Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 10-17-2002, 12:48 AM

Quote:

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.

Nope. A long-dead corpse will hang straight down, and fall straight down. In a fall from a gallows (maybe ten feet), it will not attain a velocity anywhere near enough for air resistance to turn it in midair (air resistance is proportional to the square of velocity IIRC).

Of course, a contrived explanation is possible: the dangling corpse was vigorously shoved or kicked, setting it swinging, then causing the neck to break.

Quote:

Douay-Rheims:

18 -- And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.

No other translation combines the hanging and the bursting? Looks like Douay-Rheims is ad-libbing. You consider this to be a reliable source?

Quote:

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.

You have repeatedly ignored the most ridiculous aspect of the "bursting" account: the failure to mention the hanging. Here is what I said on this topic:

Quote:

How likely is it that the narrator would skip the actual death and still describe the fate of the corpse?

For instance, I don't recall whether the body of JFK was buried or creamated, but has any source used any phrase resembling "the Presidential motorcade drove through Dallas, then the President decomposed", or "the Presidential motorcade drove through Dallas, then the President burst into flames"?

Others have also pointed this out. This from Bumble Bee Tuna:

Quote:

Do you have any reasoning to explain WHY Luke would have left the hanging out of his story? When you are telling the story of someone's death, you usually say the way they died, not what happened to their corpse many weeks afterwards. It is equivalent to telling a story about a man who is, say, kidnapped from his life one day and slowly tortured to death. And yet in the story, you just say 'And he went to work, and had a big meeting; and his body was eaten by maggots.' You skip the whole part about kidnapping, torture, death, getting brought somewhere to hide the body, and the weeks that pass, and only tell about the maggots eating the corpse. Why would you ever do that in a story? I mean, sure, you can come up for a way the two stories COULD reconcile...but can you come up with a reason as to WHY they need reconciliation to begin with?

Your response: "we shouldn't treat the Bible as a newspaper". But it isn't just newspapers that would not omit the cause of death from such a story!

From your original post on that thread:

Quote:

The biblical skeptic must, in all fairness, apply the same analytical standards to the Bible as she does to other ancient texts.

You have manifestly failed to do this.

The contradiction stands.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-17-2002, 02:51 AM

Why might your "most historically meticulous of the NT writers" overlook suicide by hanging?

leonarde · 10-17-2002, 05:47 AM

RD,
You keep on harping on this as if this judgement
(ie "most historically meticulous of NT writers")
is some odd personal quirk of Vanderzyden. Instead that judgement seems to be a wide one among NT
scholars.
Furthermore the way you phrase it ("overlook suicide by hanging")makes it seem that you accept Matthew's version of Judas' death. Do you? And if so, what else in Matthew's Gospel do you accept? The resurrection?

Cheers!

Jayhawker Soule · 10-17-2002, 07:36 AM

Quote:

leonarde wrote:
You keep on harping on this as if this judgement (ie "most historically meticulous of NT writers") is some odd personal quirk of Vanderzyden.

I continue to ask the question because it is being avoided.

Quote:

leonarde wrote:
Instead that judgement seems to be a wide one among NT scholars.

This should only serve to render the question more germane and its avoidance more inappropriate.

Quote:

leonarde wrote:
Furthermore the way you phrase it ("overlook suicide by hanging") makes it seem that you accept Matthew's version of Judas' death.

I accept that "Matthew's version" differs from that offered by someone proclained as the "most historically meticulous of NT writers". Can you suggest a reasonable explanation for this difference?

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

leonarde · 10-17-2002, 07:45 AM

Posted by RD:

Quote:

leonarde wrote: Furthermore the way you phrase it ("overlook suicide by hanging") makes it seem that you accept Matthew's version of Judas' death.

I accept that "Matthew's version" differs from that offered by someone proclained as the "most historically meticulous of NT writers". Can you suggest a reasonable explanation for this difference?

My guess: Luke's sources for this particular
"incident" didn't allude to a hanging. Matthew's did.

Cheers!

Jayhawker Soule · 10-17-2002, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
My guess: Luke's sources for this particular "incident" didn't allude to a hanging. Matthew's did.

So, to eliminate an apparent contradiction, you fabricate a story linking the two renditions, and then assume that Luke was unaware of 'Matthew' and relied on unreliable testimony. Why would you deem this the more reasonable explanation? Furthermore, why do you find it more reasonable to defend any part of a story based on the testimony of questionable witnesses?

