilar not only in their religious content, but in their incompatible conceptions of what religion is.

In any case, Matthew is the only Gospel that treats the matter of Judas' death, suicide by hanging. Acts says that Peter told the others about Judas dying in a different accident; it doesn't say whether or not Peter's report is factually correct, and Peter doesn't say why he believes that it was correct. Thus, there is no contradiction within the New Testament on this point.

BTW, there are actually three well-known proto-orthodox Judas end-stories. Papias, a Christian bishop whose life spans the turn of the Second Century, reported a tradition that Judas died in a traffic accident. There is also a heretical "Gospel of Judas," whose conceit of being written by Judas obviously wouldn't allow it to include his death, but I am told that it depicts Judas dreaming of his death by stoning at the hands of his former colleagues.

Obviously, then, it is not a Chrisitan tradition to sweat what people wrote in the New Testament about secondary and functional characters. In this case, there is no intracanonical contradiction to sweat anyway.
-

reply to post by incoserv

Often, the apparent inconsistencies in the biblical narrative are readily resolved when one realizes that the same story is often told by different people. As is always the case, different witnesses will have varying perspectives.

When different people tell the same story with contradictory accounts there is a problem.

There is a contradiction not just with how he died, but also with regard to the 30 silver pieces.

In one account, Judas throws the silver back at the priests and went and hung himself.
In the other account, Judas used the same silver.... "wages of iniquity" to buy the field where he "fell headlong" and was found with his bowels open.

Either he threw the silver and went and hung himself.

OR

He kept the silver and bought the field they found him dead in.

It cant be both.

On this instance, it could well be that one witness (Matthew) simply recalled the straightforward fact that Judas hung himself, while the other (Luke) was so appalled by the fact that his guts burst open when the rope broke and he fell, that this is simply what predominated in his memory. Considering that Luke was a physician, that might follow.

Its not a "straightforward fact" as you say. And nowhere in the "death by falling" account does it say there was a rope or hanging involved. You are simply asserting that without any biblical backing.

reply to post by eight bits


My point is that if the bible contains a contradictory accounts on a mans death right, then people reading that book have a genuine problem.

Like I posted earlier.... another thing to note is that there is a contradiction with regard to the 30 pieces of silver that Judas was paid.

In one account, Judas throws the silver back at the priests and went and hung himself.
In the other account, Judas used the same silver.... "wages of iniquity" to buy the field where he "fell headlong" and was found with his bowels open.

Both accounts are incompatible.

So surely, Judas couldn't have both thrown the silver AND kept it. So what actually happened?

if there are such glaring contradictions in the account of Judas' death, how can Christians be so certain that other details are not messed up.

My point is that if the bible contains a contradictory accounts on a mans death right, then people reading that book have a genuine problem.

I understood your point. My reply was that most of the people who read the historical portions of the book as a religious text don't believe that it was dictated by God, but rather that various authors have compiled their own and other witnesses' and teachers' recollections of events.

Judas' death is a secular event. What Peter told others about how Judas died is another secular event. There is no contradiction to report that Judas died by hanging himself, and that Peter thought that Judas had died in a farming accident.

Similarly, what Judas did with his payment is a secular event. What Peter told others about what Judas did with the money is another secular event. There is no contradiction to report that Judas gave the money back for the Temple to buy land, and that Peter thought that Judas had spent the money to buy the same land himself.

Look at John 21: 20-24, where an apostolic report about Jesus is contrasted with what actually happened. Peter is implicated in that mix-up, too.

You have made no discovery, but rather once again have confused an individual revelation recited verbatim with a group of men discussing among themselves, in their own words, a collective and public revelation.

if there are such glaring contradictions in the account of Judas' death, how can Christians be so certain that other details are not messed up.

So what if the details are messed up? Christianity, in it majority forms, is a humanistic religion. People are expected to use their reading comprehension skills to discern what happened from reports about what happened. Discernment includes separating the important from the incidental, and tolerating that inconsequential details may be left unresolved. This is unavoidable in a religion that is based on historical events and followed by non-witnesses, as Christianity is.

In other words, maybe the author of Acts correctly reported Peter's words about Judas, and Peter was right, while the author of Matthew was wrong. Maybe it was some other way around, or maybe both accounts are correct as written, but in fact Peter in real life was mistaken. What has any of that to do with Jesus?

Only a minority of Christians think it matters to Jesus what somebody believes about him in much detail. I'm unsure even those folks think it matters to Jesus what anybody believes about Judas, much less what somebody believes Peter thought about Judas, at a particular meeting.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by incoserv

 

Often, the apparent inconsistencies in the biblical narrative are readily resolved when one realizes that the same story is often told by different people. As is always the case, different witnesses will have varying perspectives.

