Tod

Hi Tod,
here is the verse translated direct from the aramaic. also in this site you can look at the meaning of each word in aramaic/syriac.

http://www.peshitta.com/jamesmurdock/books/acts.html

You need to explain why you think this is the "blood money" . Blood money is not mentioned in the book of acts here.
Why are you introducing it?

Because the only money we are EVER told he received for committing a crime was the betrayal of Jesus! Even in the translation you provide in the link above it says "WAGES of sin." Wages are something you EARN, somebody pays you. The ONLY wrongdoing we are EVER told Judas was paid to do was, again, betraying Jesus. The author would have known that readers would assume that he was referring to this act, since it number one plays an integral role in the story, and number two, again, is the only wrongdoing we are told Judas received money for! It's pretty basic reasoning.

Why can't the money not be that which judas stole?

First of all, wages are something you are PAID, not something you steal. Secondly, what passage speaks of Judas stealing? You told me you "think" its in John, but the only reference to Judas' role as treasurer I can think of in John is when Jesus tells Judas to go quickly and do whatever it is he must do, referring to betraying him, while the disciples assume he is telling him to buy something for a festival, I believe.

After all we are told in the gospels that he whilst treasurer stole money.

Again wages aren't stolen spoils, they are what somebody pays you for services rendered.

Why would anyone assume it was the thirty pieces of silver when elsewhere we are told that the thirty pieces of silver was returned to the priests?

Because without an assumption of inerrancy we are led to believe that this is the money being talked about. You are doing it again. You can't assume inerrancy to prove inerrancy! What is the point of debating a contradiction if you are going to use the contradiction in of itself as evidence that your how-it-could-have-been scenario based only on the fact that otherwise we have a contradiction?

judge

So let me get this right Tod,

Even though one of the gospels clearly tells us that Judas stole money whilst treasurer you know for a fact that Judas cannot have used this money to buy the field.

You know that this cannot possibly be the money Peter refers to in acts?

If you are really honest you will have to admit that this is a possibility.

all the best

judge

John 12:6



He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Tod

So let me get this right Tod,

Even though one of the gospels clearly tells us that Judas stole money whilst treasurer you know for a fact that Judas cannot have used this money to buy the field.

Of course I don't "know for a fact" Judas could not have used stolen money to buy the field, since I don't even know that any of this actually happened! However, in regards to what the author of Acts claims to have happened, I know for a fact that the author of the verse in Acts clearly states that the money used to buy the field was from "wages of sin," and that is from your own source. Again, 'wages' are something you earn, they're what somebody pays you for services rendered. I know for a fact that this strongly indicates the money used was given to Judas for something he did and not money he stole. I know for a fact that the New Testament never says anything about Judas being given "wages" for doing anything else.

You know that this cannot possibly be the money Peter refers to in acts?

If you are really honest you will have to admit that this is a possibility.

Well yeah it's a possiblity, just not nearly as likely a possibility as the possibility that the money was earned and not stolen. It's also possible he won the money gambling, prostituting himself, making boats, being day labor, shining Pilate's shoes, or maybe Jesus rained the money down from the sky just to show Judas what a forgiving guy he was. We can all come up with possibilities, I just thought it prudent to come up with possibilities best supported by the text, free from a presupposition of inerrancy, and most importantly in this specific example: possibilities that would actually qualify as wages, preferable for a wrongdoing!


All the best

Back at ya. ; )

Tod

Fair enough, now why don't you tell me why stolen money can in any likely scenario be considered "wages"?

judge

The meaning of the word in Aramaic can be "reward" recompense or pay according to peshitto.com.

Certainly stolen money could be referred to as a "reward" for wrongdoing.

Unless of course you are an ultra biblical literalist

Amlodhi

Hello Tod & judge,

The only question is whether or not the two accounts describe two separate events.

Consider:

1) If only one field was purchased it must necessarily have been purchased with the "blood money" referred to in Matthew.

2) If two separate fields were purchased, the field referred to in Acts must have been purchased with some other money then the "blood money" (perhaps even money from Judas' pilfering).

