Judas Contradiction

[Sophus]

How does one deal wit the ridiculous yet typical response about the contradiction of Judas' death(s) in the NT? If one would have said he was hanged and the other said he was eaten I'm sure Christians would be saying, "oh there's no contradiction, the body was found by vultures after he died." Drives me insane  

[dtackett]

There's usually a simple logical explination. Could you be more specific with the "contradictions"? Are you reffering to :
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Matthew 27:5-8

and

With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. Acts 1:18-19

Also in context I'd like to point out that hanging back then was a term for impalement and crucifixtion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging
If those are the only 2 verses you are questioning please verify and we'll discuss, if there are more please list. Thanks you.

[Tom62]

There could be a plausible explanation for the different versions in the Bible. It would well be that Judas tried to hang himself, but failed to kill himself that way. He could than have thrown himself of a cliff. Another explanation could be that the tree was hanging over a cliff and the branch, on which Judas hang himself, broke. Most likely explanation is that Judas killed himself and that the actual facts of his suicide got a bit mixed up over time. After all, none of the NT authors witnessed the suicide attempt.

[Kylyssa]

Here's an even bigger contradiction.  If Jesus (being God) always planned to be tortured to death to cleanse mankind's sins then why was Judas' role in fulfilling God's desire seen as wicked?

I used to suggest to my ex that Jesus told Judas to "betray" him.

Jesus was going around purposely breaking laws and waiting for the punishment but the guard was incompetent so they needed some help for things to go as God planned.

You can't have it both ways - either Jesus died for your sins and it was a good thing or Judas betrayed Jesus and Jesus was taken away against God's will.

Most Christians are incapable of understanding that logic.  In order to believe that three Gods are one or that God both made other people and made only Adam and Eve and all the other contradictory things in their religion they have to set aside the idea things or events can be mutually exclusive.

So they make Judas into a bad guy even though his role was necessary for Jesus to be tortured to death like he wanted and for their own supposed "salvation" from Hell.

[Sophus]

There could be a plausible explanation for the different versions in the Bible. It would well be that Judas tried to hang himself, but failed to kill himself that way. He could than have thrown himself of a cliff. Another explanation could be that the tree was hanging over a cliff and the branch, on which Judas hang himself, broke. Most likely explanation is that Judas killed himself and that the actual facts of his suicide got a bit mixed up over time. After all, none of the NT authors witnessed the suicide attempt.

I wonder if there are any facts toit at all. Seems more like one would have been "inspired" by the others fairytale and decide to write their own version of it. Like much of the other canonized and uncanonized texts.

Also in context I'd like to point out that hanging back then was a term for impalement and crucifixtion.

Ah, so Judas crucified himself? Interesting...

So they make Judas into a bad guy even though his role was necessary for Jesus to be tortured to death like he wanted and for their own supposed "salvation" from Hell.

Exactly. It's funny that we don't see a sect that worships him as the Catholics do the Virgin Mary.

[LoneMateria]

I've heard a few people try to reconcile this by saying Judas hung himself over a cliff and then the rope snapped and fell down.  No contradiction ... however this one ignores the headlong (head first) portion of falling which can't be done if you are hung (in a traditional sense).  Also dtackett I've never heard of hanging really being a crucifixion.  I mean since that word is used in the bible if they really meant crucifixion don't you think they would say crucifixion?  

Also w00t go TOM!  I don't know when you became an atheist (or at least updated your world view on your account) but it's awesome!!!  But now we've lost our example that we really are unbiased, we no longer have a theist moderator     oh well totally worth it ^_^

[Tom62]

Also w00t go TOM!  I don't know when you became an atheist (or at least updated your world view on your account) but it's awesome!!!  But now we've lost our example that we really are unbiased, we no longer have a theist moderator    and can come in very handy in driving other people nuts. Anyway, I already knew which possible answers were coming from Christians by having a look at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra7.html.

