“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

(Deuteronomy 21:22–23, ESV)

According to the law of Moses, if they did not “bury him the same day”, the land would have been defiled. They might not have cared about a man on a cross, but they cared about not defiling their land and would have obeyed this law. It was Roman policy to be respectful of local customs whenever it was reasonable, and this custom was most likely upheld. And the evidence does support that it was. There is evidence of crucified victims being buried in the area as well as writing to support this. Could he have been buried in a mass grave that was just covered up? This is also unlikely giving the care given to burial customs. Josephus wrote, “The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors (criminals) who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset”(Jewish Wars 4.5.2; cf. Ant. 4.265). “We must furnish fire, water, food to all who ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies” (Against Apion 2.211, cf. 2.204). The Temple Scroll among those writings found at Qumran calls for the burial of crucified victims (DSS: 11QT 64:7-13a, 4Q524 frag. 14, lines 2-4). This “care” on how bodies were buried makes it unlikely that they were buried in a mass grave. Could he have been buried in an unmarked grave? It doesn’t matter if there were eyewitnesses to his burial, they would have been able to come back to the spot. Added to this, there is archeological evidence that crucifixion victims were buried in tombs, even with the name written on the ossuary dating to 20s CE. Because of the evidence, we can confidently say that the idea of Jesus being placed in a tomb after his crucifixion is not outlandish but is instead expected.

As far as I know, there are no early accounts of this objection. If it were true, you would expect this to be a common argument against the resurrection from the very beginning, especially among the Jews. After all, it is a more plausible explanation than “the disciples stole the body”. It would be hard to believe that the disciples could have taken down or bribed well-trained Roman soldiers. And it is hard to believe any, let alone all, of these Roman soldiers would have fallen asleep considering the consequences for doing so. “The disciples stole the body” is a pretty poor excuse, especially if they had the option of saying that Jesus’ body was lost in a mass grave. It is way more believable that dogs and carrion came and ate the body, or that the body had been lost in a pile of bodies. The Jewish leaders were smarter than that and would have used this excuse if they could. Even if they were unaware of the events at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, as Christianity grew and became more of a problem for them, this would have been a reasonable objection for them to bring up, even if it was years after the event. If we can think of it, they would have especially having been more aware of what happened with the bodies after crucifixion. But you do not see this objection raised by people who were closer and more aware of the customs of the time. Instead, from what I can tell, this is a recent argument against the resurrection.

Based on the evidence, it is likely that Jesus was put in a tomb. Ironically, in a backhanded way, this claim has produced additional evidence for the empty tomb. If it were a viable objection, you would expect it to be raised early and held on to throughout history. But it is not. It is most likely that this objection was not raised, because it was well known that this was not the custom and that crucified victims were buried. We don’t see objections to his burial, only to his resurrection.

Information on evidence for burial after crucification below:

• Burial of Jesus: Supposed Biblical Error #15 – YouTube
• Matthew 28:11-15 — Matt Whitman and The Ten Minute Bible Hour (thetmbh.com)
  • Episode 0785, 0786
• Refutting the no tomb theory, the idea that Jesus was not burried in a private tomb but a mass grave. (doxa.ws)
• Is it likely that Jesus’ body was not buried? | Questions.org

                The question arises, did Jesus eat the Passover meal and as a consequence what day of the Passover week did Jesus die? The Synoptic Gospels speak of Jesus eating the Passover with his disciples on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed

“And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mark 14:12)

“Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” (Luke 22:7)

“Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” (Matthew 26:17)

However some have claimed that John gives a different account, implying that instead of eating the Passover meal on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed, Jesus ate the meal the day before and died when the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. Below are the passages they use to support this claim.

“Now before the Feast of Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.” (John 13:1)

“It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” (John 18:28)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.” (John 19:14)

Can John be reconciled with the Synoptic Gospels? We will look at John’s account to determine whether John is claiming that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover lamb. Is the claim of a contradiction valid?

The Day of Preparation

                Both John and the Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus died on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath. They also agree that the day before Jesus’s death, Jesus ate his last meal with his disciples in the upper room and in between these they were on the Mount of Olives where Jesus was arrested and taken trial and brought before Pilot to be crucified.

