Baidarka

OK I’ll take the bait.
First I wish to apologize for posting your quote from another thread here. It was a bit underhanded of me. I'm sorry.

What a nice coincidence back in September Bubba asked us to post our favorite NT contradictions

Topic: N.T. Bible contradictions-open poll posted September 17, 2002 12:29 PM
Hey Bubba
Hows this?
In Mathew Judas throws the Blood money back into the temple and the priests buy land with the money
In Acts Judas buys the land with the money
In Mathew Judas hangs himself
In Acts Judas falls and busts open on his ill gotten land.
In Mathew the priests name the land that they buy with Judas’ money, “Field of Blood” because of the Blood Money that the land was purchased with.
In Acts the land is named “Field of Blood” by the people of Jerusalem after Judas’ own blood which he spilled on the land.
Mathew 27:3
3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then 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, 10and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."[1]
Acts 1:18
18(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. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'[4]
Baidarka

Now we can get to your apologetic.
V:
So it is with the short accounts of the demise of Judas Iscariot, as found in Matthew 27 and Acts 1. In Matthew we learn in the second half of one sentence that Judas died by hanging himself:
quote:


Matthew 27:3 -- When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

In Acts, we have a different perspective:
B:
Not a different perspective, an entirely different story

V:
quote:


Acts 1:18 -- (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. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

In the interest of discrediting the Bible,

B:
Not in the interest of discrediting the bible, just in the interest of truth.

V:
the skeptic will claim that these two accounts are contradictory. They insist that the entire biblical record is unreliable because it contains such "errors".
B:
I think that you are setting up a paper tiger here.
V:
With that, they dismiss the Bible as nothing more than a collection of "fantastic stories", written by simpletons who can't even get the facts straight. For the skeptic, then, the deconstruction is complete.
B:
There are many religious people who are not fundamentalists and do not believe in Biblical inerrancy. Even Saint Augustine warned Christians about falling into this trap and making all Christians look like fools. I find wisdom in and much to be admired in the great poetry and mythology of the ancients. I do not think of them as simpletons. You are crippling your faith by demanding that every word must be historically correct.
V:
Let's take a moment to see if this dismissal is warranted. First, observe that, in both passages, very few words are specifically concerned with the type of death Judas underwent. In Matthew, we find three English words (NIV):
"and hanged himself".
In Acts, we have fourteen English words:
"there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
These words do not even comprise full sentences. Therefore, we immediately see that we are not reading a detailed account of his death. These are summary statements which, it would seem, are mentioned as minor (but not useless) details in a much larger context. We are further justified in making this assessment by observing that the text in Acts is encompassed within a parenthetical statement.
B:
These statements are short, to the point, and unambiguous. While it is true that Matthew would not have to elaborate and add a statement about what happened to the body after death. Luke (if Luke indeed wrote Acts) would be committing a lie of omission if Judas Hung himself and he left that out of his version of the story.
V:
Second, and more importantly, we see that these very short accounts are not at all contradictory. One says, "he hanged himself", the other says "he fell and his body burst open". Where is the difficulty in reconciling these two perspectives? There is none. In fact, it is easy to suppose one of two scenarios:
1. After the corpse hung for a while and decomposed, the neck may have decomposed sufficiently to allow the head to separate from the body. The body would then fall free to the ground, where it would break apart (or explode).
B:
How would this be falling headlong?
head•long (hµd“lông“, -l¼ng&#8220 adv. 1. With the head leading; headfirst. 2. In an impetuous manner; rashly. 3. At breakneck speed or with uncontrolled force. --head•long (hµd“lông”, -l¼ng&#8221 adj. 1. Done with the head leading; headfirst. 2. Impetuous; rash. 3. Uncontrollably forceful or fast. 4. Archaic. Steep; sheer.
V:
2. While attempting to hang himself, he does not succeed. He is unable to secure the noose around his head properly, or the rope snaps, and he falls from a substantial height onto a a sharp object (tree branch, rocks). This impact rips his torso open and the contents spill out.
B:
How would this be falling headlong, and why would the NT writers deprive us of such a wonderfully gory tale.
V:
We must take note that the book of Acts is written by "Luke", friend of Theophilus. He is the most historically meticulous of the NT writers. The author of Acts is the same as the author of the gospel of Luke. (Note that there are at least six references to Judas in Luke). In Acts 1, verses 16 and following, we see Luke is recording the words of Peter. This is the very same Peter who was a special disciple of Jesus. This is the same Peter who knew Judas Iscariot very well--they lived in very close contact for the three years immediately prior to Judas death (verse 17: "he was one of our number and shared in this ministry").
Also, we should take care to observe that Peter is indicating that everyone in Jerusalem heard about how Judas died. It was widespread knowledge. Many of the "Greek brothers", who were listening to Peter, would know if this was true or not. Is it likely that Peter could be wrong about a former close disciple and the man who had betrayed Jesus? It would seem that the probability is very low.
So, it is clear that there is no contradiction in what is mentioned concerning Judas' death.
B:
Only while you were writing to yourself, now that others are reading what you wrote it is not so clear.
V:
Allow me to anticipate discussion on a few peripheral matters. In particular, I would like to examine the purchase of the field. Here are the verses immediately follwing the Matthew passage:
quote:


