Vanderzyden

Whenever I encounter people who insist upon a large number of biblical discrepancies, I become suspect. My suspicion arises not from their disagreement over the major themes of the Bible. Rather, my concern is this: In modern times, following close inspection by many liberal and conservatives scholars, these skeptics continue to promote the supposed existence of pervasive errors or contradictions in the Bible. This is clear indication that the detractors have not studied carefully, neither the text itself or the commentaries.

If the Bible contains numerous genuine errors or contradictions, then it is no longer plausible that an all-wise God is behind it. Yes, we must not be afraid of admitting this possibility. However, the so-called contradictions have not been found conclusive. In fact, the skeptic (1) often does not have strong knowledge of the Bible, (2) overlooks subtleties in the text and the references, or (3) ignores the fact that different narrative perspectives are not necessarily in conflict, but may be complementary.

The biblical skeptic must, in all fairness, apply the same analytical standards to the Bible as she does to other ancient texts. The reader of the Bible must not invent her own standards of "perfection", nor require that a wise God meet all of her demands. It's simply not reasonable to insist that every detail be recorded, and that all accounts of the same events be identical (which would be cause for suspecting collusion). In fact, it is clear in all of Scripture that the reader will not be given everything; indeed, she will be given some critical information, and from that she must make our own decision.

So it is with the short accounts of the demise of Judas Iscariot, as found in Matthew 27 and Acts 1. In Matthew we learn in the second half of one sentence that Judas died by hanging himself:

In Acts, we have a different perspective:

In the interest of discrediting the Bible, the skeptic will claim that these two accounts are contradictory. They insist that the entire biblical record is unreliable because it contains such "errors". With that, they dismiss the Bible as nothing more than a collection of "fantastic stories", written by simpletons who can't even get the facts straight. For the skeptic, then, the deconstruction is complete.

Let's take a moment to see if this dismissal is warranted. First, observe that, in both passages, very few words are specifically concerned with the type of death Judas underwent. In Matthew, we find three English words (NIV):

"and hanged himself".

In Acts, we have fourteen English words:

"there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

These words do not even comprise full sentences. Therefore, we immediately see that we are not reading a detailed account of his death. These are summary statements which, it would seem, are mentioned as minor (but not useless) details in a much larger context. We are further justified in making this assessment by observing that the text in Acts is encompassed within a parenthetical statement.

Second, and more importantly, we see that these very short accounts are not at all contradictory. One says, "he hanged himself", the other says "he fell and his body burst open". Where is the difficulty in reconciling these two perspectives? There is none. In fact, it is easy to suppose one of two scenarios:

1. After the corpse hung for a while and decomposed, the neck may have decomposed sufficiently to allow the head to separate from the body. The body would then fall free to the ground, where it would break apart (or explode).

2. While attempting to hang himself, he does not succeed. He is unable to secure the noose around his head properly, or the rope snaps, and he falls from a substantial height onto a a sharp object (tree branch, rocks). This impact rips his torso open and the contents spill out.

We must take note that the book of Acts is written by "Luke", friend of Theophilus. He is the most historically meticulous of the NT writers. The author of Acts is the same as the author of the gospel of Luke. (Note that there are at least six references to Judas in Luke). In Acts 1, verses 16 and following, we see Luke is recording the words of Peter. This is the very same Peter who was a special disciple of Jesus. This is the same Peter who knew Judas Iscariot very well--they lived in very close contact for the three years immediately prior to Judas death (verse 17: "he was one of our number and shared in this ministry").

Also, we should take care to observe that Peter is indicating that everyone in Jerusalem heard about how Judas died. It was widespread knowledge. Many of the "Greek brothers", who were listening to Peter, would know if this was true or not. Is it likely that Peter could be wrong about a former close disciple and the man who had betrayed Jesus? It would seem that the probability is very low.

So, it is clear that there is no contradiction in what is mentioned concerning Judas' death.

Allow me to anticipate discussion on a few peripheral matters. In particular, I would like to examine the purchase of the field. Here are the verses immediately follwing the Matthew passage:

Unable to conclusively demonstrate a contradiction concerning the mode of Judas' death, the skeptic then turns to the purchase of the field. In Matthew, the transaction is handled by the priests who conspired with Judas. In Acts, Peter indicates that Judas bought the field. Again, there is no difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. Observe the particular language that is employed in verse 7 of Matthew 27:

"they decided to use the money".