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

leonarde · 10-17-2002, 08:14 AM

Partial post by RD:

Quote:

So, to eliminate an apparent contradiction,[...]

I don't think I "eliminated" an apparent contradiction. I think I offered an explanation
of why it was there in the first place.

All witnesses are, in a sense, "questionable" (see
reports recorded by the Warren Commission of 2,
3, 4, 5 bullets fired according to the "ear witnesses" in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22nd 1963). Alas fallible human witnesses are all that we really have for any historical event (and not just in the NT).

Cheers!

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-17-2002, 08:28 AM

I posted this in the other thread earlier, so I'll just post it here since things have apparently moved.

I think both sides have had their say.

We have a "what-if" explanation from V that might reconcile one conflict. We have comments about how that explanation creates a compound event not contained in either account (and thus is extra-biblical), is rather stretched and silly in some points (the headlong issue and the having to believe one account isn't telling the method of death but only what later happened to the corpse), and is contrived specifically to deal with the fact the original sources conflict on their face and need explanation. Some of the other issues in the account, such as the naming of the field of blood haven't had been given an explanation and still conflict outright.

The audience can make its decision on this one and perhaps we can move to another biblical inconsistency. Afterall it's the weight of the hundreds of little inconsistencies that require such stretched explanations that stack up together until it becomes apparent the bible is not the work of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-perfect God. Perhaps when V's mind is weighted down with hundreds of stretched "what-if" explanations he'll suddenly realize what we've been saying all along: the bible is full of errors and inconsistencies. I would think that at some point the weight of believing so many silly/stretched/extra-biblical explanations is too great for an honest person to bear.

For laughs here are two fun little parables that relate to this strange endeavor of apologetics V has embarked on.
<a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/house.htm" target="_blank">The Man who Bought a House</a>
<a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/ship.htm" target="_blank">The Great Ship</a>

Jayhawker Soule · 10-17-2002, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Alas fallible human witnesses are all that we really have for any historical event ...

So the events noted in the NT by your "most historically meticulous of the NT writers" are based on the uncorroborated testimony of fallible human witnesses? What might we expect from the less meticulous offerings?

leonarde · 10-17-2002, 08:50 AM

RD,
Don't be "meticulous"!

Cheers!

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

10-17-2002, 02:51 AM	#12
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Why might your "most historically meticulous of the NT writers" overlook suicide by hanging?

10-17-2002, 05:47 AM	#13
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	RD, You keep on harping on this as if this judgement (ie "most historically meticulous of NT writers") is some odd personal quirk of Vanderzyden. Instead that judgement seems to be a wide one among NT scholars. Furthermore the way you phrase it ("overlook suicide by hanging")makes it seem that you accept Matthew's version of Judas' death. Do you? And if so, what else in Matthew's Gospel do you accept? The resurrection? Cheers!

10-17-2002, 08:28 AM	#18
Vibr8gKiwi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: CA, USA Posts: 543	I posted this in the other thread earlier, so I'll just post it here since things have apparently moved. I think both sides have had their say. We have a "what-if" explanation from V that might reconcile one conflict. We have comments about how that explanation creates a compound event not contained in either account (and thus is extra-biblical), is rather stretched and silly in some points (the headlong issue and the having to believe one account isn't telling the method of death but only what later happened to the corpse), and is contrived specifically to deal with the fact the original sources conflict on their face and need explanation. Some of the other issues in the account, such as the naming of the field of blood haven't had been given an explanation and still conflict outright. The audience can make its decision on this one and perhaps we can move to another biblical inconsistency. Afterall it's the weight of the hundreds of little inconsistencies that require such stretched explanations that stack up together until it becomes apparent the bible is not the work of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-perfect God. Perhaps when V's mind is weighted down with hundreds of stretched "what-if" explanations he'll suddenly realize what we've been saying all along: the bible is full of errors and inconsistencies. I would think that at some point the weight of believing so many silly/stretched/extra-biblical explanations is too great for an honest person to bear. For laughs here are two fun little parables that relate to this strange endeavor of apologetics V has embarked on. <a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/house.htm" target="_blank">The Man who Bought a House</a> <a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/ship.htm" target="_blank">The Great Ship</a>

10-17-2002, 08:50 AM	#20
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	RD, Don't be "meticulous"! Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.