makerowner

Matt. 27:3-8 "When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
Acts 1:16-8 "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."

Did he hang himself, or did he fall headlong? Did he give the money back to the priests, or did he buy the field?

reniaa

aha an apparent contradiction I guess it depends how effective his hanging was, did the tree hold his weight or did it break leaving him falling to ground splitting apart his insides... we may never know but falling from a hanging is not unknown specially if your doing it from trees there must be some jumping involved if your doing it alone.

andrewcriddle

I think there is a distinction between using violent imagery to get across a point and ones attitude to violence in reality.

We get into the same issue when violent films are automatically regarded as straightforwardly promoting violence.

The connection between the imagery one uses and ones moral code is more complicated than that.

Jesus (or the author of the Gospel) is warning people about God's Judgment, if there is any problem with the parable, it is about the idea of God and God's Judgment it presents, the parable is not encouraging humans to be violent to each other.

Andrew Criddle

makerowner

First, how do you fall headlong from hanging yourself?
Second, you didn't answer about what happened to the money. Did he give it to the priests, or did he buy the field himself?

reniaa

In these cases the bible is damn if it does, damn if it doesn't scenario :s

If both accounts were exactly the same we get the "they are just copying from one source argument" and then as in this case they are told from different perspectives then you get "contradiction contradiction"!

The acts account is of course the later one so this is past the time when the field had been bought in judas's name and so this would be common knowledge as we know from the other account so technically it is his field and bought with his reward no contradiction there. and as for the falling how does one hang oneself from a tree without help in a rocky region? and if the branch breaks from his weight what has killed him the hanging or the fall to the ground that splits him open (note it's his middle thats split open not his head)?

different perspectives on dying yes but stretching it a bit to say it's a contradiction especially as second account doesn't say how the fall happened.

WishboneDawn

But now you're constructing some bridging story that isn't in the gospels. The simple fact is the gospels tell different stories, their "facts" differ. It's because they come from tradition, not historical account and the story of Jesus was shaped by those who told it. Maybe I'm too much of a humanist but I find that as appealing and wonderful (more so actually) then if God has sat down and dictated the accounts himself. One's just a magic trick, the other gives us a line to early christians.

WishboneDawn

Thanks for the passages!

makerowner

The only reason that comes up is because of inerrantists. With non-religious documents from the time, small divergences between otherwise compatible accounts are to be expected, and as you said, would be evidence that they were independent of each other. However, if the gospels are supposed to be God's inerrant word, they should agree on every detail right?
Sorry, doesn't cut it. Acts says specifically that Judas bought the field, while Matthew says that the priests did. At least one of those two accounts is wrong about this detail.

First, where does it say that it's a "rocky region"? This is a field remember. Second, what does it matter if it was a rocky region? Hanging yourself from a tree isn't any harder in a rocky region than in a non-rocky region, and in fact it could be easier, since the rocks would help you climb the tree. Third, there's no indication in Matthew that he hanged himself in a field; he was buried there, but it doesn't say where he hanged himself. Fourth, how high did he hang himself? I can't imagine that falling onto the ground from a normal-sized tree would cause someone to "burst open in the middle" or "his bowels [to gush] out". And fifth, Acts says that he fell headlong; how can you fall headlong from hanging yourself?

Jane H

With apologies for what is of necessity an abbreviated post, which can be fleshed out subsequently. I agree with those who have pushed Luke 19:11-28 towards a Third Quest style C1 reading. That is not to deny that return-of-Jesus resonances can’t also be inferred, but they are not what is primarily in mind here.


The 19:14 reference is about Archelaus and would have been as obvious as a contemporary comic reference to a dictator with a silly moustache and a penchant for invading European countries. The point is it is all about a would be king who was rejected.

Jesus used parables as a coded means of announcing the arrival of the Kingdom of God (pointed out in 19:11). He is drawing on an OT tradition which says this would be a time of devastation for Israel (Malachi 3:1-5, Amos 5:18 and elsewhere). YHWH had promised to return to Zion to restore Israel. The story of Israel/humanity/the OT has been a cycle of disobedience, punishment and redemption. This is the redemption part, says Jesus throughout the NT, but it’s going to hurt some people.

So He tells the story of a King returning. For many of the King’s servants who have followed the King faithfully, this lead to a time of reward, but for others it would be a time of punishment. Jesus is placing Himself as the King (hence as the embodiment of YHWH), the faithful servants as those who did not reject Him (to be rewarded). And, most crucially, those who refused to do the King’s will, who stuck to the C1 Israeli Nationalistic agenda, would end up suffering, losing possessions or lives, in the end of Second Temple Judaism (First Jewish War of AD70).

There are so many other parables and sayings which point to this as a constant feature of Jesus preaching.

Toto

Could you clarify what you mean by C1? 1st century? What makes this a "Third Quest" reading? Please do flesh this out.