The death(s) of Judas

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas
May I ask why the idea that a rope may break or someone cutting Judas down so his rotting carcass was not in view of everyone else is implausible?
Of course you may. :)

If one honestly looks first for the intended meaning of each text, it is clear that Matthew's text is clearly the narration of an intentional death by hanging, after remorse and repentence ('turning back'), having returned the money. Luke's is clearly the narration of an accidental death, which came as a result of Judas spending his ill-gotten gains.

Ask first what is the intended meaning of the author. And get your answers from the text only. If you pursue this aim singlemindedly, and don't think about looking for contradictions, or manufacturing harmonizations, you will consequentially discover whether the texts are harmonized or contradictory. An enquiry into authorial intent ideally minimizes bias to the left or to the right.

The Bible needs to be interpreted fairly and (as far as is possible) without bias, in order to be interpreted at all. This means that 2 different passages that cover the same material should be read together, and harmonized, where this aids interpretation.

However, where two passages in the Bible clearly contradict each other, we should accept that there is a contradiction. If we read the Bible simply to reconcile every discrepancy, then we will INEVITABLY misinterpret it. We will have replaced the primary rule of interpretation with a biased, incorrect method. And as a result, biased, incorrect interpretations will often result.

A classic illustration is found in the 2 accounts of the death of Judas - one by Matthew, and one by Luke in Acts. The two writers have recorded OPPOSING and CONTRADICTORY stories. If each passage is read in order to understand it, then you can't help be struck by the entirely different stories being told.

To refresh everyone's memory, here's a summary of Matthew's account:
- The chief priests paid Judas 30 pieces of silver, when Judas agreed to betray Jesus. (26:15)
- Judas returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, in repentance (27:3)
- The time Judas handed back the 30 pieces of silver was when Jesus was condemned (27:2-3), implicitly before Jesus died (although the chronology is not clear) (27:10-11)
- After returning the money to the chief priests and elders, Judas hanged himself (27:5)
- The chief priests and elders, unable to put "blood money" into the treasury, bought the "potter's field" (27:7)
- The potter's field was intended to be used to bury foreigners 27:7)
- The potter's field was then called "The Field of Blood" as a result (27:8)

Now, here's the summary of Luke's account, in Acts:
- Judas acquired a field with his reward (1:18)
- He fell headlong (by implication in the field), breaking open at the middle, so that his bowels spilt out. (1:18)
- For this reason, the field became known as "the Field of Blood" (1:19).

The two stories sound like two completely different accounts - with little in common except the main character (Judas). And they contradict each other so much, that it may have been simpler to list what they have in common. The points of discrepancy between Matthew and Acts are as follows:
1 Matthew states that Judas handed back the 30 pieces of silver that he had been given; Acts says that he did no such thing, but bought a field with his reward.
2 Matthew states that Judas repented "when he saw that Jesus was condemned"; Acts implies there was no such repentance, but Judas spent his ill-gotten gain.
3 Acts states that Judas bought the "Field of Blood"; in Matthew, Judas is dead when the "Field of Blood" is bought - and it is bought by the chief priests and elders.
4 Matthew says that Judas hanged himself after returning the 30 pieces of silver; Acts says that Judas fell over and died a gory death.
5 Matthew relates that the "Field of Blood" is called that because it was bought with blood (ie Jesus' blood); Acts relates that the origin of the "Field of Blood" is that Judas' died his gory death there, which became a known story to all the locals, so that they named it the "Field of Blood" (ie Judas' blood).

To attempt to reconcile the 2 stories is methodologically wrong. The two writers simply recorded 2 separate traditions about Judas' death. Maybe Luke hadn't investigated matters carefully enough (Lk 1:3), or was misinformed? Maybe Matthew shaped the story in accordance with his prophecy (Mt 27:9-10)? We can't be sure. But, we know that one of them got the facts WRONG.

To begin to understand the Bible, we must be intellectually honest with it.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[smilax]

What do you think of the idea that Matthew was typologically equating Ahithophel and Judas?

[Blake Reas]

smilax:
What do you think of the idea that Matthew was typologically equating Ahithophel and Judas?

Thanks Smilax I almost for got that I read that !http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html here. I think Robyn should give all sides of an argument

[Robyn Banks]

smilax:
What do you think of the idea that Matthew was typologically equating Ahithophel and Judas?
I think that Matthew did possibly echo that account. Supporting this is Matthew's knowledge of the OT, and his earlier use of the same account in 2 Sam 15-17, with Jesus going to the Mount of Olives, weeping and praying - as David had. I would be careful with going so far as to say that the death only had typological significance - Matthew may well have used the material, but his account is a literal 'fulfilment'. Similar is his use of OT material to construct his nativity narrative - which also is intended to recount literal events, as well as involving a degree of typological use of the Old Testament.

