I recently heard a podcast episode where New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman used the death of Judas as a way of diminishing the historical value of the Gospels. Is this a valid conclusion?
My goal is not to look at this as an apologist, seeking to defend the inerrancy of the Bible, but as a historian.
As Ehrman observes, there are two descriptions of the death of Judas and there are differences between them.
One is by Matthew:
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” (Matthew 27:5-10)
The other by Luke:
(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) (Acts 1:18-19)
There is no doubt that there are differences between the two accounts. Ehrman focuses on these differences and concludes that this is evidence that the Gospels are not good historical sources.
Similarly, some Christians will be uncomfortable with these differences and work hard to harmonize them (usually that Judas hung himself, the rope broke and he fell so hard that his body burst open).
However, I would like to look at this from a historical perspective. How would a historian look at these accounts if they were not a part of religious scripture?
I have read a lot of ancient history. One of the first things that we notice is that there is always variation in the details. In fact if the details were exactly the same, we would assume that someone was copying someone and would see them as one account rather than two.
I believe that a historian looking at this would focus on the similarities. They would probably conclude that there was a historical person named Judas who was understood as a traitor to Jesus. They would conclude that he died a shameful death and that death was connected to a known place, the Field of Blood.
Historically, we are actually on pretty firm ground when it comes to the death of Judas. We may not be able to explain all the details, but the availability of two distinct traditions that have a number of similarities shows that we are talking about history and not myth.