“And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” (Mark 15:42)

“It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning.” (Luke 23:54)

”The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, ‘Sir, we remember how that imposter said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise’.” (Matthew 27:62-63)

“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day),” (John 19:31)

“So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” (John 19:42)

We can see that there is not discrepancy on what day of the week Jesus died and was buried. Each of the Gospel’s states that this occurred on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath.

The term “Passover” is used to refer to the whole week of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So in order to know what part of this week “Passover” is referring to one must look at the context. Below are examples of “Passover” referring to the whole week.

“The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (John 2:13)

“Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was at hand” (John 6:14)

“many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.” (John 11:55)

Intune with this, the phrase “the day of Preparation” refers to the day before the Sabbath. When John states, “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover.” He is not talking about the day when the Passover lamb was slain, but the day before the Sabbath, or “the day of Preparation” during the Passover week. Notice John highlights the Sabbath as a “high day”, also emphasizing its occurrence during the Passover. So each of the Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation.

We can further provide support that this is the case because John records, “It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” Now if this was the day the Passover lamb was slain there would not be a problem since they could have bathed and at evening, they would have been ritually clean and could have participated in the Passover meal (Leviticus 11:24-28; 15:5-11; 17:15; 19:7-8). They would have been able to participate even if they had entered Pilot’s court. But is there a meal before evening that they would have wanted to remain clean for? And does that give us a clue to the day John record’s Jesus’ death? After the Passover lamb was slain and the Seder meal was eaten in the evening and night, during the day there was another meal that was part of the Passover celebration called the Hagigah, which occurred the midday after the Seder. It appears this is what John was referring to and if so John, like the Synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day after the Passover. And this makes sense because John does not explicitly try to synchronize the death of Jesus with the slaying of the Passover lamb as some have claimed. John who loves symbolism probably would not have been shy to have done so, if these two events occurred simultaneously. So the synoptic Gospels and John all agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation which was after the Passover lamb was slain.

John 13:1

                So, some will question, but John says that Jesus had the last meal before the Feast of Passover? Did he? Since it is clear that all four Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation, lets now look at John 13:1 and the phrase, “Now before the Feast of Passover”. This phrase is qualified by “when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world, he loved them to the end.” The Passover marked the beginning of the last hours of Jesus’ life.  John is stating that before this very moment of time as Jesus knew his death was approaching, that he was about to have his last meal with his disciples, he did not panic, but loved and fully gave of himself to his disciples till the very end. Notice this includes Judas. John is emphasizing that though Jesus knew what would soon take place, even though he knew this would be his last meal with his disciples, his focus was love. And he continues to model that love as in verse 2, as we have a transition, “During supper”, referring to the Seder meal. The final acts before his death had begun. In order to express his love, during the supper, Jesus knowing who he was and having loved his own, humbled himself and took on himself the role of a servant, in contrast to those who around him who were arguing who was the greatest. There is no reason to assume that this “supper” is not the Passover meal. John 13:1 states that Jesus had loved them before this meal, John 13:2 states that love for them continued as Jesus continued to serve and be focused on caring for his disciples, rather than caring for his own needs, despite knowing the suffering he was about to endure. And based on the evidence already given, this is the reading that makes the most sense. The synoptic Gospels and John are telling the same story and give the same timing for Jesus’ death. In the next article we will look at whether the Gospels of Mark and John agree on the hour of Jesus’ death: The Hour of Jesus’ Death

Articles to read:

• The Timing of Jesus’ Death | Catholic Answers
• What Day Did Jesus die? – Bible Contradiction #20 – YouTube

                The passages describing Judas’s death in Matthew and Acts are cited as an example of where two accounts in the Bible are incompatible with each other. Let’s look at these passages.

[3] Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, [4] saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” [5] And throwing down the pieces of silver into 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 it is blood money.” [7] So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. [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.” (Matthew 27:3–10, ESV)

[15] In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, [16] “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a 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 acquired 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 own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) [20] “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,

                “‘May his camp become desolate,

                                and let there be no one to dwell in it’;

                and

                “‘Let another take his office.’ (Acts 1:15–20, ESV)

These passages at a glance seem to be giving us two different descriptions of how Judas died and two different accounts of who purchased the land where Judas died.

