Another seeming Bible contradiction disappears, when we look closely at the accounts in Matthew 27 and Acts 1.

This post is part of my translation and commentary of Matthew through Acts (and hopefully beyond).

I refer to Bible commentators because I learn from them, and  I need to belong to a community of Bible teachers. For me, there is safety in numbers. I place friendly scholars on the same or higher level than hostile critics. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars.

Scriptures

Let’s quote the verses in context, so the passages are going to be long.

Judas Iscariot’s Death and Disposal of Body

Matthew 27:3-10 3 Then, when Judas, the one who betrayed him, saw that he was condemned, he was moved with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying I have sinned, betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself!” 5 And after he threw the silver coins into the temple, he withdrew and went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests, taking the silver coins, said, “It is not lawful to place them in the treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 After taking counsel, they bought with them the Potter’s field for a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field was called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then the word spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one who had been priced, on whom some of the sons of Israel set the price; 10 and they gave the coins for the potter’s field, just as the Lord commanded me. (Matt. 27:3-10; quoting Zech. 11:12-13; Jer. 32:6-9)

Acts 1:15-20 15 In those days Peter stood up among his brothers and sisters (the crowd of persons was about 120 in that place together) and said, 16 “Men and women, brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit had spoken beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus, 17 and who was numbered as one of us and was appointed to share in this ministry. 18 He then acquired a field from the unrighteous reward; and becoming headlong, his abdomen burst open and his guts spilled out, 19 which became known to all the residents in Jerusalem, so the field was called in their language Akeldama, or Field of Blood. 20 For it was written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his place be deserted, and let not be one who lives there’ [Ps. 69:25] And ‘Let another be selected in his position’ [Ps. 109:8].

Table of Matthew’s and Luke’s Accounts

Commentator Craig Keener has produced a table showing the similarities between Matthew’s account and Luke’s account in Acts:

Matthew 27:5-8	Acts 1:18-19
Judas as the betrayer	Judas as the betrayer
Judas’s wages were used (by others) to buy a field (27:6-7)	Judas acquired a field as the “wage” of his injustice (1:18)
Judas died in an awful manner (27:5)	Judas died in an awful manner (1:18)
(Apparently the story remained widespread; (27:8)	Judas’ sorrowful end became widely known (1:19)
The occasion prompted naming the field “Field of Blood” (27:8)	This occasion prompted naming the field “Field of Blood (1:19)
The land became an impure burial plot (27:7)	The land became desolate, no longer suited for habitation (1:20)
Craig Keener, Acts, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge UP, 2020), p. 118

We can now know the gist or essence of the story, as seen in the table. Let’s celebrate the similarities.

Matthew’s Version

Why Zechariah and Jeremiah?

Now what about the manner of Judas’ death and where?

This question has been answered here:

Did Matthew Mistakenly Attribute Verses from Zechariah to Jeremiah?

Osborne explains the differences as points of views in Matthew and Acts 1. Ropes do break.

There is a discrepancy with Acts 1:18-19 here. Matthew says Judas ‘hanged himself,’ while Acts states he committed suicide by throwing himself into the field and ‘bursting open.’ What may well have happened is that the rope broke and his body fell into the field (or perhaps that his body was thrown into the field afterward). This is possible, for in Acts 1 Luke is explaining the name of the field and chose those details that fit his explanation. Note the contrast with Peter, who ‘went outside and wept bitterly,’ while Judas ‘went and hanged himself.’ (comment on 27:5)

Version in Acts

Here is another way to harmonize the two accounts. Judas’s fall was an inserted, later detail in Acts, and the Greek for “falling headlong” could just as easily be translated as “swelling up.”

A major difference seems to be created by Matthew’s statement that Judas went away from the temple and ‘hanged himself,’ whereas Luke indicates that he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. TNIV’s there is not in the original, but the context may be suggesting that he died in his own field. If this is so, the two narratives can be reconciled by assuming that Matthew has foreshortened the time reference and that the hanging did not take place until the chief priests had purchased the field. Luke’s description of the gory end of Judas can be related to the tradition that he hanged himself if we imagine that his fall was the sequel to his hanging in some way, with his body rupturing as a consequence. There is also a possibility that the Greek expression prēnēs genomenos [pronounced pray-nayss ge-no-me-noss, and the “g” is hard as in “get”] in v. 18 means “swelling up” instead of “falling headlong,” in which case we can imagine his corpse becoming bloated in the heat and bursting open while still hanging. Whatever the precise meaning, the sense of the passage is that this was a form of divine retribution for his evil betrayal of Jesus …. (Peterson, comment on vv. 18-19 in his Commentary on Acts)

So in other words, Matthew abbreviated his account, as he was prone to do throughout his entire Gospel. I have learned to nickname him the Trimmer, because he trims out many details that the other synoptic Gospel writers, Mark and Luke, leave in. Go to the search bar on the top right and type in trimmer. You should get several hits.

