Amlodhi

Hello judge,

In addition to the excellent points made by jbernier and ichabod crane, the connotations you suggest for the Greek terms "agros" (field) and "chorion" (indicating property) would not indicate that two separate fields were being indicated. In Matthew's version, in which the field is purchased as a burial ground for paupers, the term "agros" would be the natural choice. Likewise, the version in Acts (Luke?), in which Judas is said to have purchased the field as a personal possession, would naturally employ the term "chorion" indicating personal property. i.e, the two different versions would utilize the terms consistent with their respective viewpoints.

Not only is the textual evidence in support of the "two field theory" basically non-existent (and indeed, is actually contra-indicated), but further, this line of argument necessarily results in the unlikely coincidence that two separate fields, which are discussed in the same context, both become widely known as some form of "the field of blood".

While an understanding of the original languages is useful for proper translation, a concentration on perceived subtle inferences at the expense of the plain sense of the text is seldom instructive.

As always, namaste'

Amlodhi

jbernier

Where this break down is the assumption that "God's word to mankind" is simply a telegram, a straightforward message to be easily decoded and read by the receiver. Now, I would not fault any non-Christian for assuming that is the Christian position on the text as it is the one that is so oft articulated. However I would argue that it is an immature and overly simplistic theology of scripture - and you are quite right to critique it (note that you have found each how it breaks down).

But what if the ambiguity is the point? Life is ambiguous. Life is inconsistent. Life is confusing. Any surprise that our sacred texts reflect that?

Gregg

No, if PEOPLE wrote them, then they're exactly what we'd expect them to be. But fundies claim that God speaks to us clearly and unambiguously and inerrantly through the Scriptures, through the plain and literal words of the text. (They also say their God is supposed to erase confusion and doubt and give our lives clear purpose and direction.) Problem is, only they see it that way...it isn't that clear to anyone else.

If you're going to say that God deliberately let the Scriptures be vague and confusing and ambiguous and contradictory, so that it's difficult to see anything especially "inspired" about them and they don't appear to be anything more than an arbitrary collection of myths, legends, semi-historical accounts, genealogies, allegories, apocalypses, moral homilies, legal and social codes, poems, prayers, etc. written by men, well, then, OK. But I'm not sure what the point is.

jbernier

I am not arguing that God deliberately let the texts be vague (I apologize if I appeared to be saying so). I am suggesting that the texts do appear to be written by men because, well, that is precisely who wrote them. If God revealed Godself to people throughout history we should not surprised if the texts reflect the humanity of those people. In short I am arguing against the fundamentalist hermeneutic which sees the author of the text as a stenographer who just copied down verbatim what God said. I am also suggesting that the texts do not have to be any more historically or scientifically accurate than other texts in other to record a community's interactions with and reflections upon the divine. My views are very similar to the old Quaker notion which sees the scriptures primarily as the history of the faith more than anything else.

Further, as the product of a community (actually a number of historically related communities) it has the same sort of inconsistencies and incoherencies one finds in community life in general. The problem is that we tend to read the Biblical text as a philosophical text or a systematic theology - it is neither and we should expect it to be.

diana

What a fascinating question. It's such a central part of Christian doctrine that I never bothered to question it. Go figure.

Lemme see what I can find...

Looks pretty clear to me.

d

Magus55

Thats all we have of most historical figures -whats your point?

judge

Guess what...the aramaic is way way too good to be a translation as well. In other words believing acts was written in greek is a religious belief not a scientific one.

Magus55

John 1 for one example.

judge

How on earth can you claim this? Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that no other NT book even may have been written in aramaic?

Faith

It's no coincidence that most of those claims attributed to Jesus are found in John, which was the last of the Gospels to be written (around CE 95 or so). The concept of Jesus as God evolved over time and wasn't present in the earliest texts. The epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Thomas, for example, never show that Jesus claimed to be God. And the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke are full of Jesus' reference to Himself as the Son of God.