Likewise, Acts shows signs of using another part of the Old Testament: the account of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes from 2 Macc 9.7-12.

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Banks:

I think that Matthew did possibly echo that account. Supporting this is Matthew's knowledge of the OT, and his earlier use of the same account in 2 Sam 15-17, with Jesus going to the Mount of Olives, weeping and praying - as David had. I would be careful with going so far as to say that the death only had typological significance - Matthew may well have used the material, but his account is a literal 'fulfilment'. Similar is his use of OT material to construct his nativity narrative - which also is intended to recount literal events, as well as involving a degree of typological use of the Old Testament.

Likewise, Acts shows signs of using another part of the Old Testament: the account of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes from 2 Macc 9.7-12.

Robyn

Robyn,

Knock knock! I am sure you have the whole Chicago Statement of Biblical inerrancy memorized so I should NOT have to tell you this. But inerrancy does take typology into account. But of course you know the inerrantist position so well that I did not have to tell you that!

In Christ,
Blake:bonk:

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
Knock knock! I am sure you have the whole Chicago Statement of Biblical inerrancy memorized so I should NOT have to tell you this. But inerrancy does take typology into account. But of course you know the inerrantist position so well that I did not have to tell you that!
Right... and I agree with the New Testament author's use of typology. However, you seem to imagine that it ends there, as though you have made some point. It doesn't, and you haven't.

New Testament authors used passages in the Old Testament which had common themes with their own. However, at the same time they used them to describe literal events.

So Matthew used 2 Sam 15-17 to tell of Jesus going to the Mount of Olives, weeping and praying, as well as to describe Judas' death.

Do you agree that Jesus literally did go to the Mount of Olives, wept and prayed, Blake?

Do you agree that Judas died in the way Matthew described?

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[jpholding]

Well now,

Right... and I agree with the New Testament author's use of typology. However, you seem to imagine that it ends there, as though you have made some point. It doesn't, and you haven't.


Oh, Blake made a point, all right. You just like to play little psych games. ;)


New Testament authors used passages in the Old Testament which had common themes with their own. However, at the same time they used them to describe literal events. So Matthew used 2 Sam 15-17 to tell of Jesus going to the Mount of Olives, weeping and praying, as well as to describe Judas' death.

Yep. Mimesis.

Do you agree that Jesus literally did go to the Mount of Olives, wept and prayed, Blake?

I do.

Do you agree that Judas died in the way Matthew described?

Not literally, nope.

Now go ahead and stick your foot in your mouth explaining why this is a problem. ;)

[Gavin]

But inerrancy does take typology into account.
Can someone explain this please?

what exactly is typology?

pardon my ignorance.

[Jaltus]

Gavin,

Typology is using an account of certain events in order to draw a comparison with the currently recorded events. Typology can be literary (this is like this) or fulfillment (this happened to show this was GOING to happen).

That is a brief intro, it gets infinitely more complex as you go.

Robyn,

You neglected a few key points.

1. The temple leaders could not purchase the field in their own names, for it was blood money, which was unlawful for them to use. In all liklihood (and most scholars agree with me on this one), they bought it in Judas name, therefore they did NOT accept the blood money.

2. If someone commits suicide by hanging, the body has to come down sometime. However, the Jews could not touch the body (it would be unclean) and the Romans could not go on the land (it was owned by a Jew). Thus, it was left to decompose, hence it fell headlong and his guts fell out.

3. No timeline is given in one account (which you admit) in order for the timing to contradict. You must assume it does a priori in order to make your case.

4. Your argument makes it look like that in Matthew's account the field is called "Field of Blood" because foreigners are buried there, not because it was bought with blood money (which is the actual reason Matthew is giving, since DIO is a conjunction that includes pericopes, not just single sentences, much like OUN).

[Renegade Drow]

what exactly is typology


One of the best explanations of typology I’ve seen is; TYPOLOGY is the study of types and the historical and theological correspondences between them; the basis of typology is God's consistent activity in the history of his chosen people..

This was taken from here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/typol.html) over at the Thinktank.

Seems something like a tautological/philosophical exegesis of the scriptures. Though sometimes I think we make bible issue too hard, after all, the message is supposedly so simple a child can understand it. (and is also hidden from the wise ;) ) I think arguments just head that way as we try to convey the simple truth TM to our ‘intellectually superior’ neighbors. :)

Meh, maybe I know nothing.

