The Judas Incident: Take Your Pick

As the story is told, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, was a major player in Jesus' mission to become the savior of mankind. But even more so, he betrayed Jesus to the chief priests for thirty pieces of silver. For sure a pretty underhanded thing to do, and one which he may have regretted. From this point in the story things get real puzzling. In Matthew 27:5 it's said that Judas returned the money to the priests after which he then went out and hanged himself.


However, in the account given in Acts 1:18 it's said Judas used the money to buy a piece of land where he fell to his death.


My question is: Which of these do you feel is correct and why?

.

Explanations I've seen from Christians is that Judas threw the money at the priests, who couldn't accept it back in the coffers. So instead they bought the field, in which he hung himself, in his name. Rather like 'bought the farm.' Or the act of paying for land land in death from insurance money.

Skwim said:

As the story is told, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, was a major player in Jesus' mission to become the savior of mankind. But even more so, he betrayed Jesus to the chief priests for thirty pieces of silver. For sure a pretty underhanded thing to do, and one which he may have regretted. From this point in the story things get real puzzling. In Matthew 27:5 it's said that Judas returned the money to the priests after which he then went out and hanged himself.

Matthew 27:5
So he threw the money into the temple, went away, and hanged himself.​

However, in the account given in Acts 1:18 it's said Judas used the money to buy a piece of land where he fell to his death.

Acts 1:18
With the money he received from the wrong he had done, he bought a piece of land where he fell headfirst to his death. His body split open, and all his internal organs came out. ​

My question is: Which of these do you feel is correct and why?

.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter? Especially when you don't believe what Matthew or Luke wrote, anyway?

Both accounts can be correct.

Matthew 27:3-8:
"Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, felt remorse and brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying: “I sinned when I betrayed innocent blood.” They said: “What is that to us? You must see to it!” 5 So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood to this very day."

Acts 1:18-19:
"This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out. 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”

In Matthew, it was the blood money belonging to Judas that purchased the field, so it was technically his field. And since the method of his suicide is not detailed, it is quite possible that the branch upon which he strung the noose might have been over a precipice, so if the rope broke, his body may well have burst open on the rocks below as it says in Acts.

ADigitalArtist said:

Explanations I've seen from Christians is that Judas threw the money at the priests, who couldn't accept it back in the coffers. So instead they bought the field, in which he hung himself, in his name. Rather like 'bought the farm.' Or the act of paying for land land in death from insurance money.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

Matthew 27:7 says
However as we've read, Acts 1:18 says that Judas bought the field.

.

DavidFirth said:

Why does it matter? Especially when you don't believe what Matthew or Luke wrote, anyway?

Click to expand...

It matters because of how much I value your insight and opinions. Think of me as a student at your feet. But it is pretty troublesome isn't it. And I can understand your quandary and why you prefer to shove it aside, but how about making a stab at it: Which of these do you feel is correct and why?

Deeje said:

Both accounts can be correct.

In Matthew, it was the blood money belonging to Judas that purchased the field, so it was technically his field. And since the method of his suicide is not detailed, it is quite possible that the branch upon which he strung the noose might have been over a precipice, so if the rope broke, his body may well have burst open on the rocks below as it says in Acts.

Click to expand...

First of all, the money no longer belonged to Judas. He threw it away. He gave up ownership.

Secondly, Matthew isn't talking about any technicality of ownership. It's talking about who did what with the money. Matthew doesn't say Judas bought the field as Acts does. Mat. 27:7 says, "So they decided to use it to buy a potter’s field for the burial of strangers. And having read a bit further in Matthew I don't see anything saying the field was Judas', technically or otherwise.

.

Skwim said:

First of all, the money no longer belonged to Judas. He threw it away. He gave up ownership.

Secondly, Matthew isn't talking about any technicality of ownership. It's talking about who did what with the money. Matthew doesn't say Judas bought the field as Acts does. Mat. 27:7 says, "So they decided to use it to buy a potter’s field for the burial of strangers. And having read a bit further in Matthew I don't see anything saying the field was Judas', technically or otherwise.

Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you like.....you will anyway.

Deeje said:

You can believe whatever you like.....you will anyway.

Click to expand...

No, I believe whatever makes sense. Reason, not need, directs my beliefs.

.

Neither, it actually looks like a ritual prepared and executed by Jesus, - whom said these things must happen, and was making them happen, whom picked Judas out.

Mat 26:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,

Mat 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

*

Skwim said:

As the story is told, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, was a major player in Jesus' mission to become the savior of mankind. But even more so, he betrayed Jesus to the chief priests for thirty pieces of silver. For sure a pretty underhanded thing to do, and one which he may have regretted. From this point in the story things get real puzzling. In Matthew 27:5 it's said that Judas returned the money to the priests after which he then went out and hanged himself.

Matthew 27:5
So he threw the money into the temple, went away, and hanged himself.​

However, in the account given in Acts 1:18 it's said Judas used the money to buy a piece of land where he fell to his death.

Acts 1:18
With the money he received from the wrong he had done, he bought a piece of land where he fell headfirst to his death. His body split open, and all his internal organs came out. ​

My question is: Which of these do you feel is correct and why?

.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not the right question. Anyone who has worked in criminal investigation (eye witness accounts) or intelligence (evaluation of human and documentary sources) understands that a factual event can be reported very differently by people with different world view lenses and different levels of access to first-hand, eyewitness--level information. This age old conundrum simply reflects human nature--the human proclivity to view, and report, things through an individual lense dependent on worldview and access to first--hand accounts. Criminal cases and accurate national-level intelligence assessments have been sealed over even more disparate accounts of an event. This case is not unique.

(This is a good situation of the Newer Translations revealing their inaccuracy, the assumption is that Judas was the Enemy of God and Man, but there is nothing in the Law to support the conclusion)

(The Apostle Peter was Cursed of the Holy Spirit when the Chicken Clucked Times, further more the Apostle Peter was cursed of God, when he went out to meet Jesus in the Water, and tried to drown him, but instead he began to rot and fade away)

(Now ... when it comes to Judas, God does not use any of that language at all.........................Lazarus is one person God raised from the Dead, in that day, and Judas was the other, God doubles his judgment most of the time...................When Jesus was baptized that is number 1, the Dove Came Down from Heaven, when Jesus was crucified that is number 2, the saints rose out of their graves, so you can see how the language of the law is doubled)

(North Korea) (You have about Seven Days to use lethal force against me, and to divide their attention, because they will use you as payment for sin, and what you do may not have any value with God, if revelation's statement of 1260 Days for the Sign of Divorce/Gentiles is God's Intention, then, no work is acceptable................if you don't want to use a sniper rifle, then, you can use a hand gun, otherwise I can't guarantee you will be able to do any damage to me to constitute lethal force, I'll be around on wednesday or thursday this week and I want this matter settled, once and for all time. Once we get into these seven years of nothing happening, everyone should forget everything until the global euthanasia is completed as a result of your sin) (its pain from God or pain from Man, so you may not even be the target of the pain)

Socratic Berean said:

Perhaps not the right question.

Click to expand...

Errr. It's exactly the right question I want to ask. Can you answer or not?

If you have some other question in mind then I invite you to ask it in your own thread. . . or not.

Anyone who has worked in criminal investigation (eye witness accounts) or intelligence (evaluation of human and documentary sources) understands that a factual event can be reported very differently by people with different world view lenses and different levels if access to first-hand, eyewitness--level information. This age old conundrum simply reflects human nature--the human proclivity to view, and report, things through an individual lense dependent on worldview and access to first--hand accounts. Criminal cases and accurate national-level intelligence assessments have been sealed over even more disparate accounts of an event. This case is not unique.

Click to expand...

Ingledsva said:

Neither, it actually looks like a ritual prepared and executed by Jesus, - whom said these things must happen, and was making them happen, whom picked Judas out.
*

Click to expand...

