Supposed Contradiction: Judas Iscariot

Skeptics love to throw supposed Bible contradictions in the faces of their Christian friends or family. Many of them are quite pitiful and require only a few seconds of thought or a quick review of the context of the passages to refute. However, there are some that require a little more thought or in-depth study to resolve. The two accounts of the circumstances surrounding Judas’s death found in the gospels and Acts are somewhere in the middle of this scale of difficulty in my opinion. Here is how a skeptic is likely to word this challenge:

“Did Judas hang himself, or did he fall to his death? The Bible says both!”

Let’s take a look at the passages in question here and consider a few things. The first account appears in Matthew 27, which says, ​“​And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.”​ And in Acts 1 it 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...”

So which is it? Hmmm? HMMMM?? Well, actually it’s both. The sample question I asked has a fault in it. It asks, “​Did Judas hang himself, or did he fall to his death?” But Acts never said that Judas ​died by falling. It simply said that he fell and burst open causing his innards to gush out. Now, the first thing I’d like to draw your attention to is the “burst” part of the Acts account. Is it normal for people to trip over something and explode when they hit the ground? That doesn’t even happen when people fall from greater heights. So why then did it happen? Two possibilities seem likely if we are to take both of the accounts as fact. The first option is that someone cut Judas down after he had hanged himself, and perhaps his body landed on a sharp rock that basically gutted him upon impact. This is not likely, as a sharp rock was never mentioned, although this could be considered an argument from silence. Then again, given the detail included about the entrails and the orientation of the body, it is reasonable to expect that such a detail would be included. This leaves us thinking of a more likely option.

With Passover, the Sabbath, and Jewish ceremonial laws regarding touching dead bodies all taken into consideration, it is likely the case that after Judas hanged himself, his body remained there for some time before someone finally cut him down. With the knowledge we have from modern studies in forensic medicine, we can infer that the rupture of the abdomen was caused by decomposition of the body, as well as gas being built up inside the abdomen. The fall was likely enough to burst open the body, much like an overinflated balloon. The ​Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (Fifth Edition) says, ​“Between 3 and 7 days, ever increasing pressure of the putrefying gasses associated with the colliquative changes (liquification) in the soft tissues may lead to softening of the abdominal parietes resulting in bursting open of the abdomen and thorax.”

In short, Matthew gives us how Judas died, and Luke gives us in Acts what happened to the body when it was finally cut down some time later. But we have another supposed contradiction in these two accounts! Let’s see what’s behind curtain #2!

The skeptic may also say, “Acts says that Judas bought a field with the 30 pieces of silver, but Matthew says it was the chief priests!”

So which one is it this time? Both are correct, but it was the priests who technically bought the field, although it was legally Judas’s: Let me explain.

In Matthew, we read of the priests discussing what to do with the money, as they could not put it back into the treasury, calling it, “blood money.” In ancient cultures, especially Jewish culture, there were ritual purity laws that prevented people from accepting money that was used for immoral purposes (more info on this in Craig Keener’s The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary p​ gs. 657-658). So how could they get around this custom? Being the hypocrites the Jewish leaders around that time often were, it would make sense for them to buy the field in Judas’s name, as it would leave no trace of their involvement, especially given that the money was Judas’s to begin with. Legally speaking, the field belonged to Judas. Acts never said that Judas personally purchased the field, only that he acquired it (and yes, this interpretation is consistent in the original greek).

As with every supposed contradiction, these two can be resolved, leaving us with independent accounts of events that harmonize beautifully.

Recommended Resources:
Video: The Death of Judas - Bible Contradiction #19 by InspiringPhilosophy