judge

Hi...yes you will see in my post I admitted this was "special pleading"...don't worry about having to break it to me.

Here is a cut and paste from this thread...

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000032.html


The words are not my own but those of a friend, but he words it better than I could so I have just cut and pasted it. (thanks Don)"1)


The word translated "hanged himself" in the KJV is apanchomai from
the Greek word apancho. It is used only once in the NT. However in
classical literature it means "to strangle" or "to choke" and is used
figuratively to mean to choke with anger or grief.
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. by
Henry S Johnes (1843; 9th ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), p.174.

The word apancho is a combination of apo, "away from," and ancho, "to
squeeze or embrace." Consequently, it carries a negative connotation,
meaning "to squeeze from." "Choking" is a literal "squeezing the life
from" whereas "choking with grief" is figurative as in our English
expression "all choked up."

2) The Expositor's Greek Testament makes note of Grotius, who saw the
difficulty with these two accounts and suggested that apancho points to
death by grief rather than a literal choking.
W.Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 vols.
(1897); reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), 1:323

3) This could be correct, but only to the extent that Judas did not die
immediately in Matthew 27, but was extremely greived over his betrayal.
He was carried away by grief and despair. And over a period of time
(about 40 days) he let this grief consume him until he could no longer
tolerate it. This "figurative" usage is verified in the classical writing
of Aristophanes. Aristophanes Vespae 686. It was this state of mind
that led to his actions which literally resulted in his death.

4) Various Greek manuscripts also indicate difficulties that others
have had with the word apancho by their deliberate change of the text to
more familiar words like apeuchomai which means "to wish a thing away"
(MSS 803, 875, 983, 1415, 1608, 2521, and 2539). Judas wished he had
never betrayed Jesus. This word fits with the word "repent" used in
Matt.27:3. Judas regretted what he had done and tried to turn away from his
actions in his mind, to wish his thoughts away. One manuscript has the
word apopnigo, which is also used figuratively "to choke with vexation
or rage" (MS 273). A related word pnigalion means "nightmare." Another
manuscript uses the word apago, meaning "to lead away" (MS 827). These
variations in the text indicate misunderstanding of apancho followed by
deliberate and unwarranted attempts at clarification.

Understanding the meaning and the figurative usage of apancho in
Matthew 27:5 leaves all four Gospels without any mention of the death of
Judas. His death is then only mentioned in Acts 1, AFTER he saw Jesus
ascend. It is THEN that Peter and the others replace him. Note: Had Judas
died BEFORE Jesus' ascension, then Jesus would have replaced him.
However, Peter and the others replace him because he wasn't missing UNTIL
AFTER Jesus was gone (ie. ascended).

Having seen Jesus condemned, Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver
back into the Temple and departed, emotionally choked up with grief.
Finally, over forty days later as he watched Jesus ascend into heaven,
Judas reached the point of no return. Overwhelmed with internal turmoil, he
left the other eleven apostles and went to his own property (purchased
with money he stole from "the bag") and committed suicide. 11 men are
then all named one-by-one right after the ascension (Acts 1:13) as
having remained - only Judas is left out.


I would disagree that the variations must need be deliberate changes although they could well be. They may indicate variations that arose from translatimng the Aramaic itself

Tod

Originally posted by judge
[B]Hi...yes you will see in my post I admitted this was "special pleading"...don't worry about having to break it to me.

Here is a cut and paste from this thread...

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000032.html


The words are not my own but those of a friend, but he words it better than I could so I have just cut and pasted it. (thanks Don)"1)


The word translated "hanged himself" in the KJV is apanchomai from
the Greek word apancho. It is used only once in the NT. However in
classical literature it means "to strangle" or "to choke" and is used
figuratively to mean to choke with anger or gri
ef.
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. by
Henry S Johnes (1843; 9th ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), p.174

The word apancho is a combination of apo, "away from," and ancho, "to
squeeze or embrace." Consequently, it carries a negative connotation,
meaning "to squeeze from." "Choking" is a literal "squeezing the life
from" whereas "choking with grief" is figurative as in our English
expression "all choked up."

Okay, for the sake of argument I'll grant the major claim here that the word can be used in this figurative manner. It still can't yet be sold as fact since there still are no passages cited as examples so that one can see the difference between the context in which the two variations, literal and figurative, are used. In the example given with the english variation of "all choked up," the context is clear because if we mean to imply an action rather than a condition or state, we would say something like "he choked himself." The context and associated words of each use of the word "choke" would clearly indicate which variation is being used, and a non-english speaking person given examples of each usage could quickly and easily pick up on the differences.