[G-Roll]

Ive heard augustines idea that Judas hanged himself in the field, and afterwards the rope snapped, and his body burst open on the ground

also papias said judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out... i dont know how the chariot gets involved though.

ive also found that:
"Modern scholars tend to reject these approaches stating that the Matthew account is a midrashic exposition that allows the author to present the event as a fulfillment of prophetic passages from the Old Testament. They argue that the author adds imaginative details such as the thirty pieces of silver, and the fact that Judas hangs himself, to an earlier tradition about Judas's death.

Matthew's reference to the death as fulfilment of a prophecy "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" has caused some controversy, since it clearly paraphrases a story from the Book of Zechariah (Zechariah 11:12-13) which refers to the return of a payment of thirty pieces of silver."
wich i think is a great explination. maybe the best ive heard.

[dtackett]

Also w00t go TOM!  I don't know when you became an atheist (or at least updated your world view on your account) but it's awesome!!!  But now we've lost our example that we really are unbiased, we no longer have a theist moderator    and can come in very handy in driving other people nuts. Anyway, I already knew which possible answers were coming from Christians by having a look at omitted url.

You either choose to rationally discuss the Bible or not. When you precursor every discussion with "watch out for that fuzzy Christian logic it'll drive you crazy" you're biasing all of the readers and it's fallicious. However the Bible interpretaion was questioned and some of us chose to answer.

The original question I was answering was:
How does one deal wit the ridiculous yet typical response about the contradiction of Judas' death(s) in the NT?

I posited a few possible examples and asked for clarification on what the questioner sees as a contradiction, which hasn't been answered yet.

I've heard a few people try to reconcile this by saying Judas hung himself over a cliff and then the rope snapped and fell down.  No contradiction ... however this one ignores the headlong (head first) portion of falling which can't be done if you are hung (in a traditional sense).  Also dtackett I've never heard of hanging really being a crucifixion.  I mean since that word is used in the bible if they really meant crucifixion don't you think they would say crucifixion?  

Also w00t go TOM!  I don't know when you became an atheist (or at least updated your world view on your account) but it's awesome!!!  But now we've lost our example that we really are unbiased, we no longer have a theist moderator     oh well totally worth it ^_^

Well the recieved NT was in Koine Greek. Hanging meant to hang as in adorne, not the modern day pirates of the carribean gallows version. Gallows in ancient hebrew simply meant constructed from timber, no mention of a rope. Ropes were valuable commodities. It would be impratical to have a 50 cubit high hangman's gallows to hang someone. It's far more likely to have a 50 cubit high spike of timber to hang somone on through impalement. The point being that hanging was a display. Whether the display was from timber constucted cross, vlad the impaler like poles or pirates of the carribean like wooden frame and hangman's noose. It is assumed with modern connotation of a hangman's noose, when no mention or rope or noose is in scripture. It could have been simply he went to a hill and impaled himself on a sharpened tree before God as much as it could have been hanging from a noose from a tree. The former allows for a better explination of the faceplant and guts spilling though.

[Sophus]

You either choose to rationally discuss the Bible or not. When you precursor every discussion with "watch out for that fuzzy Christian logic it'll drive you crazy" you're biasing all of the readers and it's fallicious. However the Bible interpretaion was questioned and some of us chose to answer.

Claim:

"You can refute every contradiction in the Bible with fuzzy, Christian "logic". It is a kind of "art" form in itself  and can come in very handy in driving other people nuts. Anyway, I already knew which possible answers were coming from Christians by having a look at omitted url."

Data:

"Also in context I'd like to point out that hanging back then was a term for impalement and crucifixtion."

Warrant:

"Also dtackett I've never heard of hanging really being a crucifixion. I mean since that word is used in the bible if they really meant crucifixion don't you think they would say crucifixion? "

[dtackett]

Your warrant is an atheist for a theological point. I will conceed that I was "jumping through hoops" if he can attest the the greek translation of to hang and gallows in context. You will clearly see that hanging on a 50 cubit timber is the same word as hanging that in the judas passage.

