Question: Do the Gospels and Acts contradict each other in the death of Judas? What about the land that either he or the priests bought? Does this undermine Biblical inerrancy?

Answer: No. They are not contradictory but complimentary when you understand the customs of the time.

Let’s talk about it.

One of the most common “contradictions” skeptics bring up about the Bible involves the death of Judas Iscariot. Matthew’s Gospel says he hanged himself (Matthew 27:3–10), but Acts says he fell headlong, burst open, and his intestines spilled out (Acts 1:18).

On top of that, Matthew records that the chief priests bought the “Field of Blood”, while Acts says Judas bought it.

So, which is it? Did Judas hang himself, or fall? Did he buy the field, or did the priests. Let’s break down how Christian apologists handle this challenge.

The Apparent Contradictions

There are two main issues:

1. The Manner of Judas’ Death

Matthew 27:5 — Judas “went and hanged himself.”
Acts 1:18 — Judas “fell headlong, burst open in the middle, and all his intestines gushed outAt first glance, these sound irreconcilable.

2. Who Purchased the Field

Matthew 27:7 — The chief priests used the 30 pieces of silver to buy the potter’s field.
Acts 1:18 — Judas “bought a field with the reward of his wickedness.”

So, did Judas buy the field, or did the priests?

Here’s the Truth.

Christian apologists don’t see these passages as contradictory, but complementary—each writer focuses on different details of the same events.

A. How Judas Died: Hanging + Falling

Judas hanged himself in despair after betraying Jesus (Matthew 27).
At some point later, either the rope broke, the branch snapped, or his decomposing body came loose.
When Judas’ body fell headlong—likely down a rocky slope—it burst open (Acts 1:18).

This makes sense geographically. The traditional location of the “Field of Blood” in Jerusalem includes steep terrain, meaning a fall could easily cause the gruesome scene Luke describes in Acts.

“Matthew records the cause of Judas’s death; Acts records the result.” -Norman Geisler, When Critics Ask

B. Who Bought the Field: Direct vs. Indirect Purchase

This “contradiction” is resolved by understanding Jewish legal customs:

Judas returned the blood money to the priests (Matthew 27:3–5).
The priests refused to put it back into the temple treasury since it was “blood money.”
Instead, they used Judas’s money to purchase the field for burial purposes.

So in one sense:

The priests made the transaction (Matthew’s focus).
But since Judas’s money paid for it, Luke can say Judas “bought the field” (Acts’ focus).

It’s similar to saying, “John bought the house,” even if his lawyer handled the paperwork. The cause is attributed to John, but the action was carried out by someone else.

Why These Details Matter

For Christian apologists, these passages are not contradictions but multiple perspectives that, when combined, give us a fuller picture.

Far from undermining Scripture, these differences actually strengthen its credibility:

Multiple angles — Ancient historians often highlighted different details depending on their purpose.
Authenticity — If early Christians were inventing the story, they would have “smoothed out” these differences.
Complementary evidence — Like eyewitness testimonies in court, slightly different accounts point to the same truth.

What the Scholars Say

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels:“There is no contradiction here. Acts focuses on the result, Matthew on the method. Together, they paint a consistent picture.”
F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?:“Luke’s precision as a historian enhances Matthew’s account. One emphasizes the suicide; the other describes what

Bottom Line

When you put the pieces together, the Bible gives us a cohesive picture:

Judas betrayed Jesus.
Wracked with guilt, he took his own life.
The priests used his blood money to purchase the “Field of Blood.”
Over time, Judas’s body fell and burst open—confirming Luke’s vivid description.

The two accounts are not contradictions—they’re two complementary perspectives telling the same tragic story.