Is the death of Judas only and allusion?

                Matthew 27:5 describes the events leading up to and the method of Judas’ death, “And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.” The term “hanged” is a term that describes strangulation and is used when someone has hung themselves with a rope. This is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint when Ahithophel, a close confident of King David, hangs himself after betraying David. There is a clear parallel between these two accounts. It also parallels death of David’s son Absalom who betrayed him and ended up dying while hanging from a tree. Though not strangled it also parallels Acts account of Judas’ death in that after being pierced many times by Joab and his men, some of Absalom’s insides would have poured on the ground. It would have been bloody. But are these passages attempting to give us more than an allusion to betrayers and their deaths? Are these passages giving us an accurate picture of Judas’ death.

The death of Judas

                We can start off with what we know. Matthew states that Judas hanged himself. That is a pretty straightforward and very plausible means by which one would kill themselves. Combine this with the fact that it alludes to the death of both of the traitors of King David, we can be pretty certain this is an accurate account. But then what about Acts where it says, “falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” An explanation proposed is that Judas hanged himself, but his body was not taken down but hung there for several days. The likelihood of him hanging there for several days is quite high. Remember the Jewish leaders refused to enter Pilots court so that they might remain clean. During the week of the Passover, people would have been hesitant to touch a dead body, therefore his body hanging for days would not be surprising. It is known that bodies whether human or animal if left out in the elements will bloat and will explode releasing the contents of the body. This is messy and not pleasant. Calling the plot of land the “field of blood” would have been an appropriate description as well as described his betrayal and giving Jesus over to death.

Falling headlong

                The skeptics to this scenario would say, the passage says that Judas’ burst open after “falling headlong”.  The point being is that “falling headlong” does not sound like the same thing as being strangled or hanging oneself. Consequently, is this phrase compatible with someone who has hung himself, gotten bloated, and had his innards fall out after exploding? So, this phrase is the crux of the argument. Can this phrase be reconciled with this scenario? In the Greek this phrase is “prēnēs genomenos”. The term “genomenos” which is translated “falling” does not mean “falling” it means “to become”. So if we are translating “prēnēs” as headlong, then the phrase would be “to become headlong”, not necessarily “falling headlong”. So, what does “prēnēs” mean?

Unusual phrase

                The phrase “prēnēs genomenos” is unusual. If Luke wanted to describe someone falling headlong and then bursting open and dying, a more appropriate Greek term rather than “genomenos” would be “pipto” and would make it clear that it was a fall that ended Judas’ life. Luke uses this word for falling multiple times in his writing, for people falling headfirst at Jesus’ feet (Luke 5:8, 5;12, Acts 8:28, 16:29) and for an actual fall (Luke 6:39, 8:5, 10:18, Acts 5”5, 510, 9:4, 9:18, 20:9). These passages include the description of a boy falling out of a window to the ground and dying. We would think Luke would use similar language if Judas fell on something and his bowels burst open. But Luke doesn’t say he fell, he only says he became “prēnēs”. Interesting this phrase in of itself, does not give us any definitive cause of death, only that Judas’ body became “prēnēs” and burst open.

Manuscript error?

                Before we get into the meaning of “prēnēs”, some have posited that there may be a manuscript error here. It is believed that the original word may have been “prestho” which means “swollen”, making the phrase “having become swollen he burst open”. If this is true, then the contradiction is solved. It would fit in well with the scenario above.

Headlong

                Could the term “headlong” or “head fore-most” be referring to the focus of where the death occurred. When one is hanged death occurs through strangulation and possibly breaking of the neck. The focal point being the head. It is also the focal point of where the body was hanging. So, in other words having been hanging there “headlong” his body burst open. I figure this is the most unlikely of the possibilities to explain this term, since it is just a thought I had. I am not using this as a serious attempt to explain this passage. I only have it here out of curiosity in case if by chance an expert in the Biblical Hebrew language reads this article and could verify or discredit for me this position. Below are more plausible explanations of what Luke is describing here.