Commentator Longenecker says that Matthew’s Messianic Jewish community understood that suicide was terribly wrong, so Matthew writes, simply, he hanged himself (27:5). Luke’s Gentile audience probably saw suicide as neutral, so Luke goes into more detail to spell out that Judas’s suicide was not neutral but a sign of a lost soul. (comment on vv. 18-19).

That is, the two authors’ different purposes explain the omitted details in Matthew and added details in Acts. Added details cannot contradict omitted details, for data in one text cannot contradict silence in another. Once again: Matthew the Trimmer.

Now another issue about his death:

But would guts gush out after a fall (as the unrecorded gap in the process of suicide implies) or by some other means before he lay prostrate? BDAG (a thick Greek lexicon) cites an ancient source that says this internal spillage happened in another case. And so, let’s say two people were walking by the sight at different times. One person could have seen Judas hanging from a tree at an early moment in the gruesome process of suicide, and then the other person could have seen his body prostrate on the ground, with the blood and guts spilled out, at the end of the process.

In an interview, Michael Licona suggests that Judas’s body was taken down from the rope and hauled over to the burial ground–the field of blood. And when they took him off the wagon, his body fell, his abdomen broke open. So there is no need for a rope to break.

The Remnant Radio, Do the Gospels Contradict Each Other? (FF to about 38:00).

Ownership of Field in Matthew and Acts

Yet another issue: who bought or acquired the field? Matthew’s version says the chief priests and elders bought the field (27:6), while Luke implies that Judas possessed / acquired it (Acts 1:18).

This difference is not so difficult to reconcile, either. Here’s how.

Matthew’s verb says “bought” (agorazō, pronounced ah-go-rah-zoh), the standard verb for “buy,” while Luke’s version says acquired / possessed (ktaomai, pronounced ktah-o-my).

Thus, Judas did not buy the field; instead, the chief priests and elders bought it for him. The two words are not true and complete synonyms. And in both versions, “the field of blood” became associated with Judas throughout Jerusalem; in that sense, Judas, in Acts, possessed or acquired the field, by reputation. Matthew the tax collector was more precise about the financial transaction, while Luke was concerned with the aftermath of the process and Judas’s replacement.

So the two accounts are reconcilable. Different purposes from different angles, at different times, in the sad process of Judas’s demise.

HT: Ian Paul, “Does the death of Judas tell us we cannot trust the NT?” at the website Psephizo (posted Oct. 4, 2021). Copy and paste the title in Google to search the article.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The bigger issue is that our faith should not be so brittle that it snaps in two about such discrepancies. Scripture itself is not brittle, but fiery pastors and youth pastors and certain Christian philosophers and theologians have placed an extremely high and unrealistic demand on Scripture. The point is that Judas met a miserable end. The table produced, above, by Keener, tells us that the gist of the story about Judas has been set forth and accomplished in Matthew and Acts. Let’s just focus on that and learn from it.

I see no contradiction here on the substantive issue.

The following is an example of contradiction:

1.. Judas died a miserable death.

2.. He did not die a miserable death.

The accounts report his miserable end from different angles. Matthew is clear about Judas’ suicide, for Matthew’s Jewish audience. In contrast, Acts, written for a more diverse readership, some of whom may have considered suicide to be neutral, emphasizes the gross nature of his death. To be extra-precise, suicide is not mentioned in Acts, but Judas’ miserable end is. Does Luke’s silence in Acts mean that Judas did not commit suicide? Of course not. Luke has a different purpose geared toward a broader audience.

This equation may clarify matters:

Included data points in one account + omitted data points in another account = differences ≠ contradictions

How can words contradict no words or silence?

It’s time to stop demanding no discrepancies in parallel accounts, or else you will leave the Christian faith. Let’s be calmer and more realistic about such minor things and not turn molehills into mountains.

Even the OT has differences in their parallel accounts:

Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels

I see no reason to panic about this. Personally, I’m happy the Gutenberg printing press was not invented until the mid-1400s.  Now, to me, the differences in these two-thousand-year-old accounts breathe and pulsate with authenticity. Don’t let hostile readers determine your attitude. They are famous for turning little molehills into mountains. (One hostile reader used the word “looney” about another difference in another parallel story.) Ignore them or do your own research, like at this website (or others online resources).

These hostile critics have drunk too deeply of the Postmodern Age. Do not drink deeply of it.

What Is Postmodernism?

The Skeptical Sneering Age

I choose to be a reasonable and friendly reader of the Gospels.

Recommendations

Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:

15. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective (a difference ≠ a  contradiction):

13. Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:

14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

Celebrate the similarities.

SOURCES

Matthew 27

Acts 1

For a fuller bibliography, click on the two links and scroll down to the very bottom.