What happened to Judas Iscariot?

[Mortax]

So, of course this question pops into my head the day AFTER I could have asked jim at dragon con. 😅  (if anyone has pics of my butters cosplay, I'd love to see them.  I was the one with the faith saber I need to put a dimmer on. 😆)

I was listening to death masks, and I was struck by a thought. Given what the noose does for Nick, what happened to to Judas when he used it? Did he die, come back, or become something else?

Him dying is the obvious answer,  given the noose doesnt protect the wearer.  But that would be the boring explinations; and there's also some interesting story possibilities. Also you have both the noose and the 30 silver pieces tied up in his death.  That says to me there might be more to the story.

He could have been the first to be made immortal by the noose, until nick stole it from him. Assuming nick isnt judas, which I dont think he is.

Theres also the thread of it being the origin for some supernatural baddie. Sort of like in dracula 2000.

Thoughts?

Ps, I've not been on here in a few years, so if there has been discussion on this, please point me that way.

[Ed0517]

actually, the Bible seems to have a couple stories on Judas - another, by Luke, has him falling in a field and bursting open. No mention of hanging

[g33k]

actually, the Bible seems to have a couple stories on Judas - another, by Luke, has him falling in a field and bursting open. No mention of hanging

The conventional understanding isn't that there are 2 different stories, but 2 different steps in the same story...

First, he hanged himself (Matt 27:5); then his swollen & decomposing corpse fell and burst open (Acts 1:18).

[Ed0517]

Seen that too  (branch breaks theory) but the Bible was written by a few different people ... seen workgroup reports that are inconsistent before... or aska  cop how many different eyewitness accounts he can get from one accident - all honestly trying to say what they saw.

[g33k]

Seen that too  (branch breaks theory) ...

Honestly, it just makes the most sense.  If you take the accounts as reasonably-historical -- or even just meant to be a reasonably-plausible fiction -- "falling down" doesn't often kill someone, and essentially never causes the body to "burst open" and "intestines spill out" phenomenon; but having been hanged does.

... but the Bible was written by a few different people ... seen workgroup reports that are inconsistent before... or aska  cop how many different eyewitness accounts he can get from one accident - all honestly trying to say what they saw.

True enough, but -- in this specific case -- I think it's unlikely.  On the one hand, you have a reading of the two passages that is sensible, and internally-consistent between the two.  On the other hand, you have a reading that creates an inconsistency where none otherwise exists.  Occam tells us that (in lieu of specific evidence otherwise) we pick the singular & coherent understanding, above the disjoint and incoherent one.

What would I see as that "specific evidence otherwise"?  Well, specifically:  other points of inconsistency/disagreement between Matthew & Acts (I'm not a deep Biblical scholar, but offhand I don't know of any others).