Not long ago, Mark Woods wrote an article in Christian Today exploring the apparent contradictions between the two accounts of Judas’ death, in Matt 27.3–8 and in Act 1.18. In the first, Judas hangs himself, the priests buy the field, and it is named ‘Field of Blood’ because of the betrayal by Judas. In the second, briefer account, Judas buys the field first, falls to his death there, and it is named ‘Field of Blood’ because of Judas’ death. These differing accounts have recently become a focus for attention on whether the NT is reliable, and no wonder. Biblical scholar Richard Longenecker believes that the difficulty of reconciling these two accounts is ‘often considered the most intractable contradiction in the NT’. Yet this is hardly a new problem; Augustine was aware of the issue, and it is not much different from reconciling other differences within Acts itself, such as the three accounts of Paul’s conversation in chapters 9, 22 and 26.
Woods suggests a way of living with this. Rather than try and reconcile the two accounts artificially, we should accept the ‘blindingly obvious’ point that there are two different, contradictory stories, and that ‘one of them got it right, and the other didn’t.’
I don’t believe for one moment that the Bible is compromised by honesty about the parts where it contradicts itself or where the biblical writers, speaking spiritual truth in the context of erroneous ideas about science and nature, simply got things wrong.
But there is one rather large problem with this. If there really are two stories, and they really cannot be reconciled, the logical conclusion is not that one is right and one is wrong—but that they are both wrong since historical reliability (at least in our understanding of the idea) is not important to the NT writers. And if these two stories are not reliable, what about the rest of Acts? Or the gospels? In particular, what about the ‘contradictions’ between the accounts of Jesus’ healings? Or the whole shape of his ministry (about five months in Mark, three years in John)? Or his trial and crucifixion? Or the resurrection—was there one angel (Mark) or two (Matthew)? Two women or three? The women first to the tomb, or the men? And did they say nothing, or tell the others…? And so on. If these accounts cannot be reconciled, then the most obvious conclusion to draw is not that one of the accounts is accurate and the others are not, but that none of them are. And I don’t think it is then possible to conclude that in matters of faith the Bible is trustworthy, but in the matter of facts it is, well, a little bit hit and miss. The NT documents do not separate faith and facts in this kind of way.
In fact, Matthew and Luke tell us that they are interested in facts, in their different ways. For Matthew, the story about Judas has a particular function in his narrative. It is an odd place for him to include this episode, since it means taking events out of order—jumping ahead to Judas’ death and then jumping back to Jesus’ trial. Luke’s order in Acts is more logical. But Matthew does this because he wants us to spot three things: first, that Judas’ fate was a fulfilment of Jesus’ words in chapter 26; second, to see the contrast with Peter, and the difference between Peter’s repentance and Judas’ ‘remorse’; and thirdly that all this was a ‘fulfilment’ of the OT Scriptures. So he follows up the story of Judas with a quotation from Jeremiah. Except that the quotation incorporates elements from Zechariah as well, and doesn’t actually fit the story very well! As with Matthew’s other examples of ‘fulfilment’ (particular in the birth narratives), the fit looks rather forced. If Matthew was making the narrative up, then he could have done a much better job—and the logical conclusion from this is that he is making the ‘fulfilment’ fit the facts, rather than the other way around. The facts do matter.
Luke, in his own way, is also making this point. Having noted that others have offered their own versions, he sets out to provide his own account from eye-witness research so that his readers might be confident in what they have heard (Luke 1.1–4). In this aside about Judas (which most English versions put in brackets), he includes a puzzling little phrase (me oun) which suggests that he is filling out some detail for a story that his readers might have heard elsewhere. It looks very much like he wants to fill in some facts!
To see what is going on here, let me give you an illustration from my own experience. I was recently rather late getting to the station for a train, was very hot and bothered as I jumped on and found my seat. There was no refreshment service on the train, but the person opposite me was very kind and offered me his bottle of water. When I opened my Bible for the reading of the day I found this: ‘Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly be rewarded’ (Mark 9.41). Moral of the story? God speaks through Scripture into our situations.
