My soul clings to you,Your right hand upholds me.
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:
