Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 08-03-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

However, investigation of ancient papyri since has revealed that the same word is used to describe something "swelling up" like the internal organs of someone that hanged himself might do.*...
* (citing A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament)

Please provide a more specific citation. I have never encountered this claim before and have not been able to confirm it, myself.

A manual greek lexicon of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), George Abbott Smith, published in 1937, page 377.

gregor · 08-03-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

speaking of fallacies,

"I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly beleive that the authors were completely free from error"

- St Augustine - long before 1700

A random, out-of-context quote notwithstanding, I mention a conclusion reached by someone considering the problem of inerrancy after a lifetime of study. if you'd like to compare your credentials for comparison with JD Crossan's, feel free.

Toto · 08-03-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Please provide a more specific citation. I have never encountered this claim before and have not been able to confirm it, myself.

A manual greek lexicon of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), George Abbott Smith, published in 1937, page 377.

I can find no reference to this.

But I found this:

Quote:

Since my last post I’ve located Turkel’s apologetic for Judas’ death. It’s at

http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html

Turkel wrote:

However, my preference is for the solution offered [in the book] Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil (or via: amazon.co.uk) [180], [where the author] notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while.

(end apology)

This explanation raises a question more important than the one which it attempts to answer: If the Acts author wanted his audience to understand that Judas’ swelling was the result of his hanging himself and being left to rot on the tree for days, then why in the world did he not have the good sense to say so? It makes no sense for the author to tell us that Judas’ guts burst without telling us why it happened. One's guts bursting out is such a rare event that surely if Luke believed that this extraordinary thing is what actually happened to Judas, he would have made certain to provide the extraordinary explanation for its occurrence. The fact that he didn’t do this is strong evidence that Luke didn’t believe Judas’ guts literally burst open. In an earlier post I explained why I think Luke wanted his readers to believe that the “guts bursting” description was just Luke’s metaphor for a spiritual death suffered by Judas, who like the old wineskin was unable to contain the new “wine” (teachings) of Jesus.

The Holding webpage sited now appears to be at http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html complete with insults directed at the above wepage.

thentian · 08-03-2008, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

I really don't see how you can say that about atheist goggles. For example in the case of Judas' death, it requires no kind of special goggles to notice that the two stories are very different. It is you apologetists who have to come up with a fanciful way to combine the two versions. It is only through apologetists goggles that the result does not look ridiculous and contrived. "He hanged himself, but the branch was rotten so he fell to the ground and burst open"?!? Similarly with the spices that the women brought to the grave; Can you really not see how contrived it is to say that they realized they didn't have enough, so they had to buy some more? I think you must be wearing some very special goggles indeed, if so! Am I wearing special goggles if I assume that when Mark writes "...they told nobody." it means that they told nobody? You however add the parenthetical clause "... of the people they met in the street, but they ran and told Peter." I think you must be wearing some very special goggles if you can't see that you just turned Mark into a liar!

Please remove those goggles!

great example of what I am talking about. 100 years ago that would have been an apparent contradiction. Prior to the 20th century, it was thought that the word translated "falling headlong" could only mean that (prenes). However, investigation of ancient papyri since has revealed that the same word is used to describe something "swelling up" like the internal organs of someone that hanged himself might do.* No way to know for sure but their is little reason to cry contradiction.

The problem here is that the initial christian reaction to liberal Biblical criticism was to stick their head in the sand. Since then, many Christians have woken up and have been digging and studying. Your contradiction is a great example that might have been compelling back in the 1890's.

* (citing A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament)

Although this explanation for the variant versions of Judas' death is somewhat better than others I have read previously, you are not even attempting to meet the thrust of my argument. The examples I mentioned are just that; examples, of verses where the contradictions are staring the reader in the face! It takes no kind of special goggles to discover them, and these are three examples out of dozens, if not hundreds. It is the apologetists explanations of these verses that one needs special goggles for. Anyone not wearing such goggles will find them strained, contrived and/or silly. I doubt it is possible for someone wearing religion-goggles to realize this, though.

angelo · 08-04-2008, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Your dating would almost make Paul a contemporary of Jesus as his are the very first christian writings, and who most scholars date to around at the very earliest 40-50 ce. 10-20 years after Jesu's life ended.

almost? Paul was a contemporary of Jesus.

Are you implying that Paul knew the living Jesus and was witness to all that happened?
What proof have you?

sschlichter · 08-04-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

speaking of fallacies,

"I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly beleive that the authors were completely free from error"

- St Augustine - long before 1700

A random, out-of-context quote notwithstanding, I mention a conclusion reached by someone considering the problem of inerrancy after a lifetime of study. if you'd like to compare your credentials for comparison with JD Crossan's, feel free.

random? (St. Augustine is highly revered (anbd venerated) by every branch of christianity)

out-of-context? the context is what St Augustine sees in the canonical books of Scripture. you must be aware of some other context, please provide it for me.

my credentials and Crossan's are irrelevant, St. Augustine thought Scripture was free from error. (as did many after him prior to 1700).