Or another story. I usually cycle to the train station, but on one occasion hadn’t done so for several weeks. The night before I thought to myself ‘You really ought to check the bike.’ But I couldn’t be bothered and left it till the morning. When I got the bike out, disaster—it had a flat tyre! I pumped it up, cycled like the wind, and arrived at the station as the train pulled in! Moral of the story? Prepare ahead of time—though even if you don’t, God will provide a way.
In fact, those are two stories about the same event—but you’d be hard-pressed to tie them together, not least because the two trains mentioned were not the same, but connecting trains, and the full story wouldn’t quite agree with either. So the question might arise: what was the true story of my journey that morning? When we tell stories, we edit them and condense detail in order to draw out a particular point, and this is the way that the gospel writers use their material—often in an even more condensed way, since they use many fewer words than we would today.
This points to something essential about the nature of Scripture. To talk of Scripture as ‘inerrant’ might fit if it were just a rule book, or a car maintenance manual—but it is neither, and to that extent I agree with Mark’s view. In his Models for Scripture, John Goldingay points out the different ways that Scripture talks of itself. One of these is as ‘witnessing tradition’—a testimony to what happened passed down faithfully to others. As a ‘witness’, the accounts of what happened have been edited, to draw out a point—the main one being that in Jesus, God has come and redeemed the world. But testimony always have to have a facticity about it; it has to offer a coherent account if it is to be taken seriously as a reliable witness. This comes back to something Mark Woods says early on in his reflection: ‘It’s true that logically, there’s nothing impossible about this way of reconciling two stories.’ And for me, it is vital that this is possible, even if it not the first thing that I want to do with these texts.
If they cannot be reconciled—if they are not at some level reliable accounts of what happened—then they are not a credible witness. And if they are not, then they cannot tell me the truth about Jesus Christ.
A version of this article was published in Christian Today on 3rd October 2015
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you consider donating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
So what is your reconstruction of Judas’ death?
Why the accounts may differ on specific points is not the essential import of the accounts the same? Isn’t this what really matters?
“If they cannot be reconciled—if they are not at some level reliable accounts of what happened—then they are not a credible witness. And if they are not, then they cannot tell me the truth about Jesus Christ.”. Surely, a witness (or historian) can still be credible if they make a mistake in memory or use a mistaken source. A credible source does not need to be inerrant.
If I may give an illustration from criminal law evidence and trials, from some years ago, as I don’t know what happens now. If a number of police attend an incident, they had to write-up what happened in their own individual note-books as soon as practicable afterwards at the police station and the usual practice was that they got together and wrote out the same version in each individual note books, jogging each others memories, to which they were allowed to refer at the trial to “refresh their memories” as to what happened, weeks or months earlier.
Sometimes discrepancies in testimony between individual officers were seized upon as reasons to render the evidence unreliable. However, in reality, the differences had a ring of truth, as no one individual in reality saw or did or remembered or emphasised the same point(s) – the differences, in fact, often revealed a composite common view.
When we relate a real life story, (perhaps our testimony of conversion) we may at different times, include or omit certain parts, or tell it in a different way or sequence, which may cause some to question veracity, whereas it is adapted to make a certain point. Paul’s
An example would be police questioning, interview at a police station which is recorded (as if written in stone.) Afterwards, on further thought, the interviewee, might recall something which wasn’t mentioned in interview, “I should have said this or that, but didn’t. I should have emphasised this or that” But this could be seen as lying or at the minimum, an unreliable witness as the interview doesn’t contain a comprehensive chronological, step-by step account.
This is a very roundabout way of agreeing with Chris Bishop. succinct summary and IP’s blog post.
And lastly – just because we don’t see or have an explanation doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
A famous example of differing eye-witness accounts is the incident of Wittgenstein’s Poker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Poker – I first learnt of this from some book, but cannot remember which). Two very learned and intelligent men, in the company of other very intelligent men had an argument with a poker playing some part. It seems accounts of the event from those present differ markedly.