When different people tell the same story with contradictory accounts there is a problem.

If you ask two people what kind of vehicle I drive, one might say, "He has a red automobile." The other might say, "He drives a Dodge Dakota."

Now, are these two people telling the same story with inconsistencies? No, they are both right, though they each tell only part of the story; the part that most impressed them, individually.

By listening to both of their stories and putting them together, we know that I drive a red Dodge Dakota. No inconsistencies there. Different perspectives, different impressions, different parts of the same story that, together, make up a whole.

How is that a problem?

There is a contradiction not just with how he died, but also with regard to the 30 silver pieces.

In one account, Judas throws the silver back at the priests and went and hung himself.
In the other account, Judas used the same silver.... "wages of iniquity" to buy the field where he "fell headlong" and was found with his bowels open.

Either he threw the silver and went and hung himself.

Chapter 27 of Matthew says:

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers.

The biblical narrative clearly states that the chief priests took the money and purchased the potter's field. The account in Acts says, "Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." The field was purchased with Judas' money. This is why the chief priests refused to return the money to the temple treasury: it was "blood money." Effectively, his money bought the field, and he died in the same field that his own blood money had purchased. Though he may not have made the transaction, the money was his. He was directly responsible for the acquisition of it.

As I read through the biblical narrative, I see instances where the content is so condensed that details that do not bear on the core of the story are left out, or perhaps the reader is assumed to have knowledge about events that, at the time of writing were, perhaps, common amongst readers. I think this is an instance of that very "problem."

Its not a "straightforward fact" as you say. And nowhere in the "death by falling" account does it say there was a rope or hanging involved. You are simply asserting that without any biblical backing.

Neither does it say that there wasn't a rope or hanging involved. One may safely assume either way. However, Occam's razor asserts that among competing hypotheses that attempt to solve a problem, the simplest is most often the correct one. My hypotheses is, by far, the simplest.

Say a man accidentally cuts himself while working in his wood shop, the cut severs an artery, and he bleeds to death. One person might say that he died from an accident sustained while doing carpentry work. The other might say that he died from loss of blood. Does the second explanation contradict the first? Can we say that "there is a problem" because the two accounts do not seem, on the surface, to agree?

We could spend our energy arguing about whether the first witness is wrong or the second witness is wrong, or if there is "a problem" with the stories, since their accounts don't seem to agree. Or we could think logically about the two stories and come to the conclusion that he must have died from a loss of blood caused by an accident sustained in the course of doing carpentry work.

There are no inconsistencies.It just means that we have a bigger picture than if just one person's perspective were shared. If you choose to see it otherwise, that is your privilege, but there is no contradiction here. It is most common for different people to have different perspectives on the same event. Ask any two or three people to describe any event to you, and you may hear different perspectives. Can you tell me that that is untrue, and that everyone's description of every event is always exactly the same?

I heard there is a place that is called 'bloodfield' which is cursed? because of Judas dying there, idd, by falling and spilling? his guts there.

reply to post by incoserv

If you ask two people what kind of vehicle I drive, one might say, "He has a red automobile." The other might say, "He drives a Dodge Dakota."

Now, are these two people telling the same story with inconsistencies? No, they are both right, though they each tell only part of the story; the part that most impressed them, individually.

By listening to both of their stories and putting them together, we know that I drive a red Dodge Dakota. No inconsistencies there. Different perspectives, different impressions, different parts of the same story that, together, make up a whole. How is that a problem?

Its still a problem because your car example isn't a very good one.
"A red car" doesn't really say much about the make of the car. And "Dodge Dakota" doesn't say much about the color of your car. So putting together those 2 details is a piece of cake, but is not the same as Judas death.

Because the 2 accounts of Judas' death cannot be easily put together. Because he dies in 2 different ways under 2 different circumstances.

Sorry, but you are glaringly wrong, there. If you want to discuss the biblical narrative, please actually study it, first!
It says, in chapter 27 of Matthew:

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers.

The biblical narrative clearly states that the chief priests took the money and purchased the potter's field. Not Judas.
...
But, please, don't try to discuss it from an misinformed position. It detracts from rather than adds to the conversation.

But I'm not discussing it from a misinformed position.

My reference for his "death by falling'" account is from Acts 1:18.

With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Also, Matthew 27 says the priests bought a field as a burial place for strangers (or foreigners as some translations say). Judas was not a stranger or a foreigner to them, so the field had nothing to do with Judas in Matthew 27.

You are telling me the priests bought the field. Acts 1:18 clearly says Judas bought the field himself.
What do you say now?