~Steve

James Brown · 08-04-2008, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto quoting someone else

This explanation raises a question more important than the one which it attempts to answer: If the Acts author wanted his audience to understand that Judas’ swelling was the result of his hanging himself and being left to rot on the tree for days, then why in the world did he not have the good sense to say so? It makes no sense for the author to tell us that Judas’ guts burst without telling us why it happened. One's guts bursting out is such a rare event that surely if Luke believed that this extraordinary thing is what actually happened to Judas, he would have made certain to provide the extraordinary explanation for its occurrence. The fact that he didn’t do this is strong evidence that Luke didn’t believe Judas’ guts literally burst open. In an earlier post I explained why I think Luke wanted his readers to believe that the “guts bursting” description was just Luke’s metaphor for a spiritual death suffered by Judas, who like the old wineskin was unable to contain the new “wine” (teachings) of Jesus.

I imagine this conversation with a new believer having heard Acts read to him for the first time:

***
(Listener) "So, why did Judas fall (or swell up, if we insist)? Did he trip or lose his footing?"

(Apologist) "Neither. His rope broke."

"...Sorry, what rope? Was he rock climbing?"

"No, it was the rope that was around his neck."

"His neck! Why was a rope around his neck?"

"Isn't it obvious? He was hanging himself."

"What? The passage doesn't say he was committing suicide. How do you know that?"

"Because it says so in the Gospel of Mark."

"But we were reading Acts."

"Right. And the story makes more sense having read Mark first, see?"

"I guess."
***

I see nothing in this Acts to indicate that Judas committed suicide. I interpret this passage to mean that he used the money he gained for betraying Jesus to become a landowner, and one day while walking across his property, he tripped and fell, disemboweling himself on a stone. This seems like a just reward for his act in the death of Jesus, rather than, say, dying peacefully in bed surrounded by loved ones.

I'm all too aware that apologists combine the Acts passage with the Mark passage to have Judas hanging himself AND have his body falling to be disemboweled, but of course, bringing in the Mark passage only brings in more problems (like, Judas threw the money back and thus could not have purchased land with it, nor is it likely that someone so filled with remorse that he wants to commit suicide would first engage in a complicated real estate transaction.)

If we look at the Acts passage by itself, without hauling in the assumptions of the Mark passage, it seems clear to me that the controversy surrounding Judas is not only his death, but also his life.

sschlichter · 08-04-2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

almost? Paul was a contemporary of Jesus.

Are you implying that Paul knew the living Jesus and was witness to all that happened?
What proof have you?

being a contemporary does not require personal acquaintance. Paul was an adult that stoned Stephen, who was an adult contemporary of the apostles, who was an adult contemporary of Jesus.

James Brown · 08-04-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

my credentials and Crossan's are irrelevant, St. Augustine thought Scripture was free from error. (as did many after him prior to 1700).

He also thought the Cappadocian mares were impregnated by the wind, that apples of Sodom appear ripe but are actually formed of ash, and that the stone selenite brightens and dims in accordance with the phases of the moon.

But we'll not hold any of that against him.

sschlichter · 08-04-2008, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto quoting someone else

This explanation raises a question more important than the one which it attempts to answer: If the Acts author wanted his audience to understand that Judas’ swelling was the result of his hanging himself and being left to rot on the tree for days, then why in the world did he not have the good sense to say so? It makes no sense for the author to tell us that Judas’ guts burst without telling us why it happened. One's guts bursting out is such a rare event that surely if Luke believed that this extraordinary thing is what actually happened to Judas, he would have made certain to provide the extraordinary explanation for its occurrence. The fact that he didn’t do this is strong evidence that Luke didn’t believe Judas’ guts literally burst open. In an earlier post I explained why I think Luke wanted his readers to believe that the “guts bursting” description was just Luke’s metaphor for a spiritual death suffered by Judas, who like the old wineskin was unable to contain the new “wine” (teachings) of Jesus.

I imagine this conversation with a new believer having heard Acts read to him for the first time:

***
(Listener) "So, why did Judas fall (or swell up, if we insist)? Did he trip or lose his footing?"

(Apologist) "Neither. His rope broke."

"...Sorry, what rope? Was he rock climbing?"

"No, it was the rope that was around his neck."

"His neck! Why was a rope around his neck?"

"Isn't it obvious? He was hanging himself."

"What? The passage doesn't say he was committing suicide. How do you know that?"

"Because it says so in the Gospel of Mark."

"But we were reading Acts."

"Right. And the story makes more sense having read Mark first, see?"

"I guess."
***

I see nothing in this Acts to indicate that Judas committed suicide. I interpret this passage to mean that he used the money he gained for betraying Jesus to become a landowner, and one day while walking across his property, he tripped and fell, disemboweling himself on a stone. This seems like a just reward for his act in the death of Jesus, rather than, say, dying peacefully in bed surrounded by loved ones.

I'm all too aware that apologists combine the Acts passage with the Mark passage to have Judas hanging himself AND have his body falling to be disemboweled, but of course, bringing in the Mark passage only brings in more problems (like, Judas threw the money back and thus could not have purchased land with it, nor is it likely that someone so filled with remorse that he wants to commit suicide would first engage in a complicated real estate transaction.)

If we look at the Acts passage by itself, without hauling in the assumptions of the Mark passage, it seems clear to me that the controversy surrounding Judas is not only his death, but also his life.

I think that you have over-estimated the importance of Judas' role and how often it came up to a new beleiver (or an old one). It is somewhat tangential information and the scarcity of info makes perfect sense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.