In the prior verse, we see that the priests are true to their legalistic form, being very scrupulous in their attention to the law. They are not intent upon keeping the money, but they can't put it in the treasury. They want nothing to do with it, since it is Judas' blood money. So, they do not reclaim possession, but instead use the money to buy a field. Legally, then, it would have been Judas' field (if he lived).

Permit me one last observation. The skeptic will also point to what is perhaps a contradiction in the naming of the field. But this is not the case at all. In both accounts, the name of the field comes about from the people of Jerusalem. In Matthew, the field "has been called" the Field of Blood by the people. In Acts, we see that Peter is indicating that the field has been "called" the Field of Blood "to this day". It is called this name by "they", that is, the people of Jerusalem. The name is fitting, since it was a cemetery bought with Judas' blood money.

In summary, it has been shown that there is no contradiction between the "Judas" passages in Matthew 27 and Acts 1. If the skeptic maintains that these are indeed contradictory, it has nothing to do with evidence.

Thank you for your time. I welcome discussion on this matter.

Please observe this reply filter:

Please keep to the topic at hand. Let us avoid digression into other supposed errors. This "challenge" was advanced as the most glaring contradiction in the NT, so it is reasonable that we deal with this one first. After that, someone can propose the next "challenge" (in another thread).

Also, please remember that if you would make a contribution that is worth the trouble of reply, it makes sense for it to be respectful. Primarily, this is respect for the efficiency of the discussion, the other members, and for the moderators. Some of those who have taken an strong interest in this challenge have already demonstrated a desire for discredit and ridicule than serious discussion of the matter. Such behavior provides no benefit: posting in a disrespectful way wastes our time. If this is your intention, then kindly avoid any active contribution in this thread.

Thanks,

Vanderzyden

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Baidarka

Vanderzyden
I admire and appreciate your ingenious act of apologetic contortionism.
Bravo!
Entertained but Unconvinced
Baidarka

Vibr8gKiwi

Put a rope around your neck and hang yourself. Now whether you were successful or not at that, let's see you fall headlong.

But regardless of that violation of the laws of physics, your "what-if" cover-up for the contradiction creates a scenario that doesn't actually exist in the bible. Both cases describe Judas' death, and yet neither describes the invented situation "he hung himself then fell headlong and popped open." Should we always come to you to tell us what the bible really means to say?

Any child can see one description describes a death by hanging, the other a death by falling. Your post isn't much more than a great example of how a lot of words can be used to try to obscure the obvious. Such hand-waving won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already believe, but it might make someone who believes feel a bit more comfortable. Do such "what-if" ramblings make you feel more comfortable believing the "fantastic stories" of the bible?

Here's a thought for you: in legendary stories, the bad guy often gets his due in different ways in different versions of the story. That's just how legends go. So from that point of view there's not a contradiction here so much as yet more confirmation of the legendary nature of the story.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

MortalWombat

Why then does this very same meticulous author in one case (Book of Acts) have Jesus ascend to heaven 40 days after the resurrection, while in another (Gospel of Luke) he has him apparently ascend to heaven on the same day as the resurrection?

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

Mageth

Put a rope around your neck and hang yourself. Now whether you were successful or not at that, let's see you fall headlong.

Damn, you beat me to it.

The only way the two could be reconciled using Van's logic (well, not Van's; I've heard this attempt at recociliation before) is if Judas hung himself by his feet.

Kosh

Ditto. I guess we should have known better than to expect anything other than the standard Xian apologetics on this.

Jayhawker Soule

It is clearly easier for you to suppose (i.e., fabricate) any number of scenarios. Given: Is it not truly remarkable how this "most historically meticulous of the NT writers" should overlook a hanging. It's a good thing he didn't write for the newspapers.

Well, so much for his credibility. As I recall, you left yours somewhere in the Levant.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

leonarde

As I mentioned in another thread on this topic, I
do see a discrepancy both in the manner of death
and in the purchaser of the field. Vanderzyden has probably done as good a job of reconciling the two accounts as is possible. But I
would like to point out that this particular incident has no theological significance whatsoever : the exact manner of Judas' death
seems to be a magnet solely because it is
seen as irreconcileably disparately reported.
Despite my acknowledgement of the discrepancy, I
agree with Vanderzyden that in general terms Luke
is meticulous in his reporting; certainly he excels others of the ancient world like Herodotus.