Perhaps it is a mark of independent eye-witness accounts that they should differ in small details. Therefore, that the four Gospels and Acts do have their differences could be taken as a sign of their veracity, rather than their falsehood.
This precisely J. Warner Wallace’s point in his book, Cold Case Christianity. As a cold-case homicide detective he applied his years of interviewing witnesses to the gospel accounts. He found that the differences (not necessarily contradictions) in the gospels spoke to their truthfulness. No collusion involved.
Exactly. The way to tell if a pupil has cheated in a test by copying another pupil is that the answers will be identical, even in the spelling mistakes.
“God has four people recount the life of his incarnate Son, in each case differently and with inconsistencies – but might we not say: It is important that this narrative should not be more than quite averagely historically plausible just so that this should not be taken as the essential, decisive thing? So that the letter should not be believed more strongly than is proper and the spirit may receive its due…” (Wittgenstein)
It might be worth pondering what the concern you express at the end of the article implies for what you say that you need, ie that the truth that you seek is something that cannot take the form of factually irreconcilable accounts. Pondering why that is the case might be a useful spiritual exercise!
(Which is a way of saying – I’m really not sure that the gospel writers were late Modern Protestants…)
Yup.
Hope you don’t mind but here is a 30 min You tube talk by Alastair Roberts on the same topic. I’ve only, just now listened to the first 5 mins which is great. Will watch the rest shortly
https://youtu.be/_fdYiH9BDf4
How Do We Reconcile the Differing Accounts of Judas’ Death?
In summary, Alastair Roberts shows how the accounts can be reconciled in fact. The first and last 5 mins or so do so. The rest is a detailed account, of how both accounts separately fulfil different OT theological narrative themes. There would therefore be no need to ponder a spiritual exercise Sam Norton proposes as Ian Paul’s last sentence stands:
“If they cannot be reconciled—if they are not at some level reliable accounts of what happened—then they are not a credible witness. And if they are not, then they cannot tell me the truth about Jesus Christ, ” non of which presupposes a late modern protestant Gospel writer methodology, but evidences the NT writers being soaked in the Old Testament, themes, symbols, allusions and narratives in a still largely oral tradition, and brought to mind as the Holy Spirit minded and emphasised.
I wonder if I might also draw attention to a short article on the fate of Judas that I wrote as a young man for the Evangelical Quarterly. The PDF is online and available for downloading at
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1971-2_gordon.pdf
Alasdair, Thank you. It covers the points about, hanging, falling and buying.
Alastair Roberts piece largely equates with yours, but more expansively grounds both texts in the Old Testament.
I appreciate your point about burden or onus of proof being on those who claim contradiction(s), whereas contradiction is presumed by those making the claim, possibly ironically, by many who, in many other scriptural contexts, would seek to deny the golden rule of interpretation largely based on their a priori view of what scripture is, whether is reliable in revealing who God and humanity is.
Mixed into this is the long standing question Albert Schweitzer and others of whether Jesus of history is the same as the Jesus of faith. If he isn’t, he can be made in our own image, into the image of metaphysical philosophers.
Perhaps I could add to Geoff’s comment with my own experience from my days as a criminal defence lawyer. Often biblical critics will say that the accounts which differ in minor details demonstrate that the accounts cannot all be true. But in fact if the accounts were identical word for word they would demonstrate, not the veracity of the testimony, but the fact that the witnesses had put there heads together to come up with an identical story.
My experience as a criminal defence solicitor before the days of tape recording evidence was that police officers would go into the witness box one by one and give oral evidence of what occurred, usually including long verbatim accounts of interviews with the defendant. They always agreed word for word with each other and they often included highly incriminating admissions by the defendant which he disputed (“It’s a fair cop guv” etc). That’s because they sat down together, one of them wrote up the evidence in his notebook and the other officers copied it. Sounds extraordinary that this was allowed but it was – it was known as “Making up notes together” (‘making up’ being the operative words).