Since I'm not given examples, I'm given no reason to believe enough ambiguity exist between the different usages in Greek to believe that the author didn't mean to indicate exactly what he does: that Judas hung himself in an act of suicide.

However, it really doesn't matter. It is easy to grant because many words in all languages have varying meanings. The question remains: is there any good reason whatsoever to believe that the word is used figuratively in THIS context when the context seems to be describing what appears to be a suicide? It doesn't seem that there is. The only reason I can see is to avoid an inconsistency because one holds to an inerrancy doctrine. That isn't a very good reason.

2) The Expositor's Greek Testament makes note of Grotius, who saw the
difficulty with these two accounts and suggested that apancho points to
death by grief rather than a literal choking.
W.Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 vols.
(1897); reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), 1:323

Great... So Grotius sees these inconsistency, engages in special pleading to avoid inconsistencies, and his example is followed to this day.

3) This could be correct, but only to the extent that Judas did not die
immediately in Matthew 27, but was extremely greived over his betrayal.
He was carried away by grief and despair. And over a period of time
(about 40 days) he let this grief consume him until he could no longer
tolerate it.

Okay, now we've entered the world of sheer speculation. In what book of the Bible will I find this information? Chapter and verse please...

Simply pointing to the seemingly contradictory verse in Acts doesn't count. Saying that this verse indicates he is alive is only a twisted way of saying "this solution must be correct because otherwise there'd be a contradiction."

Of course, even if granted that this was evidence he was alive, it would it no way indicate the detailed information above was true. I.e. 40 days.

This "figurative" usage is verified in the classical writing
of Aristophanes. Aristophanes Vespae 686. It was this state of mind
that led to his actions which literally resulted in his death.

The only example ever specifically given is Aristophanes, who lived 3 or 4 centuries earlier. Again, actual examples of the context in which Aristophanes uses this word are never given. So why on earth is this evidence at all that the usage in Matthew isn't literal?

4) Various Greek manuscripts also indicate difficulties that others
have had with the word apancho by their deliberate change of the text to
more familiar words like apeuchomai which means "to wish a thing away"
(MSS 803, 875, 983, 1415, 1608, 2521, and 2539). Judas wished he had
never betrayed Jesus.

And again, where is the evidence that the word was changed in this way? Why should we believe that this is what happened in this case? More speculation that qualifies for special pleading.

Understanding the meaning and the figurative usage of apancho in
Matthew 27:5 leaves all four Gospels without any mention of the death of
Judas.

Wow! Now he goes from making the case that it simply could be that the word was used figuratively to claiming that this is indeed what occurred in Matthew. He offers NO evidence for this whatsoever, and only argues for the possibility, then somehow jumps from possibility to actuality.

His death is then only mentioned in Acts 1, AFTER he saw Jesus
ascend.

Where does it say that Judas saw Jesus ascend? The baseless speculation continues.

It is THEN that Peter and the others replace him. Note: Had Judas
died BEFORE Jesus' ascension, then Jesus would have replaced him.

Where does it say that Jesus would have replaced him had he died before his ascension? This is interesting stuff to hypothesize about when you're stoned, but it is useless in determining fact. Speculation does not equal evidence.

Having seen Jesus condemned, Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver
back into the Temple and departed, emotionally choked up with grief.
Finally, over forty days later as he watched Jesus ascend into heaven,
Judas reached the point of no return. Overwhelmed with internal turmoil, he
left the other eleven apostles and went to his own property (purchased
with money he stole from "the bag") and committed suicide. 11 men are
then all named one-by-one right after the ascension (Acts 1:13) as
having remained - only Judas is left out.

Again we have more of this increasingly hypothetical and speculative new gospel unfolding. None of this story of Judas' supposed last forty days is found in the Bible, and in the end the only evidence cited is the verse from Acts that is in question! Again, the only reason to believe that the word is used in a figurative sense in Matthew based on the information from the verse in question from Acts is to avoid contradiction. That isn't a good reason, as it is essentially begging the question of biblical inerrancy.

Tod

I'm looking for the context, not the language. I picked up on the fact we were discussing Greek. ; )

judge

Hi again Tod.

You don't have to believe it. You can believe whatever you want.

Peoiple beleive all kinds of things.

p.s the answers to some if not all of your queries are dealt with in the link to evcforum I provided.

all the best

Tod

Sure I can believe what I want, you can believe what you want, that isn't the point. The point is that all that has been offered is speculation based upon a need to ensure biblical inerrancy as evidence that the author of Matthew meant something completely different when he describes Judas hanging himself. Sure, you can believe it if you want, but the only reason to is to preserve a belief in inerrancy that you claim you do not have.

