Here's an interesting further note to the story of Judas' death. Not only is it recorded twice in the New Testament (okay, so it's recorded differently in both, but like Don said, that can be accounted for) but it's also prophesied in the Old Testament a couple of times. Check out Zechariah 11:12-13. It reads:

"I [Judas] told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, 'Throw it to the potter' -- the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter."

This adds a whole new dimension to the story. When I first read the seeming inconsistencies between Matthew and Acts, I was very confused. But since I've found this prophesy (which no one can deny was written long before the time of the New Testament--and that's COOL) I'm able to put together the puzzle and figure out what may have actually happened to Judas. In fact, these verses from Zechariah seem to answer several important questions in the matter.

Now, just to make comparison between the different passages, I'll print them all here so you don't have to grab your Bibles. Keep in mind that I'm using the New International Version, but all translations say essentially the same thing, for all practical purposes. That would be another debate in itself, but I won't go there.

Matthew 27:3-10:
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemmed, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
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 silver coins, 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."

Acts 1:18-19:
(With the reward he got 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.)

The account in Matthew tells that Judas threw the money into the temple, then went and hanged himself. The prophesy in Zechariah says that he threw the money into the house of the Lord (meaning the temple) to the potter. In other words, a potter was in the temple at the time. So Judas would not keep the money because of his conscience, the priests wouldn't keep it because it was blood money, so who should take it? The obvious choice was the potter, because from the sound of these passages, he was the only other person there at the time. Not to mention, the money landed near him when Judas threw it into the temple. So the money would be his, but it was decided that he couldn't just take it without offering something in return. So he sold the priests a tract of land that he no longer wanted. Because the transactions occured in this manner, you could truthfully say that both Judas AND the priests bought the field, because the money came from Judas, but the priests received something in return from it. This is probably from where the discrepancy arose about this matter.

So Judas went and hanged himself. But how? I've heard that he used a noose; and I've heard that he impaled himself. Both, at different times, were definitions of the word "hang." So which happened? The Bible doesn't say, and I don't think it is of any consequence regarding the story in Matthew or the story in Luke. The fact is, he killed himself, and that's all we need to know.

So why is the field called the Field of Blood? The priests probably made a spontaneous decision to use it as a cemetary. It's hard to say, though, if it was originally intended to be for foreigners only, or if that detail arose later. Keep in mind that at the time the field was bought (still in the temple, presumably) the priests had no way of knowing that Judas would be committing suicide. When his body was found later, he would become the first burial in the field. The name "Field of Blood" was appended later, after news of these events had become widespread.

There's only one issue left, and it's a biggie... If what I've said so far is true, then what about the passage in Acts? Didn't Judas fall headlong in the field and split open? It sounds like a contradiction, but I may have found the solution to that dilemma, too. The verses never specify if Judas was alive or dead when he fell, nor do they say that he fell of his own accord. Perhaps, on the day of his burial, the pallbearers or morticians--or whoever would be carrying the body in that culture and time--dropped the body in the field. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it had something to do with revenge. Eitherway, the body fell headfirst into the ground, and broke open, something bodies are likely more prone to do after they've been dead awhile anyway.

When I first read the passages in Matthew and Acts, they threw a major curveball at my faith. I determined to figure out the solution, or at least come up with something that paralleled Scripture. So I asked around, lots of questions for my pastor, friends who know way more about the Bible than I do, and of course, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (where would I be without it?)! I'll be the first one to say that my theory is largely speculation. Odds are, it does have some wrong parts, because my odds of being exactly right with something so detailed and unrecorded are extremely slim. Still, it's the best explanation I have heard or come up with, so until I hear something more convincing I'll stick with that one. Please don't think I'm a heretic or anything like that. :-) Even if I am totally wrong, I seriously doubt believing this will put anyone's salvation in jeopardy. Please post what you think happened... I'd like to hear other interpretations.

-useless"The Truth? You can't HANDLE the Truth!!"ness