When cross examined, the officers the prosecution line was usually “All the officers agree on what was said so the police must be telling the truth.” But (call me a cynic) the identical stories somehow always supported the prosecution case and always incriminated my client. At the very least the police would put a ‘spin’ on the story – at worst they made up admissions alleged to be made by my client. They agreed their story in advance and they stuck to it.
So several accounts which agree in every tiny detail or are identical word for word do not prove that the witnesses are telling the truth. Rather they indicate either that the witnesses have got together to cook up an identical story; or alternatively that this is the recollection of one witness put into the mouths of the other ‘witnesses’.
So reading (for example) the different accounts of the Resurrection they read like the accounts of different people giving an account of the same event from their own viewpoint – what they happened to see and what they happened to report. The accounts have the ring of truth.
What would not have the ring of truth would be four identical accounts. Shame there was no tape recording or video in AD 33 but I guess we’ll just have to make do with the Gospels like the Church has had to do for the last 2000 years!
Andrew,
Thanks. It adds corroborative weight! I defended and subsequently prosecuted as a Crown Prosecution Service agent in Magistrates Courts, and trained before police interviews were tape recorded, before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
As you are aware the rules and law relating to the admissibility of evidence are to seek to ensure reliability of evidence. Reliability is key.
As for reliability of the New Testament texts, I’d certainly not be relying on the philosophical, metaphysical, “testimony” of Wittgenstein.
With some humour, some years ago from a web site which no longer exists, posted this:
“And Jesus said unto them, “And whom do you say that I am.” They replied, “You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very self-hood revealed.” And Jesus replied, “What?”
Both accounts are very terse, so scarcely give a full picture. Matthew’s is typical of Matthew in that it is the sort of story that people are likely to have told (Matthew is very Herodotean in this way, picking up folk trad). Luke’s is scriptural (potter’s field) – again, the sort of story that one can imagine being generated, but this time through meditation on scripture. It is also Lukan – a gory fate for the villain as also reported (in typically good storyteller mode) for Herod Antipas.
It may be slightly surprising if no-one knew what actually happened to Judas. However:
-If he never showed his face again that would be thoroughly understandable.
-If he had no friends on any side and was killed off (or else for his former association with Jesus) that would be understandable.
-If he died an unexceptional death, neither folk trad nor authors would be keen on that. It would not make the desired point.
Um, having just looked at Mark Woods’ article (thank you for providing the link) this only provides an explanation for how Judas died, not for who bought the field. Surely, as your piece says, there are lots of little inconsistencies (of the order of events for example) between the gospels. Who was the father of Joseph, for example? The quote from Wittgenstein seems more helpful than trying to pretend that there aren’t contradictions throughout the Bible.
not for who bought the field
Which field? The one where Judas died, or the potter’s field that was subsequently used as a foreigners’ cemetary?
Alastair Roberts in the You tube piece, above, coherently and cogently, deals with the point about buying the field.
Can people not write any more? Who has time to watch videos?
It can be downloaded and merely listened to on a phone, rather than watched. But generally, S, I also prefer writing, but I can listen while driving or doing something else. On the other hand, it can’t be skim read, or referrenced easily without note taking.
In the main body of the talk, AR embeds both texts in the Old Testament, with some repetition.In the last 5-10mins or so AR brings it all together to answer the points about hanging, falling and buying.
If you look at AR’s blog you will find that he can write and write and write and write, but he has mostly moved from writing to recording on his blog.
he has mostly moved from writing to recording on his blog.
If he has that much contempt for his potential audience then I don’t see why I should pay any attention to him, then.
The wirtten word has served us perfectly well for thousands of years, and is an infinitely superior means for the reception and comprehension of ideas than this passing fad of video.
It can be downloaded and merely listened to on a phone, rather than watched. But generally, S, I also prefer writing, but I can listen while driving or doing something else. On the other hand, it can’t be skim read, or referrenced easily without note taking.
In the main body of the talk, AR embeds both texts in the Old Testament, with some repetition.In the last 5-10mins or so AR brings it all together to answer the points about hanging, falling and buying.
If you look at AR’s blog you will find that he can write and write and write and write, but he has mostly moved from writing to recording on his blog.
