Diogenes the Cynic

Yes it does. Prenes means "face first." Acts says Judas fell head first. It doesn't say he fell from an noose. Acts and Matthew contradict. Deal with it and quit trying to make arguments from the Greek if you don't know Greek. There are plenty of people here who do know it and you aren't going to be able to bluff them.

Diogenes the Cynic

Critical analysis has never "created" a single text. It only examines what is there. It examines the oldest and best preserved manuscripts, none of which are perfect duplications of the autographs. The Judas contradiction has nothing to do with manuscript copies anyway. The Alexandrian text is exactly the same as the TR.

Chris Weimer

Which reminds me - I wonder if anyone is still interested in the learning Greek study group that Peter once had planned. Lately I've been working on Vulgate Lessons tutorial at another forum, but wouldn't mind doing by-the-book Greek lessons from some book. I know there's more than a couple of you who need to learn Greek.

ExChristian8

Encarta: Headlong- with head foremost: with the head in front of the rest of the body, especially in a rapid uncontrolled movement

Merriam-Webster: Headlong- Headfirst

Oxford: 1 with the head foremost. 2 in a rush; with reckless haste.

If you have another definition, please cite its source and how it reasonably applies.

Doug Shaver

Do you mean they can never recognize an inerrant religious text, or an inerrant text of any kind?

Notsri

There does actually seem to be some debate as to the correct translation of prenes.

From Brown's The Death of the Messiah 2.1405-6:

"Most of the serious debate has centered on prēnēs, 'prostrate, headlong, prone [Latin pronus].' In a famous article on prēnēs Chase pointed to similar-sounding verbs: pimprasthai, 'to burn'; prēthein, 'to swell'; and although prēnēs is not attested with a meaning related to those verbs, he argued that it would be a natural formation for 'swollen' and that ginesthai (genomenos) was common with medical terms. Chase's suggestion of translating prēnēs genomenos as 'having swollen up' gives a much easier reading; it has found its way into BAGD and the Liddell-Scott Greek dictionary as a possibility and been accepted by scholars of the rank of Harnack, Harris, and Nestle. These points have been offered in support: (a) Judas is described as swollen (prēstheis) in both citations of the Papias story [from the Greek catenae] ... (b) In Codex C of the Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate B; JANT 116), after the report that when the cock that Judas' wife was cooking began to crow, Judas 'straightway made a halter of rope and hanged himself,' there is a marginal addition that has elakisen epristhē ebremesen—the idea is that he burst open after having swollen; and Chase would see ebremesen as a confusion from erragē mesos 'and bestrewed or poured forth from the middle.' (c) The punishment of the faithless wife involved a curse that would cause her to have her belly swell up (Num 5:21-22,27). (d) Swelling up is a death that God inflicts on various unworthy people [in ancient lore, such as Nadan, in the Ahiqar legend]."

It should be mentioned, though, that even if Chase's translation be acceptable, i.e., "and having swollen up he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out," Brown himself is unimpressed with its ability to conciliate Acts with Matthew. In his estimation it still would not suggest "even remotely that Luke was aware that Judas had hanged himself, as reported in Matt ... These two accounts cannot be harmonized; consequently both cannot be historical, and in fact neither may be."

Regards,
Notsri

ExChristian8

Let's just pretend there is another passage of scripture that says Judas was killed by a lion. At first, this may seem to be in direct contradiction to the other passages concerning Judas' death but don't forget about the complimentary principle.

Here is the fix:

Judas is minding his own business on his new piece of property when confronted by a hungry lion. The lion chases Judas to the edge of a cliff where Judas realizes he is this lion's next meal or he has to do something fast. In a moment of desperation, Judas leaps off a cliff to meet the friendly river below, only to find his apostolistic garments get caught on the mountain's tree. He finds himself hanging over the river without the voyeuristic courage to free himself by removing his clothes. After several days without water, Judas dies. The tree branch finally gives way and Judas' body crashes into the only large rock in the river exposing his bowels.

A notable psychologist supported the case that under high levels of stress, people will go to extreme measures to protect themselves, including jumping off a cliff to save their life. Historians support the fact that their were lions imported into the middle east during Judas' time. All three seemingly contradictory statements compliment one another. Matthew was correct when he said Judas hung himself. Although Matthew did not go into the frivilous details concerning the lion, he was giving us a piece of the story. The author of Acts was correct when he said that Judas did splat on a rock. And the newest manuscript concerning the lion brings all accounts together.

...And Clinton thought he invented this reasoning

Orangez

Aren't there also contraditions about who bought the potter's field and how it got its name?

Diogenes the Cynic

Matthew says that Judas threw his money back at the priests, then went and hung himself, then the priests bought the potter's field. It doesn't say that Judas hung himself in the field.

Acts says that Judas bought the field himself and then blew up in it, and that people called the field "field of blood" after that.

Llyricist

Funny thing, the apologists focus on the manner of death so much, they drag the skeptic right along... totally missing THIS contradiction, which I have never seen an aplogist attempt to reconcile.