Death Of Judas

[Damien the Leper]

I know that some may subscribe to Augustine's theory on the death of Judas that his stomach burst after hanging himself. What grounds did Augustine have to determine that this was the outcome?

Papias stated that Judas was run over by a chariot. The Gospel of Judas states that Judas saw the other disciples stoning him.

I'm curious as to how Judas actually died. Is Paul/Luke in Acts the correct account or is the author of Matthew's Gospel correct in their recollection of Judas' death?

A past professor proposed the idea that perhaps Judas did not die but actually faded from the society at the time and in order for justice to be done it needed to be written that Judas died. Judas' death would also tie into teachings of remorse and repentance as a means to further develop theology of the time.

I don't really agree with this proposition but I'm not sure that it could ever be fully discounted.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I know that some may subscribe to Augustine's theory on the death of Judas that his stomach burst after hanging himself. What grounds did Augustine have to determine that this was the outcome?

This was an attempt to deal with two different stories from the Bible as to how he died. Nothing more.

[Damien the Leper]

This was an attempt to deal with two different stories from the Bible as to how he died. Nothing more.

I agree. I do not believe that Augustine's theory is correct but was an attempt to reconcile the stories and to discredit contradictions or scriptural discrepancies. A poor attempt at best.

[mfbukowski]

What if there was no Judas to die in the first place?

[Damien the Leper]

What if there was no Judas to die in the first place?

That theory proposes a different theology all together. What does that mean for Jesus' crucifixion in light of the the occurrences of the last week of Jesus' life? Furthermore, what does that mean for the ministry and purpose of Jesus?

[Cobalt-70]

Interestingly, Heber C. Kimball linked the death of Judas into his idea of blood atonement. Blood atonement was the doctrine, taught by all three members of the First Presidency during the Young era, that some sins are so great that the only way the sinner can gain salvation is if their blood is spilled upon the ground as a sacrifice for their own sins. Therefore, Kimball proposed that the apostles kicked Judas to death as an act of blood atonement. He said:

"Jesus said to His disciples, `Ye are the salt of the earth, and if salt loses its saving principle, it is then good for nothing but to be cast out.' Instead of reading it just as it is, almost all of you read it as it is not. Jesus meant to say, `If you have lost the saving principles, you Twelve Apostles, and you believe in my servants the Twelve, you shall be like unto the salt that has lost its saving principles: it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.' Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him it is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out, but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out." (J.D. 6:125-26).

Not that I agree.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

All Christians believe in Blood Atonement.

[Cobalt-70]

All Christians believe in Blood Atonement.

The blood of Jesus, but that's not the same blood atonement doctrine taught in the Brigham Young era. This doctrine is now very obsolete, but Young taught that the the blood of Jesus was sometimes not enough to atone for certain grave sins. Therefore, to atone for the sin, the sinner himself had to become a sacrificial lamb.

[wenglund]

The blood of Jesus, but that's not the same blood atonement doctrine taught in the Brigham Young era. This doctrine is now very obsolete, but Young taught that the the blood of Jesus was sometimes not enough to atone for certain grave sins. Therefore, to atone for the sin, the sinner himself had to become a sacrificial lamb.

Some people, past and present, have confused the figurative/sumbolic with the literal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 6, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

I'm curious as to how Judas actually died.

My point was not that there was no actual Judas, the point was that the answer to your question is unknowable, and all we have are the stories relating to his death.

You can speculate all you like, but you will never have an answer. He as too important a figure, too central to the central events of Christian history for anyone to possibly get a literal understanding of what "actually" happened- so any story you make up will be just as good- or bad- as any anyone else makes up.

It's like asking about how Odysseus "really" died, or whether or not two of each species of 900,000 known insect species were on Noah's Ark, or Buddha's weight to the nearest gram.

The importance of the story is not what "really" happened but what lessons we can learn about the consequences of betrayal.

Edited October 6, 2011 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Interestingly enough JS taught that the Church could only try a member for their membership not for Life, Limb or Property. Brigham Young also followed that formula. There was never anyone put to death for sin by the Church. The State is the one who punishes crime, and it has never been a crime in the the US to be a non-believer. Unlike the OT Prophets and Catholic and Protestant countries.