Cheers!

Baidarka

Vanderzyden –
Baidarka:
I find your preamble more interesting than your apologetic contortions. I will leave the untangling of your harmonization to others and I will try to deal with the intro.
Vanderzyden:
Whenever I encounter people who insist upon a large number of biblical discrepancies, I become suspect. My suspicion arises not from their disagreement over the major themes of the Bible. Rather, my concern is this: In modern times, following close inspection by many liberal and conservatives scholars, these skeptics continue to promote the supposed existence of pervasive errors or contradictions in the Bible. This is clear indication that the detractors have not studied carefully, neither the text itself or the commentaries.

B:
No, the more we study the more contradictions we find. It is only those who start with the belief in Biblical inerrancy who can not accept the obvious contradictions within the text. Your inability to see and accept the obvious is an act of willfulness bordering on decadence!
V:
If the Bible contains numerous genuine errors or contradictions, then it is no longer plausible that an all-wise God is behind it.
B:
That’s right! I think you’re starting to get it!
V:
Yes, we must not be afraid of admitting this possibility.
B:
I don’t believe you here. I think that you are very much afraid.
V:
However, the so-called contradictions have not been found conclusive. In fact, the skeptic (1) often does not have strong knowledge of the Bible, (2) overlooks subtleties in the text and the references, or (3) ignores the fact that different narrative perspectives are not necessarily in conflict, but may be complementary.
B:
I’m sure that you’re right about many skeptics. I’m sure that some of them don’t know their Bibles as well as you do, but it can also be argued that a believer’s totally subjective reading of the biblical texts can only yield uncritical results. To look at a similar situation lets consider the following senerio. 2 guys watch a profession wrestling match together. One is a believer and the other is a skeptic. After the match they discuss what they saw. The believer has been watching this stuff for years. He knows who’s mad at whom and why. He knows everybody’s name and has followed all their careers. Now the skeptic doesn’t know any thing at all about these guys and their stories but he does know what he just witnessed and he knows that it is bull. He asks the believer “ Didn’t you see that none of the punches landed? Didn’t you see those guy’s stomp on the floor every time they pretended to throw a punch? Didn’t you see that when one of those guys threw another into the air, that the guy being thrown was actually doing all the work? Can’t you see that it is all choreographed”. Of course the believer saw none of this and no argument can convince him no matter what!
V:
The biblical skeptic must, in all fairness, apply the same analytical standards to the Bible as she does to other ancient texts. The reader of the Bible must not invent her own standards of "perfection", nor require that a wise God meet all of her demands. It's simply not reasonable to insist that every detail be recorded, and that all accounts of the same events be identical (which would be cause for suspecting collusion). In fact, it is clear in all of Scripture that the reader will not be given everything; indeed, she will be given some critical information, and from that she must make our own decision.
B:
We usually don’t expect other texts to be inerrant. So when the same guy gets killed a few times in the Iliad we just smile and say that the poet goofed, but if something like this happens in the Bible guy’s like you feel that it can’t be a mistake and insult your own and everybody else’s intelligence trying to prove that there can’t be a mistake in a holy spirit inspired text.
V:
So it is with the short accounts of the demise of Judas Iscariot, as found in Matthew 27 and Acts 1. In Matthew we learn in the second half of one sentence that Judas died by hanging himself:
B:
I’ll let others comment on how you tied yourself and the laws of logic into a pretzel

motorhead

Uh...are you aware that many Biblical scholars, including Christian Bible scholars, admit that there are discrepancies in the Bible? What do you think about these Christians? Are they sinning because they're using their "God" given brains? Are they not "true Christians" like you? My response to this is that, like most multiple versions of stories in the Bible, the simple answer is the stories came from different traditions. The stories were passed on and the details were changed in the retelling. It's a perfectly normal happening when humans are involved in the process. Why not just simply admit that the stories came from different traditions? Why put yourself through all the pain of coming up with these tortuous explanations? It's a waste of time. The Bible was written by humans and it reflects that quite well. Accept that and spend your time and energy on more important things in life.