What Judah did with the money?

[1over137]

I am reading Acts and before was Matthew. There seem to be two different accounts about what Judah did with the money:

Matthew 27:5
5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

Well, I need to resolve this contradiction. Please, help.

[FlawedIntellect]

I remember seeing this on the Christian ThinkTank site once, though it was about what appeared to be a contradiction in how he died, rather than the matter of what was done with the money.
http://www.christianthinktank.com/miniblurbz1.html

I don't have time to really write these up, but let me cite just a couple of the resources i have easily at hand.

The first is from the book Hard Sayings of the Bible:

"A closer look at the two stories highlights gaps in the narrative that raise questions about the events. But the accounts are not necessarily contradictory. Acts is concerned that Judas’s money and name were connected to a field. Whether or not the chief priests actually purchased it, perhaps some time after Judas’s death, would not be a detail of concern to the author. His point was the general knowledge that Judas’s money went to the purchase, which resulted in the title “Field of Blood” being attached to the field. Another possible reason for the name, also a concern of Acts, was that Judas split open and his intestines poured out. Such a defacing of the body, probably with the concomitant result of the corpse being at least partially eaten by vultures and dogs, was horrible in the view of the Jews, for whom proper burial was important. In fact, they even valued forms of execution that did not deface the outside of the body (such as strangulation) over forms that defaced the body (such as stoning, the worst form in their eyes).

"Matthew points out that it was a guilt-motivated suicide, accomplished by the most common means, hanging. Suicide in Jewish literature is most often connected to shame or failure. (So 2 Sam 17:23; compare the other accounts of suicide in Old Testament history, which were normally to avoid a more shameful death.) However, since suicide by hanging was usually accomplished (at least by poorer people) by jumping out of a tree with a rope around one’s neck, it was not unusual (nor is it uncommon in India today) for the body to be ripped open in the process. I hesitate to say that this was exactly what happened, but it is certainly a plausible explanation."

and then one from F.F. Bruce commentary on Acts 1.19:

"But he did not live to enjoy the fruits of his shameful acts, for he fell and sustained a fatal rupture." (his footnote here reads: "The Latin Vulgate harmonizes this account with that of Matt 27.5 by saying that "having hanged himself he burst open")

This last reference to the Latin Vulgate means that this "death by a failed attempt at hanging" was a very early tradition about the event.

This understanding makes so much more sense than those other three, to me!

This generally answers the matter of what appears to be a contradiction about how he died rather than the matter of the money.
But perhaps he purchased the field with some of the money and then threw the remainder the temple sanctuary before committing suicide, or perhaps he bought a field by paying money at or near a temple sanctuary, throwing the money when doing so, before fleeing and committing suicide.

[1over137]

Thanks, but I am interested in the matter of money. I have already read somewhat about his death.

[Silvertusk]

The money he threw back at the priests was then used to buy a field later by the priests because it was tainted money and they could not use it themselves. Do not see a contradiction - just because it is not explicitly mentioned.

[1over137]

The money he threw back at the priests was then used to buy a field later by the priests because it was tainted money and they could not use it themselves. Do not see a contradiction - just because it is not explicitly mentioned.

This I thought reading Matthew but Acts seem to suggest Judah himself used that money to by the field.

[theophilus]

The money he threw back at the priests was then used to buy a field later by the priests because it was tainted money and they could not use it themselves. Do not see a contradiction - just because it is not explicitly mentioned.

This I thought reading Matthew but Acts seem to suggest Judah himself used that money to by the field.

Apparently the ones who did buy the field gave him the credit for it because he supplied the money.

[Silvertusk]

Exactly.