How Did Judas Die?

I remember having an argument with a friend who was a fundamentalist christian regarding this subject. I had told him of the many contradictions in the bible, and he wouldn't believe me. So I showed him these two different stories of the death of Judas in the NT:

3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." 7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, 10 and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." RSV Matt 27:3-10
The relevant verses in Acts are:

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and `His office let another take.' RSV Acts 1:15-20

Now, my friend was unable to explain this for some time. Eventually, he came back to me and said: it's simple, he bought a field off of the chief priests and elders with the money, wen to that field and hung himself, but before he died the rope snapped and he fell headlong on the rock dashing out his innards. I laughed so much at this, I haven't seen him since.

Mt 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Mt 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. Mt 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Mt 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. Mt 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Mt 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

And

Ac 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. Ac 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Ac 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Ac 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. Ac 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take.

Ap, you know me to be above all things, honest. I was aware of the scripture that said Judas hanged himself, and can tell you from newspaper articles from the American Wild West that the account given by Peter of "bursting in two" would not be out of the equation, given the things that happen when people are hanged by lynch mobs or hang themselves. But the story of the buying of the field comes down to either the San Hedrin bought it when Judas brought the money back, Judas bought the field for himself with the money and regreted it later and hanged himself there, or neither happened at all. There are the only three scenerios one can draw from the case.

I would assume that although Matthew was at the crucifixion, I would doubt Peter was with the others. He had publicly denighed Jesus three times. Thus when Jesus arose, His words to "Tell Peter." Neither would have witnessed Judas' death, and got the information at best second hand. I doubt they got it from the San Hedrin themselves, so probably at least third hand. Each may have heard a different version. Only one could be right, or none right.

God bless

Pen
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1.../PuppyLove.gif

I think what is at issue here is the difference between truth and fact. Fundamentalists unfortunately conflate the two. Add to the problem the lack of knowledge of the history of the books of the Bible, of how they came to be written and edited, and later accepted, and the position that the Bible is factual on all points is simply untenable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

I think what is at issue here is the difference between truth and fact.

---

I have a question about this statement Rich. What is the difference between "truth" and "fact"? Or did you mean "accepted truth" and "fact"?

In the first, I see no difference. If something known to be the truth, than it has to be fact. Sometimes it is hard to prove, but proof can be found. A good example is a murder case where the police know who is guilty, but the problem lies in proving it. Sometimes it takes years of forensic study to get the link that proves the case.

Accepted fact is different, because you are assuming without any proof whatsoever.

God bless

Pen

"Truth" refers to meaning, and thus is connected with value; "fact" refers to physical occurrences. To be factual means that the event occurred. However, facts can be misleading, and thus be untruthful. Parables and fables can be truthful but may not be factual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

"Truth" refers to meaning, and thus is connected with value; "fact" refers to physical occurrences. To be factual means that the event occurred. However, facts can be misleading, and thus be untruthful. Parables and fables can be truthful but may not be factual.

---

Ah. No further questions, your Honor. I agree with this explanation.

God Bless

Pen

The balance between the truly fundamental and the moderate (in terms of Scripture) is a concept called "literaturely true" (i.e., poetry in the Bible is poetry, history is history). Now, in Acts, the account is a story told. So, it does not need to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

The balance between the truly fundamental and the moderate (in terms of Scripture) is a concept called "literaturely true" (i.e., poetry in the Bible is poetry, history is history). Now, in Acts, the account is a story told. So, it does not need to be true.

---

Which is good, since there are obvious discrepancies in the three different accounts of Saul's conversion to be found in Acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

"Truth" refers to meaning, and thus is connected with value; "fact" refers to physical occurrences. To be factual means that the event occurred. However, facts can be misleading, and thus be untruthful. Parables and fables can be truthful but may not be factual.

---

Why does "truth" refer to meaning? Don't you mean "meaningful" refers to meaning? Why not say "meaningful", when that is what we are really talking about, rather than "truthful"?

When we say that a parable "rings true" or that a story is "true to life" we are not talking about the actuality of the events, but rather on the idea that these tales convey a message or meaning that we accept as being valid. Besides sounding tautological, "meaningful refers to meaning" may not be a good substitute for "truth" here since things can have meaning without being true. Meaningful in this context is perhaps a weaker claim.

I believe from the teachings i have encountered in the past fifteen years that judas was hung? Everyone talks about this around my town. Its just a simple matter really if you believe what the bible says

I'm not so sure that it's as simple as you make out. As Pendragon pointed out, there is the problem of who bought the field. Then there is the account of Judas falling headlong and bursting open in the field. How does this tie in with him hanging himself? The terminology used suggests that when Judas burst, he wasn't in the process of swinging from a rope. For those whose beliefs rely on the literal accuracy of the bible, this is a highly problematic scene. For those who are more mythos than logos, this isn't such a problem, for the importance does not lie with the factual accuracy of the description, but more with the moral or analogy of the story.