[Pahoran]

Interestingly, Heber C. Kimball linked the death of Judas into his idea of blood atonement. Blood atonement was the doctrine, taught by all three members of the First Presidency during the Young era, that some sins are so great that the only way the sinner can gain salvation is if their blood is spilled upon the ground as a sacrifice for their own sins. Therefore, Kimball proposed that the apostles kicked Judas to death as an act of blood atonement. He said:

"Jesus said to His disciples, `Ye are the salt of the earth, and if salt loses its saving principle, it is then good for nothing but to be cast out.' Instead of reading it just as it is, almost all of you read it as it is not. Jesus meant to say, `If you have lost the saving principles, you Twelve Apostles, and you believe in my servants the Twelve, you shall be like unto the salt that has lost its saving principles: it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.' Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him it is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out, but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out." (J.D. 6:125-26).

Not that I agree.

It's almost becoming a pattern for Cobalt-70 to show up with some silly anti-Mormon talking point, however tangential it may be to the discussion at hand.

I'm starting to think that we may be hearing a familiar voice here.

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

Cobalt's point though, does actually relate to the way Matthew portrays the death of Judas. Blood atonement was very much a teaching of ancient Judaism, one which has never really gone away. For Matthew, Judas commited a horrible sin, and betrayed one of his people to be killed. He felt remorse and made restituion the only way he could- with his own life. This would have restituted him in the covenant. There is a similar Jewish tradition about a man who betrayed his uncle to the Romans, but then felt remorse and took his own life. His uncle saw the nephew's soul arrive in Paradise before his own.

[Cobalt-70]

It's almost becoming a pattern for Cobalt-70 to show up with some silly anti-Mormon talking point, however tangential it may be to the discussion at hand.

The point was not so much to discuss blood atonement. I just wanted to note Kimball's explanation of how Judas died. The blood atonement issue is just background. For something like that, you kind of need background, because Kimball's explanation is pretty strange when viewed in a vacuum (and even then...). Yes, anti-Mormons have discussed this theory, but so did Heber C. Kimball. I don't agree with it, but it probably has to be part of any discussion, in a Mormon apologetic forum, of how Judas "really" died.

[Zakuska]

Cobalt's point though, does actually relate to the way Matthew portrays the death of Judas. Blood atonement was very much a teaching of ancient Judaism, one which has never really gone away. For Matthew, Judas commited a horrible sin, and betrayed one of his people to be killed. He felt remorse and made restituion the only way he could- with his own life. This would have restituted him in the covenant. There is a similar Jewish tradition about a man who betrayed his uncle to the Romans, but then felt remorse and took his own life. His uncle saw the nephew's soul arrive in Paradise before his own.

I absolutely have to agree here. The whole Exodus story attests to this. In which Israel wanders around the country side for 40 years while the generation who had sinned and provoked God died off , form plagues and starvation, etc. etc.. Moses wasn't even aloud into the promised land, yet he appeared to the Lord on Mt. of Transfiguration.

If Christ blood had paid for the sins of all these people why did they have to die? And how could Phinehas have made an atonement for them?

Num 25

6 ¶And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

10 ¶And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.

Ps 106

30 Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.

31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.

I think it might be what Paul is refering to over here...

1 Cor 5

3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

The point was not so much to discuss blood atonement. I just wanted to note Kimball's explanation of how Judas died. The blood atonement issue is just background. For something like that, you kind of need background, because Kimball's explanation is pretty strange when viewed in a vacuum (and even then...). Yes, anti-Mormons have discussed this theory, but so did Heber C. Kimball. I don't agree with it, but it probably has to be part of any discussion, in a Mormon apologetic forum, of how Judas "really" died.

I think the true way to resolve, Judas death account is to realize that he was not "hung" with a noose and a rope. But on a pike in the Eastern style of "hanging".

Impalement of Judeans in a Neo-Assyrian relief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement

Joshua 10:26

26 And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening.

Deut 21

22 ¶And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Gives new meaning to this scene, doesn't it?

300 - Tree of the Dead

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

I'm starting to think that we may be hearing a familiar voice here.

I have thought that from the beginning.

[mfbukowski]

Gives new meaning to this scene, doesn't it?

Jehovah's Witnesses make much of Jesus' crucifixion being "on a tree" and not on a cross as we know it today. They might not be right about Jesus, but indeed nailing one to a tree with the hands above the head and feet nailed below was indeed a common punishment.