S,
It is up to you.
Not sure about AR being contemptuous of you or anyone else (unless we get caught-up in discussions over the deaf and visually impaired, who may prefer the visual).
What about the use of spoken word in comprehension and clarity?
I, for one, am pleased he seems to have moved from recording visually on You Tube only to voice recording, in addition, on something called “soundcloud”, whatever that is . I’d much prefer to listen to him rather than watch
I’m not here to defend AR but, if I remember correctly, the movement from writing blog posts was largely due to AR’s use of time and time constraints on him- it takes less time for him to record than to write and he can therefore do more.
But, why don’t you put your points to him on his blog in any comment section?
https://alastairadversaria.com/
But, why don’t you put your points to him on his blog in any comment section?
Because it’s entirely up to him if he wants to restrict his audience. I have no interest in telling people what they should do; I simply will not watch / listen to those who use audio or video rather than written formats. I don’t have time.
I doubt he will ever notice nor care that he has lost one audience member (who didn’t even know he existed until today anyway).
Isn’t the word and concept of Heilsgeschichte useful here? It’s probably considered very old fashioned, but the idea that the scriptures record salvation history as opposed to being transcripts of events seems both encouraging and much more plausible. As I commented on a previous thread., I’m not so interested if conversations happened exactly the way they are recorded, but I am interested in the salvation truths they convey.
As I commented on a previous thread., I’m not so interested if conversations happened exactly the way they are recorded, but I am interested in the salvation truths they convey.
And as I asked: if the conversations didn’t happen, then what possible evidence can you have for thinking that the things they convey are, in fact, true?
Heilsgeschichte is all I can say to you S!
There are truer truths than factual ones…………
There are truer truths than factual ones
Quite possibly.
What are they, and how do you know they are true?
How do you *know* they are true S?
How do you *know* they are true S?
You haven’t even said what they are yet!
Ah well how do you *know* that anything from scripture is true?
Ah well how do you *know* that anything from scripture is true?
I’m not the one claiming it is! You’re the one saying there are things that are true — so you should be able to say what things, and how you know they are true, shouldn’t you?
I note that you are not claiming anything from scripture is true.
I note that you are not claiming anything from scripture is true.
But you are claiming that some things are true, indeed, ‘truer than facts’.
What things, and how do you know they are true?
If you don’t think any of its true S, then I don’t think this conversation will get us anywhere.
If you don’t think any of its true S, then I don’t think this conversation will get us anywhere.
Whyever not? You just have to say what it is that is true and explain how you know it is true, and then I and everybody else will see that it is true, won’t we?
S: previously you have said that you accept that all of scripture is true. Now you are claiming that none of it is. Why the dramatic change?
previously you have said that you accept that all of scripture is true.
Even if I did, that’s irrelevant to the current conversation.
You claimed that, and I quote,
‘There are truer truths than factual ones’
You must have had some truths in mind, right, to write that? What were they?
It’s highly relevant to me S. I will let you answer first.
I want to know how you were so sure once, and no longer are.
It’s highly relevant to me S. I will let you answer first.
I want to know how you were so sure once, and no longer are.
So… did you not actually have any truths in mind?
Many in mind S.
As I say – I will let you answer first.
Many in mind
So what were they?
I will let you answer first….
I will let you answer first
Right, well, I think I’ll just assume you didn’t actually have any in mind, then, as that seems plain.
I’m sorry you don’t seem able to read S, and therefore make false assumptions once again.
I’m sorry you don’t seem able to read
I’m able to read — including between the lines.
I mean if you did have any truths in mind you could confirm that right now just by identifying them.
Once you have answered, I will gladly do so.
Once you have answered, I will gladly do so.
Then I will just have to assume you don’t actually have any truths.
And I will assume you can’t answer my questions.
And I will assume you can’t answer my questions
Tell you what: explain how your questions are relevant, and I’ll answer them.
We are speaking of Christian truths S. They are always relevant in a discussion about the truth of scripture.
