How exactly did Judas die?

You are telling me the priests bought the field. Acts 1:18 clearly says Judas bought the field himself.

No, what is said very clearly is that Peter said that. Peter was a fisherman. Alllegedly, Matthew was a tax collector. Trust me, tax people will often describe financial and real estate transactions differently than ordinary working people do.

Just to complicate your life a bit, I am informed by my friends over in the Greek Orthodox Church that Matthew's word for "hanging," which I'll transliterate as hapegzato, can also be used as a generic term for suicide by any means.

Contradiction, where is thy sting? Where, O Contradiction, is thy victory?

reply to post by eight bits

No, what is said very clearly is that Peter said that. Peter was a fisherman. Alllegedly, Matthew was a tax collector. Trust me, tax people will often describe financial and real estate transactions differently than ordinary working people do.

Matthew being a tax collector has nothing to do with what Judas did with the silver....
Judas either threw it back or purchased the field. Both accounts are mentioned in the Bible. The contradiction IS very much present.

And I don't see why I need to trust your view of modern tax people to resolve a biblical issue.

Just to complicate your life a bit, I am informed by my friends over in the Greek Orthodox Church that Matthew's word for "hanging," which I'll transliterate as hapegzato, can also be used as a generic term for suicide by any means.

Sounds interesting. But I ran a search for "hapegzato" and nothing came up.
Did you mean "apagchó"?

It means to strangle, hang oneself

biblesuite.com...

So its not complicating anything for me.

Matthew being a tax collector has nothing to do with what Judas did with the silver....
Judas either threw it back or purchased the field. Both accounts are mentioned in the Bible. The contradiction IS very much present.

And I don't see why I need to trust your view of modern tax people to resolve a biblical issue.

I see tax humor isn't one of your long suits.

As I've already said, I think Peter is telling the story as he understands it, which is not necessarily the way it actually was. I also think there is a contradiction between the stories when explaining why some parcel of land is called "The Field of Blood."

(In reality, the phrase seems to refer to a red clay deposit in or near Jerusalem which abutted a cemetery, as I believe has been pointed out, so it may be that neither is the parcel named for "blood money," nor for the occurrence of a bloody death on it.)

However, there is no contradiction about the money. Acts or Peter says only that Judas purchased some land with the wages of his perfidy. It doesn't say which perfidy. John 12: 6 says plainly that Judas was a thief who stole from the group. Acts or Peter also doesn't say when Judas purchased the land it mentions. Each book, then, may be recording a separate and distinct real estate transaction. This has probably been pointed out already, too.

Did you mean "apagchó"?

No, but I said it was my transliteration, and while I disgree with yours as a transliteration, we seem to have the same word in mind. And we also seem to agree that that word has a broader meaning than just to hang onseself.

I would recommend against relying on a "Bible" dictionary. It only represents that lexicographer's opinion about how the word is used in the Bible, and is not authoritative as to scholarly opinion about how a word was used by Greek writers generally. Our word, for example, apparently is also attested to mean "to suffocate," not necessarily by ligature (the ligature idea is apparently Augustine's, in a Latin "translation" of Acts 1).

The Greek cognate of "Porphyry" for another instance, is often listed in Bible dictionaries only as the dye or the mollusk it comes from. In fact, writers contemporary with the Bible used the word for a mineral and also as the color of clotted blood (as wrote Pliny the Elder in his Natural History, which ironically is the very book by which we know so much about the trades surrounding dye and the mollusk.)

Scorpie, you're a Muslim apologist. You believe a different book entirely. Good for you. What you need to wrap your head around is that you haven't actually located a problem for a typical Christian's stance on their book. You've only located a hint that the New Testament, unlike the Koran, isn't singly authored. It isn't. The prize for that discovery was awarded long ago.

reply to post by eight bits

However, there is no contradiction about the money. Acts or Peter says only that Judas purchased some land with the wages of his perfidy. It doesn't say which perfidy.

Easy. It was the the "perfidy" that he was paid a wage for.

(KJV says : "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity")

There was only one instance in the Bible that Judas received a wage for a "perfidy" or an "inequity".
i.e - What he accepted to have Jesus arrested.

John 12: 6 says plainly that Judas was a thief who stole from the group. Acts or Peter also doesn't say when Judas purchased the land it mentions.

John 12:6 says nothing about Judas buying land from what he stole. He was a thief. Doesn't say anything about him buying land with what he stole.

So lets stick by Act 1:18's account of him buying the land with the "wages" he earned by betraying Jesus.

So we are back to...
DId Judas throw away his wages?
Or did he keep it and buy the field where he was found dead?

Scorpie, you're a Muslim apologist.

I'm also a former Christian.
Not formally converted, but I know my way around the Bible.

What you need to wrap your head around is that you haven't actually located a problem for a typical Christian's stance on their book.

The problems and contradictions have been pinpointed (by others before me as well).
Christians refusing to acknowledge these contradictions doesn't mean they don't exist.

There was only one instance in the Bible that Judas received a wage for a "perfidy" or an "inequity".

You do realize the New Testament wasn't written in English, and all King James' committee did was translate the thing, right?

In any case, Judas didn't get a wage for grassing on Jesus. He got a piece rate, a flat fee for delivering his victim, not a time-on-task rate, not a wage. At no time was he the priests' employee.

.e - What he accepted to have Jesus arrested

No, see, the way the game is played is that you have to find the contradiction in the text, not pull it out of your, um, seat.

John 12:6 says nothing about Judas buying land from what he stole. He was a thief. Doesn't say anything about him buying land with what he stole.

