Judas Iscariot & The Field of Blood

[jamesatracy]

During the course of an online conversation with a Christian that a friend of mine and myself are having over the resurrection of Jesus, the story of Judas' death came up. I will give you some context first.

My friend (let's designate him 'A' for atheist) is trying to argue that, taking the gospel stories of the resurrection at face value, there are still much more likely explanations than a supernatural event...

A: Even granting you all that you want to be granted (which I will do here for the sake of argument) there are about a million plausible natural explanations for how the body could be stolen. How about this for one:

Judas hated Jesus so much that Friday night, after Jesus was put in the tomb, Judas came, took Jesus' body, rolled the stone back, and threw his body in a ravine before hanging himself to death?

Read Matthew (the only Gospel that mentions guards at the tomb). The guards were posted AFTER a meeting was held on Saturday morning. The tomb was sealed, guard was posted. Then Sunday, the stone's rolled away, and *gasp* no body!

And I will designate the Christian 'C'...This is part of what he said in response:

C: Judas didn't hate Jesus. Yes, Judas was greedy. In fact, he was skimming off the top of the donation money that Jesus and the disciples raised (John 12: 6). The reason he betrayed Jesus was because he was greedy, not because he hated Jesus (he didn't). He betrayed Jesus for a mere 30 pieces of silver (Matthew 26: 15). In fact, after He had delivered Jesus to the chief priests and learned that they meant to crucify Him, he was immediately remorseful. In fact, he returned the 30 pieces of silver and went and hanged himself (Matthew 27: 3-5). These are not the actions of one who hates the Man he delivered. He realized what he had done, declaring, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood."

His argument, of course, is that Judas felt remorseful after betraying Jesus so he would not have taken Jesus' body.

A: I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. He did not feel sorry and return the money, he went and bought a field with the it. Acts 1:16-19

C: Actually, you are mistaken. If you keep reading in Matthew, the chief priests didn't accept Judas giving the money back, so Judas threw the pieces on the ground and left. The chief priests didn't want to put it in the collection because it was blood money. The chief priests bought the field with the "reward" money. Thus, Judas indirectly purchased the field with the money he was paid.

C didn't seem to notice that A was quoting from Acts, not Matthew. So it turns out that there is an interesting side problem here. Judas is described as dying in TWO different ways in the New Testament! Consider:

Matthew 27:3-10
3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus* was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4He said, ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent* blood.’ But they said, ‘What is that to us? See to it yourself.’ 5Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. 6But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, ‘It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money.’ 7After conferring together, they used them to buy the potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah,* ‘And they took* the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set,* on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, 10and they gave* them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.’

Acts 1:15-19
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers* (together the crowd numbered about one hundred and twenty people) and said, 16‘Friends,* the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesusâ€" 17for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.’ 18(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. 19This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

So there are two serious issues here between Matthew and Acts regarding Judas' actions. The first is who bought the field. Matthew claims that it was the chief priests who bought the field with the money. Acts clearly states that Judas himself bought the field with "his" money. The second concerns how Judas died. Matthew claims that he hung himself. Acts clearly states that he tripped in the middle of the field and his guts bursts out. They both give two different reasons for calling the field "The Field of Blood." In Matthew it is the Field of Blood because it was purchased with blood money. In Acts it is called the Field of Blood because Judas literally spilled his blood there.

Both of these stories cannot be historically correct.

Now, witness before your eyes how a different Christian entering the discussion manages to miraculously make these two contrasting accounts harmonize into one:

C2: Maybe he hung himself on a branch over a cliff...only the branch wasn't strong enough to hold him and it broke and he fell headlong into the field and his stomach burst open from the fall. Maybe not probable but possible and maybe one told one aspect of it and the other told the other aspect of it. Both tales correct but from two different viewpoints.

That, folks, is the length that some people will go to harmonize a clear and problematic discrepancy (never mind that this still doesn't explain the fact that in one story it is the chief priests who buy the field and in the other it is Judas himself). One might consider this being creative but I can think of more demeaning words.

[susangail]

Wow.
 

That, folks, is the length that some people will go to harmonize a clear and problematic discrepancy (never mind that this still doesn't explain the fact that in one story it is the chief priests who buy the field and in the other it is Judas himself). One might consider this being creative but I can think of more demeaning words.

Yup that sums it up pretty much. Any contradiction in the Bible and people twist words to make it work. You know what's really funny is when two Christians who are trying to twist the contradictions, contrast each other. I can't think of an example at the moment but I've seen it happen (actually I think I was involved in it...)