Matthew 27:6 -- 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." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Unable to conclusively demonstrate a contradiction concerning the mode of Judas' death, the skeptic then turns to the purchase of the field.
B:
Not so. We have conclusively established that the 2 deaths are mutually exclusive.
V:
In Matthew, the transaction is handled by the priests who conspired with Judas. In Acts, Peter indicates that Judas bought the field. Again, there is no difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. Observe the particular language that is employed in verse 7 of Matthew 27:
"they decided to use the money".
In the prior verse, we see that the priests are true to their legalistic form, being very scrupulous in their attention to the law. They are not intent upon keeping the money, but they can't put it in the treasury. They want nothing to do with it, since it is Judas' blood money. So, they do not reclaim possession, but instead use the money to buy a field. Legally, then, it would have been Judas' field (if he lived).
B:
This is even weaker than your other arguments. Once Judas threw away the coins they were no longer his. The priests brought the land in the Matthew account. In Mathew’s account the land was never Judas’
V:
Permit me one last observation. The skeptic will also point to what is perhaps a contradiction in the naming of the field. But this is not the case at all. In both accounts, the name of the field comes about from the people of Jerusalem. In Matthew, the field "has been called" the Field of Blood by the people. In Acts, we see that Peter is indicating that the field has been "called" the Field of Blood "to this day". It is called this name by "they", that is, the people of Jerusalem. The name is fitting, since it was a cemetery bought with Judas' blood money.
B:
You miss the point here. The contradiction is not about who named the plot of land it is about what the land is named after. In Matthew it is named Field of Blood because it is purchased with blood money. While in Acts it is named Field of Blood after the Blood(Judas’ own blood) that Judas spilled on the land.

Baidarka

Baidarka

I did not put the smiley faces in the dictionary definition of Headlong. It must be some kind of computer quirk.

Kosh

Once again, we must remember the cultural aspects of the times when this passage was written. Remember that in ancient times, it was only the Jewish who were circumsized. All other men were "uncut". Thus, the Jews were the first to recognize that a man has two "heads". The passage you're referring to was actually written in a hidden code, meaning that he did have one head pointed down when he fell. This was also a way of indicating that Judas was in fact, Jewish.

Has everybody got it now?

MrDarwin

Vanderzyen, thank you for proving my point more vividly than I ever could.

Autonemesis

You said: "In fact, it is easy to suppose one of two scenarios" and then you went on to cite two situations that are not depicted in the Biblical account. That is an example of extra-Biblical sources. You've attempted to resolve the contradiction not by appeal to the text of Bible, but to hypotheticals which are not mentioned in the Bible at all.

You agreed with my view when you said in your OP that "...we immediately see that we are not reading a detailed account of his death. These are summary statements which, it would seem, are mentioned as minor (but not useless) details in a much larger context." But the not-detailed summaries are in still in contradiction, until more detail is added from other sources not in the Bible, such as your pair of hypotheticals.

I don't know what you're referring to. Your OP was an apologetic, and I referred to it that way merely to be descriptive. I don't see that I said anything about "strictly" or "techniques".

Yes they are, on the basis that I can read and understand English. You did not resolve the conflict in the two accounts by appeal to the Bible alone. Even if I grant that your hypotheticals succeed at resolving the contradiction, they are not contained in the text of the Bible.

You seem to recognize that there is a conflict, else your appeal to extra-biblical hypotheticals to resolve it would be unneccessary. If you didn't think they were in conflict, it seems to me that you'd just keep insisting that they weren't, based on the face-value of the English text, and that you'd be telling us that we can't read plain English words correctly. That is what I'd expect from a person who did not recognize a conflict. So you do recognize that there is a conflict that needs to be resolved, right?