No, buying the land is in Acts, but not where the money came from, just that it was crookedly gotten. Conversely, John only tells us one of the ways that Judas got money perfidiously, by betraying Jesus in his embezzlement of the Twelve's money bag. The synoptics report that a payment was a factor in Judas' decision to betray Jesus in a different way. Matthew says the priests bought some land, too. Judas gave them the money, but they bought that parcel. Evidently, he had bought some land of his own before that. So what? He had ill-gotten money to do it with, why shouldn't he buy land?

So lets stick by Act 1:18's account of him buying the land with the "wages" he earned by betraying Jesus.

You know, Scorpie, if I rewrote the Koran the way you're rewriting the New Testament, you'd be steamed.

Acts's Peter doesn't say which of Judas' perfidies financed his land purchase. There were at least two.

Christians refusing to acknowledge these contradictions doesn't mean they don't exist.

The majority of Christians do acknowledge the contradictions, at least the contradictions that are actually there, of which this isn't one. They think that's what happens when different people tell what they remember about something that really happened. It's good, they think, that there are several authors. That reduces the chances that it's just one guy making it all up.

Contradictions within a text are fatal when the text claims to be the verbatim dictation of God. That's not a Christian problem.

If you've been both a Christian and a Muslim, then how have you failed to notice the difference in the nature of the scriptural foundations of the two? I conjecture that you weren't much attached to one or the other, or perhaps you weren't a Nicene Chrisitan.

reply to post by eight bits

In any case, Judas didn't get a wage for grassing on Jesus. He got a piece rate, a flat fee for delivering his victim, not a time-on-task rate, not a wage. At no time was he the priests' employee.

You are splitting hairs on the word "wage".

Other translations say....
Judas bought a field with the money he got for his evil act.
With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field
This man then indeed got a field with the reward of iniquity,
With the price of his treachery, this man came into possession of a field;

....so money / payment / reward / price etc... its all the same. Its clear that Judas betrayed Jesus for a payment.

I work as a freelance graphic designer for a living. I do work for people who haven't formally employed me and I get paid for it. I can use any of the above terms to describe the money I get in exchange for my services.

Similarly, Judas in exchange for helping the priests get the man they were looking for... got paid.

Acts's Peter doesn't say which of Judas' perfidies financed his land purchase.

It clearly does... if you look at the surrounding verses.


15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
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.

Its right there.
Judas' betrayal of Jesus was the deed which he got paid. So his purchase of the field IS directly linked to the payment he received for betraying Jesus.

So Acts 1:15-18 establishes...
a) Judas' betrayal
b) His payment,
c) His purchase of the field
d) and his death.


So, we still have 2 contradictory accounts.

1. Judas threw away the money and hung himself. The field was purchased by the priests AFTER Judas death.
2. Judas kept the money and bought the field, where he fell and died.

Christians can only come up with creative ways to blend the two together. Their conclusion is that Judas threw away the silver AND used it to buy the field...and that Judas hung himself AND fell to his death.
Regardless, it doesn't change the print in the bible.

If you've been both a Christian and a Muslim, then how have you failed to notice the difference in the nature of the scriptural foundations of the two? I conjecture that you weren't much attached to one or the other, or perhaps you weren't a Nicene Chrisitan.

What do you exactly mean by "nature of the scriptural foundations of the two?"

You are splitting hairs on the word "wage".

You brought up the subject of "wages." People who pick nits ought not to complain about split hairs.

What do you exactly mean by "nature of the scriptural foundations of the two?"

Christian scripture is a multiply authored anthology of reports about historical events, with discussion among the authors about what people should do in light of those events. Islamic scripture is a singly authored report which relays a series of private messages from God verbatim. Both religions supplement their core ("canonical") scripture with later writings.

Obviously, any contradiction in a singly authored work which ostensibly relays divine messages verbatim is a matter of pressing concern. In contrast, multiple reports, written by different people at different times in different places, about the same actual events will differ from one another, especially in the peripheral details. In addition to actual differences, there will be incompleteness in each report, also especially in the peripheral details.

How Judas spent his money and which of his criminal enterprises financed which of his investments would be perfect examples of "peripheral details."

Anyway, good try, Scorpie. There's no contradiction in the texts on this point, just incompleteness. Your warning to read the passages with care is received with thanks. That's very Christian advice, since Christian scripture fosters an active intellectually engaged reading, not passive submission to a dictated sermon.

reply to post by eight bits

You brought up the subject of "wages." People who pick nits ought not to complain about split hairs.

I brought up the subject of Judas using the silver to buy the field he died in... in comparison to the contradictory account of Matthew, where Judas threw the silver away.

Also, instead of "wage", I could have just as easily used the terms "money" or "payment" or " reward" or "price" or whatever else to make the same point.

There's no contradiction in the texts on this point,

Except we clearly see a contradiction between the accounts of Matthew and Acts.
Thats what this thread is about. I would have admitted there' s no contradiction, if the authors of the Bible hadn't thrown in 2 contradictory accounts of the purchase and of Judas' death. But thats not the case.

In contrast, multiple reports, written by different people at different times in different places, about the same actual events will differ from one another, especially in the peripheral details. In addition to actual differences, there will be incompleteness in each report, also especially in the peripheral details.

The multiple reports ARE the problem here. Judas' deaths is just a minor issue compared to other more vital issues. The "incompleteness" in the Bible should be a big problem for those who follow the book.

The multiple reports ARE the problem here. Judas' deaths is just a minor issue compared to other more vital issues. The "incompleteness" in the Bible should be a big problem for those who follow the book.

Apparently it was a problem for you personally, and that's entirely fine. Most people accustomed to reading history, however, are aware that sources are both necessarily incomplete and typically partially inaccurate. The alternative is not to adopt a historical religion, and that's OK, too. There's a different popular sect based on poerry recitals that accepts converts. But then you know that already.