To judge:

The "two separate events" hypothesis seems to be based on these proposals:

1) The term "apagchomai" can be understood in terms of emotional stress

2) Judas can be shown to be alive after the events reported by Matthew.

3) The term "aceldama" suggests that the field referred to in Acts is differently named than that in Matthew.

Point #1 - While being fairly familiar with Hebrew, I must struggle with Greek. Nevertheless, after searching several analytical lexicons, the root of "apagchomai" seems to be compared, in the aorist middle voice, to the usage in Homers Odyssey and defined as "to throttle, strangle, in order to put out of the way". The usage in Matthew ("apo" = off; "agcho" = choke, bend; "omai" = reflexive suffix) seems to be middle voice with the tense indicating the reflexive, i.e. "to strangle one's self, to end one's life by hanging".

While I personally would welcome any correction to the above interpretation, it will also be necessary to explain why there seems to be unanimous agreement, among the scholars who authored these lexicons, that this is the correct definition.

Point #2 - In accordance with the verses you cite as an indication that Judas' is still alive after the events described by Matthew it should not only be demonstrated that Judas was, indeed, present at an event, but also, it should be explained (as Tod has pointed out) why Judas is still in the company of the other disciples.

Point #3 - Acts 1:18 ". . . insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood." [KJV]

Aceldama is of Chaldean origin and, as the verse indicates, means simply "field of blood". This does not seem to indicate that the field referenced in Acts is differently named than that in Matthew.

It is also interesting that "in their proper tongue" must necessarily refer to the contemporary language of Judea. I don't know that you have ever claimed that Acts was also written in Aramaic but, if so, it would seem strange that the author would refer to a term "in their proper tongue" and then provide a definition for it if he was, indeed, writing in their "proper tongue" to begin with.

Edited to include afterthought: If it is maintained that the "proper tongue" is the older Hebrew, could you please provide the Aramaic term and explain how they differ?


Namaste'

Amlodhi

Tod

I guess you missed the part about a "likely" scenario. Again, if you have money that was a "reward," it was obviously given to you for something you did.

No, I don't think that it is "certain" by any means that stolen money could be considered a reward in a meaningful sense.

This takes us back to what is more likely. Is it more likely, if the truth is that Judas used stolen money to buy the field, that the author of Acts would tell us the money used to buy the field was "wages for his sins" or "the money he stole/ stolen money," etc.?

He could have said stolen money if he was referring to stolen money. He did not.
We are talking about what makes more sense, and what you present doesn't make much sense at all.

Lastly, I'm not aware of an aramaic version of Acts. Could you direct me to a copy or citation?

judge

Hi again Tod,

The problem here is that the entire contradiction comes down to how literally we interpret one word.

Trying to insist this is a contradiction becomes "hair-splitting".

Translations from aramaic/syriac can be found at

www.peshitta.com

www.v-a.com

and there is an interlinear half way done at

www.peshitta.org.

There is at least one other but I can't recall the website.

Tod

Hi again Tod,

The problem here is that the entire contradiction comes down to how literally we interpret one word.

Trying to insist this is a contradiction becomes "hair-splitting".[/b]

I'd hardly find the difference between "Judas bought the field with paid wages for betraying Jesus" and "Judas bought the field with money he stole from the treasury" "hair-splitting."

Those are two completely and utterly different messages.

Especially when one considers the ineptitude necessary for the author to give one completely different meaning when he could have very easily worded it in a way that was clear.

You don't seem to get this one point. The only reason you seek this alternative and less probably translation is because you see a contradiction with Matthew. You see a verse in John that talks about Judas stealing money for the treasury and say this must be where he got the money. The author of Luke/Acts doesn't report this, however. He knows that people reading his story will assume that Judas' money alluded to by Peter is money he received for his betrayal of Jesus because he's given them no other possible source. Furthermore, the statement referring to his "wages of sin" is made in a manner that clearly assumes the listeners within the story and the readers of the story knows what these "wages of sin" refer to.

It would seem highly, highly improbable that he would give this impression if he really meant to say the money was stolen from the treasury when Judas was a disciple! He could have said that much easier.