Would you like to take a stab next at the two incompatible accounts of creation found in the first two chapters of Genesis?

Baidarka

I just thought of another obvious contradiction. In Matthew Judas throws his coins into the temple in remorse. Then he leaves and hangs himself in some unmentioned place. The priests decide to buy the potter’s field after he leaves. There is no reason to suppose that Judas hung himself on the Field of Blood. In fact there is no reason to suppose that Judas knew anything about the land. So he died in 2 different places!

Vanderzyden

Your use of the term extra-Biblical sources is misleading. I thought you were referring to other ancient texts.

Oh, I see now, what you are saying is this: Since the Bible does not contain explicit detail about every single detail about every single detail, ad nauseum, it is therefore unreliable.

Well, your restrictions are hardly reasonable, and you don't apply them to other ancient texts. Tell me then, why do you insist upon this stringency with the Bible?

Anyway, I did not claim that I would resolve the conflict by using the Bible for support. If I had, you would then find some way to discount it because it is biblical. The conflict is easily resolved, in consideration of what we know about hangings, decomposition, Peter's relationship to Judas, etc.

Furthermore, if I take your term "extra-Biblical" in the sense used by scholars, and I had produced additional ancient literature which further refutes any supposed contradiction, I would necessarily use evidence outside the Bible. So, you see, your insistence is again unreasonable.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Baidarka,

I appreciate your apology. Now, when I find time, I will go an address your arguments about anti-Semitism.

I also realize that you are implying that there seems to be some apologetic consistency between Bubba's response and mine. I think most of that comes from plain common sense. While I hadn't thought about the "Judas contradiction" before, I have thought about many of the so-called "errors". That is why I asked people here to present what they see as the most glaring contradiction. I want to be challenged. I want to test what I believe.

Yes, I searched the web to develop some of the finer points, but the essence of my OP is my own reasoning. I said to myself, "OK, maybe there really is a problem here. Why else would these guys bring it up?" So, I looked, compared, and analyzed.

Now, to your new "obvious" contradiction:

Yes, I quickly thought about this, but didn't pursue it very far because I had a hunch that it was not terribly significant. And, when I think about it now as you prompt me to do so, I think that we still do not have a conflict.

Here is the relevant passage, again:

We see that He threw the money down and departed.

Notice the word "then" in the NIV (an entirely separate sentence), and the word "and" in the NAS. It would seem that he did not immediately hang himself.

Notice that verse 5 discuss Judas' sequence of events, and verses 6 and 7 describe the sequence of events for the priests. Surely, Judas did not go out and hang himself in the short interval between his departure from the temple and the priest's statement "It is not lawful..."

In fact, it is quite reasonable that Judas did not hang himself immediately, and this would be consistent with the text. We can easily imagine that Judas learned of the purchase of the land and went to spend time there. At some point following Jesus' execution, Judas then kills himself knowing that he was instrumental in bringing him to trial.

Now, you and I agree that more detail would be nice. However, we must consider the main thrust of the chapter(s) in which we are reading. Judas is not the "main character", and it is to be expected that an economy of words will be used to describe him.


Vanderzyden

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Kosh

Other ancient texts don't claim to be the word of God, or insist you must live your life by their instructions.

atrahasis

Vanderzyden, I think its very ridiculous of you to even try to reconcile these passages. It is a shameless charade.

It says he fell headlong. If his hanging body is the one that fell headlong, they would have stated that his body fell headlong. But they dont do that. And they don't say he hanged himself with his feet. If he hanged himself by tying a noose around his neck, his body would have to somersault for it to fall headfirst. The bible doesnt say the corpse somersaulted.

The verse that talks of him falling headlong and his bowels gushing out does not say he hanged himself. Why is that?

The verse that says he hanged himself also did not feel it was important to add that he fell headfirst and his bowels gushed out. Why is that?

The answer is; because that is not how he died according to the different writers.

One says he threw the money he was paid and ran out to hang himself.

Another says he did not throw away the money but used it to buy a piece of land, in which he fell and his bowels gushed out. You dare say these passages are not contradictory!

Shame on you!

Don't bother responding to this post. This matter is not open to debate. The passages are very clear, we don't need you to contrive stories with your overactive imagination.