There is nothing fuzzy about word definition. Be obtuse I don't care.

[notself]

Well the recieved NT was in Koine Greek. Hanging meant to hang as in adorne, not the modern day pirates of the carribean gallows version. Gallows in ancient hebrew simply meant constructed from timber, no mention of a rope. Ropes were valuable commodities. It would be impratical to have a 50 cubit high hangman's gallows to hang someone. It's far more likely to have a 50 cubit high spike of timber to hang somone on through impalement. The point being that hanging was a display. Whether the display was from timber constucted cross, vlad the impaler like poles or pirates of the carribean like wooden frame and hangman's noose. It is assumed with modern connotation of a hangman's noose, when no mention or rope or noose is in scripture. It could have been simply he went to a hill and impaled himself on a sharpened tree before God as much as it could have been hanging from a noose from a tree. The former allows for a better explination of the faceplant and guts spilling though.

If what you are saying is true about the "real meaning" of the words hanging, gallows, impalement in Greek, then why haven't the many, many, many translators of the bible used the correct definitions?  

This is a classic use of switching the subject when faced with the inconsistencies of the bible.  In this case you switch to the idea that the translation is flawed leaving out the responsibility of correcting obvious such errors in translation by those who teach that the bible is the word of your god.

[LoneMateria]

If what you are saying is true about the "real meaning" of the words hanging, gallows, impalement in Greek, then why haven't the many, many, many translators of the bible used the correct definitions?  

This is a classic use of switching the subject when faced with the inconsistencies of the bible.  In this case you switch to the idea that the translation is flawed leaving out the responsibility of correcting obvious such errors in translation by those who teach that the bible is the word of your god.

You beat me to it.  Like everything else when it comes to translation, the Greek and Latin words can have multiple meanings.  If you want to start using different meanings to try and find a suitable interpretation where there are no contradictions then fine.  But don't get angry at me when I claim your bible says god never created the universe because the greek word "bara" though technically means "to create", in context actually means "to separate".  So in the beginning God didn't create a damn thing he just took what was already here and turned it into the heavens and the earth and everything else.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

Also I went though the wiki for Hanging and Crucifixion and though hanging has only one sentence claiming there is a relation, crucifixion's page does not.  Do you have another source for this assertion?

[dtackett]

Yes the words can have multiple meanings. Truthfully it is unlikely that the figurative sense of the word is being used. Crucifixtion (or impalement) is refered to mostly from a Roman perspective as hanging. Jewish law at the time stated there were only 4 ways to die, asphyxiation being one. Crucifixtion and a hangman's noose both asphxiate. I don't think he could have crucified himself and it is a stretch to say he must have sat on a sharpened tree just to rectify the 2 accounts. Responsibility is important in the teaching of the word, especially to me as a teacher. I try and read the Bible from an anacronistic and contextual POV as much as possible, before I teach a lesson. I don't feel the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but the inspired one, and inspiration leave obvious gaps. Not to mention, doesn't allow for the growth of the word base of a society as it progresses. I don't think rewriting the Bible every 500 years or so is a good idea though. The possibility exists that he hung himself and fell and it also exists that he could have impaled himself. The fact it's an apologetic arguement doesn't negate the fact it erases the contradiction of Judas' death. Why do most atheists mock fundamentalists for their literalist view then go around and use that same view against apologetics, it's disingenuous.

[pinkocommie]

The fact it's an apologetic arguement doesn't negate the fact it erases the contradiction of Judas' death. Why do most atheists mock fundamentalists for their literalist view then go around and use that same view against apologetics, it's disingenuous.

Because when you're not being literal, you're just making shit up to force the pieces to fit.  If you take the bible literally, it falls apart and if you start making up plausible explanations for those inconsistencies, you're no longer taking the bible literally, which makes the truth of the book entirely subjective.  Either way, it doesn't work.