We are speaking of Christian truths S. They are always relevant in a discussion about the truth of scripture
Yes, but your question was about somethign I alledgedly wrote (I can’t be bothered to check) in a completely different discussion about something else.
So explain how it’s relevant now, to this discussion of what the ‘truer truths than factual ones’ are, and I’ll answer it.
Otherwise, how about you just let on what those ‘truer truths’ are? Or are they secret truths?
That’s fine S. I will assume you can’t answer my questions.
I will assume you can’t answer my questions
Well not if they’re not relevant I won’t!
Enjoy hoarding your secret truths.
We are speaking of Christian truths S. They are always relevant in a discussion about the truth of scripture.
We are speaking of Christian truths
Which Christian truths?
Are Christian truths a special type of truth different from other truths?
This is a massive generalisation and therefore massively inaccurate. Why not analyse text by text? That is what the specialists do, and in any other area of life it is the specialists that are listened to.
Referring to AG’s Heilsgeschichte proposal.
Having read the blog and the comments I see lots of chat about “reconciling accounts” – all as if Christian texts existed inside some historical bubble – but very, very little about two, to my mind, very much more important subjects. The first of these is that history is public and open not private and closed and the second is that accounts of the kind we find in the Gospels and Acts are, right down to the very soles of their boots, matters of interpretation.
Now what should we take these points to mean? Well, firstly, on the history point, we should stop reading the Bible as if it acted as vouching for itself. This is cheating and giving it a pass you wouldn’t give any other book you thought contained historical recitation. Its special pleading. History is public and open. If something happens its not only Christians who might see it or hear about it. Yet the fact of the matter is that whole swathes of the New Testament’s reportage are only recorded in the New Testament. In other words, it lacks third party verification or even simple public verification. Did Jesus do A,B or C? Did he appear to 500 people at once, some of whom are still alive? Well, on the latter point, Paul might say so but no one else in the entirety of recorded public history does! This, I suggest, is a problem that needs to be taken seriously unless you want to be prey to the accusation of simply believing things because they got written in a book. In which case why not believe Heracles killed a Hydra or Odysseus tricked and blinded Polyphemus? History has exactly zero to do with what adjectival accolades you may want to accord the text of your special book and everything to do with public verification.
Second, interpretation goes all the way down, as Jack Caputo demonstrated most saliently in a book he published this year called “Hermeneutics” (which I heartily recommend). This might be as simple as thinking of yourself watching some public event and then being asked for your report of what happened. Ask nine other people and I think no one would be surprised to find that no two reports were the same. But, going deeper than that, ask those same ten people for the motivations of the people they observed and what they thought of the people they observed and, I imagine, no one would be too surprised if different opinions, perhaps even convictions, emerged again. These observers are interpreting events. Indeed, their ability to interpret is what is facilitating their ability to answer the questions they are being asked and to form opinions.
We see that in the Gospels too. Jesus asks the disciples in Mark who people think he is. They don’t all give the same answer. Frankly, it would have been very suspect if they had because I doubt any of us reading this would find it realistic to think that absolutely everybody who ever encountered Jesus or who heard a story about him came to the same conclusions about him, took the same stance towards him or accorded him the same motives for what he was doing. People are interpreters. They cannot avoid being interpreters. Interpretation enables our ability to have opinions and express beliefs. And, what’s more, none of us start off as blank slates for we all stand in traditions which inform our views. But now is not the time or place to get deeper into that. I recommend you check out Caputo’s book though for more.
Where does this leave us? I’m not sure. But I think that if it leaves us relying on dogmas of Bible truth, or, worse, its inerrancy and infallibility, things which, all by themselves, absolutely and utterly mandate that we treat it like some sort of puzzle where we have to make all the pieces fit, then we are in a very bad place indeed. Its time to grow up from such ways of reading and be more adult about it. We have to be able to take on the chin ideas such as that a lot of the New Testament is straightforwardly, and for all time, historically unverifiable. We have to accept that some people see things this way and others see it another. Even within the covers of the same book. Better an attainable honesty than a duplicitous dogma.