[Jaltus]

Not bad, though you made one mistake:

There are no drow in Middle-Earth.

[Blake Reas]

Jaltus:
Gavin,

Typology is using an account of certain events in order to draw a comparison with the currently recorded events. Typology can be literary (this is like this) or fulfillment (this happened to show this was GOING to happen).

That is a brief intro, it gets infinitely more complex as you go.

Robyn,

You neglected a few key points.

1. The temple leaders could not purchase the field in their own names, for it was blood money, which was unlawful for them to use. In all liklihood (and most scholars agree with me on this one), they bought it in Judas name, therefore they did NOT accept the blood money.

2. If someone commits suicide by hanging, the body has to come down sometime. However, the Jews could not touch the body (it would be unclean) and the Romans could not go on the land (it was owned by a Jew). Thus, it was left to decompose, hence it fell headlong and his guts fell out.

3. No timeline is given in one account (which you admit) in order for the timing to contradict. You must assume it does a priori in order to make your case.

4. Your argument makes it look like that in Matthew's account the field is called "Field of Blood" because foreigners are buried there, not because it was bought with blood money (which is the actual reason Matthew is giving, since DIO is a conjunction that includes pericopes, not just single sentences, much like OUN).


So Robyn you don't find this reasonable? So when someone says that they believe the Bible is the word of God it automatically makes there harmonization wrong? That seems to be how you work. To me it looks like you want there to be errors and you go hunting for them. Well I am turning in for the night. Later everyone.

In Christ,
Blake

Me=====> :read:

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
To me it looks like you want there to be errors and you go hunting for them.
To the contrary, I would be much more 'certain' and comfortable, if I had an inerrant Bible to rely on. Regretably, it doesn't in reality work that way. I have to be honest enough to admit that, rather than refuse to see the errors in the Bible.

Robyn

[Jaltus]

Or dishonest enough to lie about intentions of yourself and others.

Truly sad to see someone who had been arguing well resort to such blatantly sophmoric psychologizing attempts to dissuade.

[Blake Reas]

To the contrary, I would be much more 'certain' and comfortable, if I had an inerrant Bible to rely on. Regretably, it doesn't in reality work that way. I have to be honest enough to admit that, rather than refuse to see the errors in the Bible.

How do you know that I refuse to see errors in the Bible? For one I have read quite a bit on the Luke's supposed blunder about the Quirinius Census. I actually see that one as one of the most likely to be an error if it really is. I approach the text with an innocent until proven guilty assumption.

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. Lets not let this get nasty! Sorry about some of my past post.
:cheers:

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
Or dishonest enough to lie about intentions of yourself and others.
Until there is some compelling evidence to the contrary, I assume the honesty of my opponent's intentions, Jaltus. I hope you can do the same for me.

Jaltus:
Truly sad to see someone who had been arguing well resort to such blatantly sophmoric psychologizing attempts to dissuade.
Psychologizing? Que? Hmmmm. Cool! I didn't know I could! :rofl:

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
How do you know that I refuse to see errors in the Bible?
I just appreciate that if a person's first aim and goal is to harmonize two texts, then that will tend to cloud all other aims (including the aim of interpretation that should be primary).

And I know how comforting the idea of inerrancy can be. When I believed in it, I tried to cling to it for a long time before realising that it was false.

Blake Reas:
For one I have read quite a bit on the Luke's supposed blunder about the Quirinius Census. I actually see that one as one of the most likely to be an error if it really is.
Well, it is certainly one of the more probable errors. And yes - I am aware of the ways in which it has been harmonized by various inerrantists.

Blake Reas:
I approach the text with an innocent until proven guilty assumption.
I approach all texts this way. Incidentally, the rule does not apply to the harmonization of two 'innocent' texts.

Robyn

[dizzle]

Until there is some compelling evidence to the contrary, I assume the honesty of my opponent's intentions, Jaltus. I hope you can do the same for me.


I have read material from both of your websites (three, if the bird one is yours as well). I don't need to say much more than that about compelling evidence to the contrary.

[jpholding]

Jaltus:
Or dishonest enough to lie about intentions of yourself and others.

Truly sad to see someone who had been arguing well resort to such blatantly sophmoric psychologizing attempts to dissuade.

Jaltus,

Agreed. Prison inmates have done it much better. :bonk:

[Renegade Drow]

Jaltus

There are no drow in Middle-Earth.

