Resolving Contradictions Between Acts and Matthew on Judas

Interpreting the scriptures is a multifaceted task, especially when dealing with apparent contradictions between different gospels. One such example is the story of Judas Iscariot in the gospels of Luke (Acts) and Matthew. Christian apologists tackle these contradictions through various interpretative techniques, primarily focusing on one rather than both at once. This article explores how Christian apologists address the discrepancies between Acts and Matthew regarding Judas, specifically the contradictions surrounding the money and the manner of Judas' death.

The Contradiction Regarding the Money and Judas' Betrayal

One of the most perplexing contradictions in these texts is the fate of the 30 pieces of silver that Judas received for betraying Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew, it is explicitly mentioned that the money was returned to the religious authorities, leading them to use it to purchase a field to bury strangers. However, in the book of Acts, there is no mention of the money being returned, and the field is introduced in a different context.

Christian apologists often employ a hermeneutical technique, sometimes referred to as 'salami slicing,' to address these contradictions. This method involves focusing on one particular contradiction rather than trying to resolve both at the same time. Many apologists handle one contradiction and divert attention from the other.

When it comes to the money, a common apologetic response is to suggest that the high priests used the funds to buy the field in Judas' name. While this explanation may not seamlessly fit into the narratives of either gospel, it offers a way to harmonize the two accounts. However, it is important to note that this explanation may not satisfy all skeptics or biblical scholars.

Harmonizing the Death of Judas

The death of Judas presents another difficulty. In the Gospel of Matthew, it is described that Judas hanged himself and his body then decayed, causing the rope to break and leading to the field being purchased. In the Gospel of Luke, Judas' death is not explicitly detailed, but the Acts of the Apostles tells us that he purchased a field with the money and then suffered an unspecified internal affliction, subsequently falling to his death.

Some apologists attempt to combine these accounts into a single narrative. For instance, they might argue that Judas hanged himself, but his death was sudden and violent, causing his body to swell excessively. The added weight of his bloated body caused the rope to break, leading to his fall, and he eventually died from his internal injuries. This combination of narratives, while speculative, provides a way to reconcile the two accounts.

Basic Hermeneutical Principles in Biblical Interpretation

Interpreting scripture requires the use of hermeneutical principles. Among these are the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. When contradictions arise, it is crucial to re-examine one's interpretation. Both Luke and Matthew, who wrote Acts and the gospel of Matthew respectively, were eyewitnesses to the events they describe. It stands to reason that their accounts, though slightly different, may still contain a common thread.

The process of interpretation often involves comparing similar points and identifying agreements. For instance, we can ascertain that Judas received 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus and that he died, even if the specifics of his death are ambiguous. The common thread in both accounts is that Judas faced a gruesome end as a result of his actions.

While these methods of resolving contradictions can be effective, they should also be open to scrutiny and subject to ongoing interpretation and reconciliation. The goal is to maintain a coherent and faithful understanding of the biblical texts.