A "ritual"? Hmmm, how odd.

.

Skwim said:

Errr. It's exactly the right question I want to ask. Can you answer or not?

If you have some other question in mind then I invite you to ask it in your own thread. . . or not.

*sigh* ​

.​

Click to expand...

Let "reason, not need" direct your beliefs. As I laid out, the contrived conflict is a non-issue.

Socratic Berean said:

Let "reason, not need" direct your beliefs. As I laid out, the contrived conflict is a non-issue.

Click to expand...

So you believe the writers of Matthew and Acts contrived to set up the contradiction? If so, I gotta say, his is a new one. Or did someone else contrive the contradiction?

.

Skwim said:

So you believe the writers of Matthew and Acts contrived to set up the contradiction? If so, I gotta say, his is a new one. Or did someone else contrive the contradiction?

.

Click to expand...

If he thinks that the accounts differ similar to how we see witness accounts differ, perhaps he is just suggesting that he believes the bible infallibly relays fallible accounts?

Skwim said:

So you believe the writers of Matthew and Acts contrived to set up the contradiction? If so, I gotta say, his is a new one. Or did someone else contrive the contradiction?

.

Click to expand...

I have not mentioned my beliefs at all. I have pointed out how the question reflects inexperience in weighing different human accounts of a single event. Ask a detective. Ask an intelligence officer. This one example is not unique. You are trying to create an issue out of nothing.

Socratic Berean said:

I have not mentioned beliefs at all. I have pointed out how the question reflects inexperience in weighing different human accounts of a single event. Ask a detective. Ask an intelligence officer. This one example is not unique. You are trying to create an issue out of nothing.

Click to expand...

True enough, you did not. But doesnt that lead to one of two conclusions: the bible is fallible, or the bible is infallible in relaying fallible accounts?

Curious George said:

True enough, you did not. But doesnt that lead to one of two conclusions: the bible is fallible, or the bible is infallible in relaying fallible accounts?

Click to expand...

It leads to the conclusion that you are dealing with genuinely different individuals' accounts of a single event, multiple witnesses, and that there was no collusion between sources, which adds weight to the reality of the event. It matches real, human patterns of information processing. It adds credence to the reality of the event...there was a man called Judas, he worked with Jewish leaders against the man called Jesus, thirty pieces of silver were involved, in the end, he died as a result of his betrayal, and--as expected--secondary details differ depending on the source. If every detail aligned perfectly, the story could easily be rejected as conspiracy, as you would with unnaturally aligned eye witness accounts in a court case or source reporting used in an intelligence assessment...real human information processing simply works that way. The natural--"fallible," if you want-- habits of men give a ring of truth to the story; you can map that onto the infallibility of the Bible (or not) however you like.

Socratic Berean said:

It leads to the conclusion that you are dealing with genuinely different individuals' accounts of a single event, multiple witnesses, and that there was no collusion between sources, which adds weight to the reality of the event. It matches real, human patterns of information processing. It adds credence to the reality of the event...there was a man called Judas, he worked with Jewish leaders against the man called Jesus, thirty pieces of silver were involved, in the end, he died as a result of his betrayal, and--as expected--secondary details differ depending on the source. If every detail aligned perfectly, the story could easily be rejected as conspiracy, as you would with unnaturally aligned eye witness accounts in a court case or source reporting used in an intelligence assessment...real human information processing simply works that way. The natural--"fallible," if you want-- habits of men give a ring of truth to the story; you can map that onto the infallibility of the Bible (or not) however you like.

Click to expand...

So these accounts were fallible. That is what I wanted to clarify. I think that is well worth discussing whether the bible is fallible, infallible in relaying fallible accounts, or simply infallible. It is actually a big thing. You and I may not put too much focus on it, but it sounded almost like you were suggesting focus not be given to such an inconsequential thing. I am merely pointing out that that thing entails great consequence.