Well, none that you know of anyway. :D

[Matthew]

Here are my own reflections on the Field of Blood problem beginning with Judas Iscariot's death.

First of all..some including JP have pointed to a parallel between Ahithophel and Judas Iscariot in the form of typology. I have no qualms with this myself. I think that the type/anti-type is very valid. Here is where I saw JP fudging the issue; I don't see how typology necessarily makes Judas hanging himself figurative rather than literal. In fact..I believe right now that Matthew is indicating a literal hanging. I base this on a statement made by Gleason Archer in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.
He states the following (pg .344):

"Judas therefore cast the money puch onto the floor of the temple treasury, departed from the city, and "hanged himself" (apenaxato- the aorist middle third person singular from apancho , a verb used with that specific meaning every since the fifth century B.C.) This establishes the fact that Judas fastened a nook around his neck and jumped from the branch to which the other end of the rope was attached."

Now..I haven't mastered Greek myself or classical studies in which one can study how Greek was spoken, but I have taken Archer's word for it until I can master Greek myself. Based on this..I don't see how typology would make Judas' death figurative. On the contrary..it seems to me to support a literal hanging all the more in order to complete the type/anti-type.

Now the biggest problem I see is how the Field of Blood got its name. Matthew 27 suggests that the Field of Blood got its name from the fact that the chief priests used the blood money to purchase a potter's field. In Acts 1:18-19 we read that "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas purchased a field; there, he fell headlong, his body burst and his intestines spilled open".

In verse 19, we read "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this so they called the field in their own language Akeldama, that is the Field of Blood" So the main question is what is "this" ( which I highlighted in verse 19) referring to? Is it the "reward of wickedness" or is it referring to "falling headlong" , Judas' "body bursing open" and his "intenstines" spilling out. It strikes me as referring to the later. Luke doesn't specify what the "reward of wickedness" is; he doesn't describe what the reward itself is..or what the act of wickedness is.

On the contrary, he seems more interested in describing what happened at the field rather than the mere fact that it was purchased. He seems to me to wants to concentrate greater emphasis, not so much on the fact that the field was purchased..but rather on what happened at the field. This strikes me as deliberate, because I think he wants to put greater emphasis on what happened to Judas at the field so the readers will associate the "falling headlong".."body bursting open" and "intestines spilling out" with the "Field of Blood". In fact..he would have to have known any reader would most likely associate the details of Judas' death with the Field of Blood, in my opinion.

This is reason I regarded it as being contradictory. I got the strong impression Luke wanted his readers to associate what happened at the field with how it got its name. I read it simply as "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about (Judas falling headlong, his body bursting, and his intestines spilling out) so they called the field.....the Field of Blood" This is the reason I didn't buy JP's explanation of it.

Matthew

[jpholding]

Howdy howdy,

First of all..some including JP have pointed to a parallel between Ahithophel and Judas Iscariot in the form of typology. I have no qualms with this myself. I think that the type/anti-type is very valid. Here is where I saw JP fudging the issue; I don't see how typology necessarily makes Judas hanging himself figurative rather than literal.

By my accounting, Matthew (the Gospel writer -- not you!) is in essence doing this: And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, "and went and hanged himself." Note the quote marks -- not invented yet in this time, but with these it becomes an allusion to the OT story and a figurative way of saying that Judas died somehow. I can't think offhand of a modern parallel, but you may want to look at the Toronto Journal of Theology article I cited. :)

Archer's comment doesn't address this sort of thing. He would probably call me a heretic. :bonk:

figurative. On the contrary..it seems to me to support a literal hanging all the more in order to complete the type/anti-type.

As a whole they would not be concered with an exact match. As I noted at http://www.tektonics.org/typola.html quoting Malina and Rohrbaugh:

To be able to quote the tradition from memory, to apply it in creative or appropriate ways to the situation of daily living, not only brings honor to the speaker but lends authority to his words as well. The song of Zechariah, the so-called Benedictus, in Luke 1:68-79 is an example. It is stitched together from phrases of Psalms 41, 111, 132, 105, 106, and Micah 7. The ability to create such a mosaic implied extensive, detailed knowledge of the tradition and brought great honor to the speaker able to pull it off.

Applied here this means that Matthew would get more points for a creative application even if he sacrificed some literal accuracy. As a comparison consider how he applies other OT prophecies which of course many observe do not literally fit well.

It strikes me as referring to the later. Luke doesn't specify what the "reward of wickedness" is; he doesn't describe what the reward itself is..or what the act of wickedness is.