Furthermore, the exchange at the evcforum doesn't address any point I made save claiming 1 corinthians 15:3-5 offers a reason for thinking Judas continued living until after Jesus' ascension. This verse doesn't count as evidence, however, because using it as evidence also assumes biblical inerrancy, which again, begs the question. It says:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."

All evidence suggest that Paul's letters predate Matthew or any of the other gospels for that matter. Let's not assume biblical inerrancy, and instead use only practical explanations that you'd probably find adequate were we dealing with any other set of religious writings other than the ones important to you.

Pull out your concordance, look up "Judas," and notice that his name is only mentioned in the gospels and Acts. Paul no where mentions Judas AT ALL in any of his letters. Considering Judas' role, it is hard to believe that Paul was aware of the tradition that Judas betrayed Jesus and never ever referred to Judas. We don't even know that Paul knew of Judas' alleged existence or name. Even if he did, we have no reason to believe that he knew of the claim from the author of Matthew that Judas hung himself. Suspiciously Paul doesn't seem to know much at all about Jesus' life according to the gospels, but I digress.

So in short, considering this verse in question doesn't mention Judas and shows absolutely no awareness of the details later presented in the gospels, and considering that Paul shows NO awareness of Judas' existence in any of his writings, it takes less rationalization to conclude that this is simply an example of Paul's lack of knowledge about details later introduced by the gospel writers than to assume it implies Judas was still alive and that the author of Matthew meant only to say Judas was very upset instead of hanging himself.

In the end, you are simply assuming inerrancy to prove there is no inconsistency, as all evidence presented so far in the form of Acts 1:18-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is only evidence Judas didn't literally hang himself in Matthew if one assumes there must not be any inconsistencies. The idea that Paul didn't know of the Judas' role in the Jesus story is an easier jump than assuming that the author of Matthew was so inept as to use such an ambiguous wording that would in many cases most likely give the entirely wrong idea.

Not to mention that the author of Matthew had at his disposal the means to convey the idea in unambiguous terms. It isn't like the Greek or Aramaic vocabularies are limited in their ability to express grief in more explicit terms. Not to mention the fact that the supposed inspiration of this text, Yahweh himself, would have undoubtably known that the majority of Christians would end up coming from the Western World where in Latin and all other offspring languages down to the final dominant one of English this verse would be interpreted by almost everybody except for a very small group of apologists defending biblical inconsistencies to mean that Judas hung himself!

Remember the Bible says "God is not the author of confusion."

Vorkosigan

No. I never said anything like that.

Vorkosigan

Celsus

Tod,

I am currently engaged in polemics with J.P. Holding (Robert Turkel) and Socrates (Jonathan Sarfati) at Theology Web. I believe Socrates has decided to avoid the actual debate in the end, and decided to cut'n'paste an article on Crossan as a last word. Neither of them are in any way impressive or indeed knowledgeable about the crucial fields, short of ad hominems (Vork took them apart on the NT, and I'm testing their knowledge of the OT and archaeology).

Joel

Amlodhi

Hello Tod,

Dr. X's comment was primarily directed towards judge (who argues that the autographs were written in Aramaic) and it does bring up an interesting point.

It would be interesting to examine the Aramaic term in question. I have, as yet, been unable to discover any Hebrew term which could imply both connotations; with the possible exception of "yarad", as used in Lam. 2:10.

Another interesting implication is that advocates of this "alternate connotation" theory are necessarily making an admission that the accounts of Judas' death are (as traditionally interpreted), indeed, contradictory.

Tod

Yes, I agree. They are acknowledging contradiction because the only scriptural evidence they provide to indicate the verse in Matthew even needs to be interpreted in this alternate way requires an assumption that the texts are harmonious and inerrant to begin with: i.e. avoiding contradiction is the only reason to entertain this alternate meaning.

Tod

To any and all apologists that might want to join this thread at this point: If you address any posts to me, that is fine, but consider that this was not one of the examples of biblical difficulties that I wanted to discuss, but only used it in my original post as an example of a difficulty that required a fair amount of special pleading that was a step in the right direction, but still not a difficulty that I found to be among the best.

Don't get me wrong: I have no problem continuing this tired thread, but the two examples I did want to debate and cited below in a thread that has went virtually unresponded to titled "A couple of examples of contradictions" have not been addressed. Please give those priority to this, as this topic is a dead horse that has been beaten in debate countless times. The ones I cited are decidedly fresher meat if not completely uncharted territory!