Bloated

                But what if “prēnēs” is the word in the original text, is it still compatible with Matthew 27? The author of the article, The Death of Judas: A Contradiction between Matthew and Acts? argues that the etymology of the word “prēnēs” can include the concept of “to inflate” or “to swell”. Luke having had been a doctor would probably have been aware of this process. Whereas Matthew focused on the cause of death, Luke focused on the ghastly results of the death. Both aspects reflecting the horror of Judas’ betrayal, foreshadowed through Ahithophel and Absalom. The author of the article shows how the word “prēnēs” is translated as “swelling” in transcripts referring to this text. He also refers to descriptions of this this tale which develop with a legend that Judas’ body did in fact swell up. The Louw-Nida lexicon mentions “swollen” or “distended” as a possible meaning of the word “prēnēs”. A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament by Alexander Souter states that “prēnēs” is “(a medical term, denoting a disease, and corresponding to πίμπρημι, which see), swollen up, inflamed.” Luke being a doctor would have been familiar with this use of the “prēnēs”. If this is what Luke meant her in this passage, then just as if he had originally used “prestho” there is no contradiction, and the description is a fitting description of what occurred.

Prostrate

                The word “prēnēs” can also be used to mean “prostrate” in the sense that when lying prostate your face is facing downward. (The IGEL, CDWGTHB, Louw-Nida, DBL Greek, LEH LXX Lexicon, LXGRCANLEX, and LALS support this as a definition of “prēnēs”). This is the least disputable of the meanings. In 3 Maccabees 5:43 and 50 we see this term being used to describe both the destruction of the temple and its being leveled to the ground and people prostrating themselves in prayer to God. In 3 Maccabees 6:23 as well as Wisdom of Solomon 4:19 this term is used to describe people lying prostrate. Since Luke doesn’t specifically tell us how Judas died, it is possible that after Judas’ death his body hung long enough for it to have bloated and that eventually Judas’ body either fell or was cut down and having fallen prostate with is face to the ground the impact of the fall caused his body to burst open. Interestingly Joab after killing Absalom while he was hanging in the tree, later through his body into a pit or ravine or gorge. In the traditional place of Judas’ death there are cliffs.

Conclusion on “prēnēs”

                It is easy to see that this term “prēnēs” is an apt description of what happened to Judas’ body and that Matthew and Luke come together to describe the gruesomeness and accursed nature of Judas’ death. They are not contradictory accounts, but instead each highlight aspects of Judas’ death. Matthew highlights the cause of Judas’ death while Luke highlights the gruesomeness of what happened to Judas’ body after death. Both alluding to stories of King David being betrayed by those who were close to him.

Who bought the field?

                The other contention with this passage is the claim that Matthew states that the chief priests bought the field, while Acts states that Judas acquired the field. Here are the passages,

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. (Matthew 27:6,7)

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness . . . (Acts 1:18)

So, let’s look at what these passages imply. Matthew states that the chief priests took the money Judas had thrown temple and later took it and used it to buy the field where Judas’ body was found. They did this because it was “blood money” and not lawful to have been put into the treasury. If it was unlawful for the money to have been placed into the treasury, it would have also been unlawful to use the money to officially buy something on behalf of the temple or priests. Having no where to place custody of these coins this money would have still have officially and lawfully belonged to Judas. Notice that Luke uses the word “acquired” and not “bought” as Matthew does. The term “acquire” just means to gain or obtain without referring to the means. This term would apply if the Priests not being able to buy the field on behalf of the temple instead bought it on behalf of Judas since technically the money still belonged to him, even though he had died. So, Matthew and Luke are not in conflict but are both describing the conundrum the priests had on how this money ought to be used and what they did to solve their problem.

Conclusion

                There is no contradiction between the passages in Matthew and Acts. They give the account of a man who betrayed Jesus, felt remorse, threw the money he gained into the temple, where it was picked up by the priests. He then left and hung himself, his body hanging for days and becoming bloated. Later his body fell or was cut down and on hitting the ground prostate his body burst open. During all this the priests took the money and not being able to use it for themselves or the temple nor transferring ownership of the money to anyone other than Judas, bought the field where Judas died on his behalf.

Articles to read:

• The Death of Judas: A Contradiction? (bible-apologetics.com)
• The Death of Judas – Bible Contradiction #19 – YouTube
• The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction? (crossexamined.org)