Vanderzyden

In <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000647&p=" target="_blank">discussing</a> the "Death of Judas" contradiction, one final concern seems to be the occurence of the term "headlong" in the one-verse account of Judas death in Acts 1:

Headlong, of course, means headfirst. This does not mean landing squarely on one's head. Rather, it means to fall and land with the head oriented in the direction of the fall. From an upright position, one only need rotate forward through 45-55 degrees in order to land face down in the direction of the fall. So, the fall of a bloated body from a hangman's noose at a sufficient height could easily rotate sufficiently to land in a headlong position. This simple scenario seems to be a suitable answer to all but the most abrasive and stubborn skeptic.

However, let us talk no more of a headlong fall. My main purpose for writing this post is to show that the concept of a fall, much less a headfirst fall, is actually absent from the original text. Although most popular English translations contain the word "headlong" (or at minimum the notion of a "fall"), the early reliable manuscripts apparently do not. This is discovered conveniently by examining a modern Greek Interlinear text, which translates the ancient Greek directly into English. The definitive Greek translation is Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, now in its 27th edition. I have an Interlinear on my shelf from 1993, and it is based upon the 21st edition of Nestle. When I compare the Greek with the 27th edition, it is identical. I confirmed this at the Biola website, which has the 26/27 edition of the greej: <a href="http://unbound.biola.edu/" target="_blank">http://unbound.biola.edu/</a>

So, what does the original Greek have to say?

[quote]
Nestle's Greek translation:

verse 16 -- Men brothers, it behoved to be fulfilled the scripture which spoke before the Spirit Holy through the mouth of David concerning Judas the [one] having become guide to the [ones] taking Jesus,

17 -- because having been numbered he was among us and obtained the portion of this ministry.

18 -- This one therefore bought a field out of [the] reward of unrighteousness, and swollen up having become he burst asunder in the middle, and were poured out all the bowels of him;

19 -- and known it became to all the [ones] inhabiting Jerusalem, so as to be called that field in their own language Aceldamach, this is Field of blood.
[QUOTE]


Take your time to carefully notice that there is no mention of the falling of Judas body. None whatsoever. We read that the body became "swollen", and "burst", after which the bowels "poured out". On this reading, it would seem that the bowels poured out, that is downward. The word used is "poured", not "spilled".

I understand that there are two common English translations that were somewhat accurate in this regard:

This account, then, is fully consistent with the hanging account in Matthew 27:5 :

The two texts are easily combined. Hanging from a rope, his body became swollen as it decomposed. Finally, it burst and it contents poured out. This analysis again affirms that there is no contradiction in the accounts of Judas' death.


Vanderzyden

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Vanderzyden writes: So, what does the original Greek have to say?

OU(=TOS ME\N OU)=N E)KTH/SATO XWRI/ON E)K MISQOU= TH=S A)DIKI/AS, KAI\ PRHNH\S GENO/MENOS E)LA/KHSEN ME/SOS, KAI\ E)CEXU/QH PA/NTA TA\ SPLA/GXNA AU)TOU=.

Vanderzyden writes: This analysis again affirms that there is no contradiction in the accounts of Judas' death.

Similar analysis could affirm that there is no contradiction in the Qu'ranic accounts of creation.

Why not just say that Peter might have been mistaken in his speech, recorded accurately in Acts? Seems an easier route than resorting to tendentious translation.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vanderzyden

Peter,

Tendentious? This is the original text.

Is it likely that Peter, who knew Judas intimately, could be mistaken?

It seems, by this, that you are unwilling to admit that there is no contradiction.

Vanderzyden

galiel

Seems like even the ancients had their Ke\/\/|_ Do0|)z

Peter Kirby

galiel, the extra markings for breathing and accents are placed above the characters, but this cannot be reproduced in ASCII, and in fact the marks are often absent in ancient manuscripts. But that was a clever comment.

Vanderzyden writes: Tendentious? This is the original text.

I can assure you that the New Testament was not originally written in English.

Vanderzyden writes: Is it likely that Peter, who knew Judas intimately, could be mistaken?

Was Peter in the field watching the hanging/bursting/whatever?

Vanderzyden writes: It seems, by this, that you are unwilling to admit that there is no contradiction.

Actually I already said that these texts can be harmonized, in the same way that any texts from the Qu'ran can be harmonized.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vanderzyden

And yet many scholars have taken great, deep pains to understand the ancient greek. The omission of "headlong" and "falling" is blantant.

...

Would Peter likely become well-acquainted with the details of the demise of his former close friend?

Vanderzyden

Peter Kirby

Vanderzyden writes: And yet many scholars have taken great, deep pains to understand the ancient greek. The omission of "headlong" and "falling" is blantant.

Are you saying that you do not know which Greek word in Acts 1:18 is often translated as "headlong"?

Vanderzyden writes: Would Peter likely become well-acquainted with the details of the demise of his former close friend?

Is there any evidence that any person witnessed the manner of the death of Judas?

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

For the love of MDOYC can't you just use the B-Greek transliteration scheme and leave it at that. The above is just plain horrid to look at.

Peter Kirby

You sort of get used to it once you've typed the 10,000 words of 1 Clement in Beta Code. Once you are used to it, you might appreciate the extra marks for breathing and accents. Then again, maybe not.

OK, how about this?

ουτος μεν ουν εκτησατο χωριον εκ μισθου της αδικιας, και πρηνης γενομενος ελακησεν μεσος, και εξεχυθη παντα τα σπλαγχνα αυτου.

Perhaps this way for beauty, and then Beta Code for precision?

best,
Peter Kirby

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

leonarde

A recent thought I had about this:

1)since most of the problem (ambiguity) is in Luke
and not Matthew,

2)and since Luke's first few verses indicate that
he was using multiple sources

3)is it not possible that Luke himself got two
versions of Judas' death: one a disembowelment and
the other a fall of some sort?

4)since (under this scenario)Luke had no way of
determining the truth and since footnotes were not
used in the 1st Century, is it not possible that
he included elements of both death methods
in his text so as to reflect the (preexisting)
contradiction???

Cheers!