[K-2]

In the Reed Peck manuscript (pg. 13) Joseph Smith is said to have "talked of dissenters and cited us to the case of Judas, saying that Peter told him in a conversation a few days ago that himself hung Judas for betraying Christ...."

[mapman]

This is how Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible deals with the death of Judas:

KJV Matthew 27:5-8

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 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. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

NT2

& <And> he cast down the pieces of silver in the Temple, & departed, & went & hanged himself on a tree[,]<.> [&]<And> straitway he fell down, & his bowels gushed out, & he die & <And> the Chief Priests took the Silver pieces, & said, It is not lawfull <for> to put them into the treasuery, because it is the price of blood. & <And> they took council, & bought with them the potters field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

There are no changes to Acts 1:18-19 in the New Translation.

Edited October 7, 2011 by mapman

[Cobalt-70]

In the Reed Peck manuscript (pg. 13) Joseph Smith is said to have "talked of dissenters and cited us to the case of Judas, saying that Peter told him in a conversation a few days ago that himself hung Judas for betraying Christ...."

Possibly, Heber C. Kimball got his idea that the apostles kicked Judas to death from this. When Joseph Smith reportedly said this, he was commenting on Sidney Rigdon's militant "salt sermon" which Rigdon had just given at the same meeting, and Kimball appears to reference the same salt metaphor. However, Kimball was not actually in Far West when this sermon was given, so either this is just a strange coincidence or Kimball heard the theory from from some other source.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[seriously honestly]

I'm curious as to how Judas actually died. Is Paul/Luke in Acts the correct account or is the author of Matthew's Gospel correct in their recollection of Judas' death?

Could be both. Maybe he tried to hang himself and it didn't work for some reason so he decided to go off a cliff, or maybe or maybe he hung himself near or over a cliff, jumped off, and ended up hitting the bottom.

[Cobalt-70]

I think as a matter of real history, the question of what happened to Judas is probably unknown, and will never be known. If there are two different stories by the two authors in the Bible, who lived just a few decades after the events they were writing about, that proves there was no reliable information about it at that time. Moreover, the way the author of Matthew tells it, it appears to be midrash included for the purpose of checking off another prophecy about Jesus that was fulfilled.

From a scholarly perspective, the whole story of Judas' betrayal is a bit suspect. The very earliest Christian documents, including Paul's letters and apparently the hypothetical document Q, did not mention a betrayal by Judas. In fact, there is a passage attributed to Q (Matt. 19:28 and Luke 22:28-30) in which Jesus confers upon each of the Twelve (including Judas) a throne by which they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel. If Jesus knew that Judas would betray him, then he probably wouldn't have given him a heavenly throne. The Judas betrayal story does not apparently appear until the 70s AD when the Gospel of Mark was written.

[David T]

It is interesting that in the BoM, it speaks of the 12 Apostles who were chosen by Christ in the Old World to be the ones judging Israel, and the Nephite 12. (1 Nephi 12:9, Mormon 3:19)

Also that it was "Judah" who betrayed the LORD, Just like the explanation given by the exilic prophets that the nation of Judah was unfaithful to the LORD, which is what led them into Babylon.

Edited October 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Damien the Leper]

My point was not that there was no actual Judas, the point was that the answer to your question is unknowable, and all we have are the stories relating to his death.

You can speculate all you like, but you will never have an answer. He as too important a figure, too central to the central events of Christian history for anyone to possibly get a literal understanding of what "actually" happened- so any story you make up will be just as good- or bad- as any anyone else makes up.

It's like asking about how Odysseus "really" died, or whether or not two of each species of 900,000 known insect species were on Noah's Ark, or Buddha's weight to the nearest gram.

The importance of the story is not what "really" happened but what lessons we can learn about the consequences of betrayal.

I agree that the message is what is important. However, had Judas not done what he had...what would the message then be? I relate Judas' death to that of the Garden of Eden narrative in the Torah. If neither Adam or Eve partaken of the fruit...what then would be the message? These two situations are important and central to the message that the LDS church is trying to relay to the world. If neither situation went 'negatively' as the stories tell then what would the message be? How things happened and why they happened are very important because they tell us something more about the characters in the narratives. It provides a way of getting a closer look at the person and allows us a way in which we may possibly identify with them.