How did Judas die?

Question

In fact, there are multiple discrepancies between these two verses, what did really happen?

Matthew 27:5-8

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Now compare that to what the book of Acts says about this:

Acts 1:18-19

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

If you read these two passages carefully you will notice that they seem to disagree on the following points (my paraphrase):

1. Matthew says Judas didn't use the money at all but rather threw it down the temple's floor (in fact, the priests used the money to buy a field), but Acts says that Judas himself bought a field with the money he 'earned' from his betrayal.
2. Matthew says that Judas died by hanging himself, but Acts says that Judas died by 'falling headlong' in the midst of the field he bought and 'burst asunder', spilling his guts out.
3. Matthew says that the field was called the 'field of blood' because it was bought with 'blood money', but Acts says that the field is called 'field of blood' because when Judas fell and died he spilled his guts and blood over the field.

These seem to be two completely different stories. How can these to different accounts be reconciled?

Answer 1

I. Howard Marshall gives a concise statement of the options for harmonization in his commentary:

It is quite possible that Matthew or Luke is simply reporting what was commonly said in Jerusalem, and that we are not meant to harmonize the two accounts. If we do try to harmonzie (sic) them, the following possibilities arise: (1). Judas hanged himself (Matt.), but the rope broke and his body was ruptured by the fall (possibly after he was already dead and beginning to decompose); (2). What the priests bought with Judas’s money (Matt.) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency (Acts); (3). The field bought by the priests (Matt.) was the one where Judas died (Acts).

Marshall, I. H. (1980). Vol. 5: Acts: An introduction and commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (69). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Marshall's three points address the first two differences you note (whether successfully or not depends I suppose on the reader).

As for the third difference about the origin of the names, it's possible for multiple stories to contribute to the giving of some name or sobriquet. For example, it's plausible that my nephew might be named both for me as well as for his great-grandfather who shares the same name. It would be equally valid to claim that he is named after his uncle as it would his great-grandfather.

Likewise, it seems plausible under Marshall's harmonization that the people of the day remembered the blood money and the bloody death of Judas both being connected with this field and so it became soon known as the Field of Blood. It would be perfectly valid were someone to ask how it got the name and be told that it was bought with blood money.