Easter (Part #2)

Links:
Easter (Part #1)
Easter (Part #2) <<< You are here
Easter (Part #3)
Easter (Part #4)


In this part of the Easter story I want to consider the death of Judas.

In Matthew 27:5 it is stated that Judas,

"went and hanged himself."

But Acts 1:18 says Judas died when,

"falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and his bowels gushed out."

It certainly looks like we are being told two contradictory stories, but nearly all Christian Apologists agree there is a logical explanation. Nearly all of them say that Judas hung himself from a tree and the branch broke, causing him to hit the ground where his belly split open, and his bowels gushed out.

But wait a moment. Matthew doesn't give even the slightest hint about where Judas was hanged. It could have happened inside a house with a rope tied to the rafters, yet every apologist seems determined to have Judas hanging from a tree. Check out the crazy logic used by Gleason L. Archer as he tries desperately to get Judas outside and into the forest. He begins by pointing out that Judas "hanged himself" and then goes on to explain that the phrase comes from the Greek word apenxato:

(apenxato - the aorist middle third person singular from apancho, a verb used with that specific meaning ever since the fifth century B.C.). This establishes the fact that Judas fastened a noose around his neck and jumped from the branch to which the other end of the rope was attached.

Do you see what he did there? He started with some information about the ancient Greek language, knowing full-well that his audience would bow to his expertise and nod along with whatever he had to say on the subject. And then, while they were still nodding in agreement, he casually introduced the word "branch" as if it appeared in the bible story - but it doesn't!

And now that the word 'branch' has been surreptitiously introduced into the story, his readers can easily take the next step and assume that Judas hanged himself from the branch of a tree. And his readers are prepared to go along with that idea because Archer has already told them it is an established fact! But it is not an established fact at all. And it raises the question: Why are the apologists so keen to see Judas swinging from a tree?

Well if the suicide had taken place inside a house, Judas would have fallen only a few feet to the floor when the rope broke, and it is unlikely that would create enough force to burst open his belly - so the whole scene had to be shifted outdoors in order to make the apology work.

And not just anywhere outdoors either. In his "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" John Haley says,

"Judas suspended himself from a tree on the brink of the precipice overhanging the valley of Hinnom, and the limb or the rope giving way, he fell, and was mangled as described in Acts."

All that detail from "went and hanged himself" !

There is method in his madness, however, because now, with Judas hanging over a precipice; when the rope breaks he will plummet to the valley floor and probably hit the ground with enough force to split open his belly. In fact Haley goes on to quote a Professor Hackett who actually travelled to the valley of Hinnom, found the spot where Judas committed suicide (how he found it is not mentioned) but having found it, he took out his tape measure and discovered that Judas could have fallen anywhere from 25 to 40 feet and he,

"may have struck upon some pointed rock, which entered his body, and caused his bowels to gush out."

Darned clever people, those apologists - teasing all of that information from "went and hanged himself."

More than a hundred years after Haley, another apologist (Gleason L. Archer Jr) told the same story in his "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties". He wrote,

"...the tree from which Judas suspended himself overhung a precipice. If the branch from which he hung himself was dead and dry...it would take only one strong gust of wind to yank the heavy corpse and split the branch...and plunge both with great force into the bottom of the chasm below."

And the clincher for both Haley and Archer? The big detail that tells them that this is most certainly the place where Judas hung himself? There are trees growing there today! Which means there were probably trees growing there 2,000 years ago! What more proof do you need?

Sources:

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible - John W. Haley (pages 343,344)

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties - Gleason L. Archer Jr (page 344)

So let's forget about the apologists and see if we can work out what is really happening:

In the first place it is worth noting that the very early Christians had never heard about Judas betraying Jesus and killing himself. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:23 Paul says that Jesus was betrayed but he doesn't name the betrayer. Later, in 1 Corinthinans 15:5, Paul says that after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to "the Twelve", so Judas was not yet dead, and apparently not regarded as a betrayer either. Judas was still with the apostles and apparently still being treated as an equal; certainly not dead.

Twenty years later, however, by the time Mark wrote his gospel in 70AD, it had become accepted that Jesus was betrayed by Judas, but there was no indication that Judas had died (probably because that part of the legend had not yet been invented).

Ten years after that, when Matthew wrote his gospel in 80AD, the legend had grown to the point where Judas had seen the error of his ways and committed suicide during a fit of remorse.

And another ten years after that, Luke invented a much more mysterious death for Judas, saying that he fell over and his bowels gushed out. Luke makes no mention of suicide. Luke is trying to give the impression that Judas was zapped by God himself.

    In 50AD Judas was still an apostle with not a stain on his character.

    In 70AD Judas had become the apostle who betrayed Jesus.

    In 80AD He was the betrayer who died at his own hand.
    In 90AD He was the betrayer, struck down by a miracle from God.

We can see the legend growing bit by bit as each book is written.

As it happens, Matthew was famous for trawling through the Old Testament; reinterpreting the stories he found there, and applying them to Jesus. It was Matthew, for example, who invented the story of the virgin birth. He took the text from Isaiah 7:14,

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

And rewrote it in Matthew 1:23 as,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.

We know it is an invention because 30 years earlier Paul actually went to the trouble of pointing out that there was nothing miraculous about the birth of Jesus. In Romans 1:3 he wrote,

Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

So now we know Matthew's technique, we can be pretty sure that he got the story of the death of Judas from the Old Testament - and lo and behold, there it is in 2 Samuel 17:1-23:

Ahithophel was King David's favourite advisor, but when Absalom rose against David, Ahithophel changed sides and advised Absalom on the best way to defeat David's army. As it turned out, Absalom decided not to take the advice, and Ahithophel finally saw the error of his ways, and went home and hanged himself.

The similarities are obvious:

• A king is betrayed by a friend
• The friend sees the error of his ways
• Is overcome by remorse
• And hangs himself

Ten years later, in 90AD when Luke wrote the book of Acts, he pulled the same stunt. He noted that according to Mark 14:44, Jesus was betrayed with a kiss so he went looking for a similar Old Testament story and found it in 2 Samuel 20:1-10,

And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him. But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's hand; so he smote him therewith in the fifth rib, and shed out his bowels to the ground.

Luke would have probably been unaware that Matthew had already said that Judas hanged himself, so Luke didn't hesitate to include the disembowelment story in his book of Acts. He didn't care whether it was true or not; all he wanted was a story to tell the mugs in the pews - and he just knew his followers would go for this one. Murder, mayhem, and bloody gore - Christianity thrives on it.

For a long time these contradictory stories about the death of Judas were of no consequence because Matthew was writing for one group of Christians and Luke was writing for a completely different group. Neither group had much (if any) contact with the other, and so the discrepancy remained undiscovered. It was only many years later, when both books appeared side by side in the New Testament, that the contradiction was revealed for all to see.

-----

Here's another question for you: What did Judas do with the thirty pieces of silver?

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. (Matthew 27:3)

With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field. (Acts 1:18)