One would have to go back to Luke's Gospel to get the idea, true. I think if you add that aspect in, the emphasis somewhat shifts or evens out. Of course he would not need to re-repeat what he said in his Gospel about Judas. And as I also noted, even the gut-burst would not warrant such a title...there would not be blood all over the field...unless Judas weighed 1870 pounds. :hrm:

But do fire away. :) Or perhaps one of our grammatical whizzes (Jaltus?) can say something. All ears.

[Matthew]

By my accounting, Matthew (the Gospel writer -- not you!) is in essence doing this: And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, "and went and hanged himself." Note the quote marks -- not invented yet in this time, but with these it becomes an allusion to the OT story and a figurative way of saying that Judas died somehow. I can't think offhand of a modern parallel, but you may want to look at the Toronto Journal of Theology article I cited.

You will have to e-mail me a file attachment; I have no online acess to the Toronot Journal of Theology. Also..I would have to ask you what translation you are using? My translation (the NIV) doesn't put quotation marks around "and went and hanged himself". Even you yourself mentioned that the author of the article didn't think that there are enough parallels.

As far as how the Field goes, I didn't think blood had to cover the entire field for it to earn the name. If the entire field could become defiled because of a dead body that was on it..couldn't the entire field also be named because of what happened at the Field? One has to ask how far this Field extended.

[Robyn Banks]

Matthew:
... Based on this..I don't see how typology would make Judas' death figurative. On the contrary..it seems to me to support a literal hanging all the more in order to complete the type/anti-type.
Hi Matthew.

I agree. It is quite clear that the Evangelist Matthew intended his narrative to be literal (as well as providing a possible typological inference). Typology doesn't explain New Testament narratives. It is used by the Evangelists to accentuate common themes. But 'JP Holding' would have you believe that it applies any time a contradiction exists between narratives. Well, if you actually pay attention to how the New Testament writers employ typology, you won't sincerely be able to suggest such a thing.

Matthew:
Now the biggest problem I see is how the Field of Blood got its name. Matthew 27 suggests that the Field of Blood got its name from the fact that the chief priests used the blood money to purchase a potter's field. In Acts 1:18-19 we read that "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas purchased a field; there, he fell headlong, his body burst and his intestines spilled open".

In verse 19, we read "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this so they called the field in their own language Akeldama, that is the Field of Blood" So the main question is what is "this" ( which I highlighted in verse 19) referring to? Is it the "reward of wickedness" or is it referring to "falling headlong"
There are two separate explanations of the field being named - one from each of the Evanglists.

Matthew:
On the contrary, he seems more interested in describing what happened at the field rather than the mere fact that it was purchased. He seems to me to wants to concentrate greater emphasis, not so much on the fact that the field was purchased..but rather on what happened at the field.
Very astute. You're paying attention to what the best meaning of each text is first and foremost. :)


Matthew:
In fact..he would have to have known any reader would most likely associate the details of Judas' death with the Field of Blood, in my opinion.
Full points for plain interpetation, Matthew. I contrast what you have just done with the person who looks for a harmonization first and foremost - and thereby ignores the best meaning of the individual texts.

Matthew:
This is reason I regarded it as being contradictory. I got the strong impression Luke wanted his readers to associate what happened at the field with how it got its name. I read it simply as "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about (Judas falling headlong, his body bursting, and his intestines spilling out) so they called the field.....the Field of Blood" This is the reason I didn't buy JP's explanation of it.
"JP Holding", as I have been instructed to call him on this forum, is not primarily interested in interpreting the Scriptures. He is primarily interested in his doctrine of inerrancy. This is 'eisegesis', not (like what you have just done so well) 'exegesis'.

Robyn

[jpholding]

You will have to e-mail me a file attachment; I have no online acess to the Toronot Journal of Theology.

I accessed the hard copy personally at the seminary. :) Want a copy mailed?

Also..I would have to ask you what translation you are using? My translation (the NIV) doesn't put quotation marks around

None does. I'm saying what I think Matthew WOULD have done had quote marks existed in that time. I.e. I'm illustrating my answer. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

If the entire field could become defiled because of a dead body that was on it..couldn't the entire field also be named because of what happened at the Field? One has to ask how far this Field extended.

If it was going to be used to bury foreigners then I would guess it had to be of a decent size. I would not think that's enough for the name, but I suppose this will inevitably be subjective to some extent. I would think if it were named after Judas' death the name would cover not just blood but also the gore, organs etc (hope you haven't eaten yet!) so we'd have a name like "Field of Gore" or "Field of Ewwww Gross" or some such. :D

Good questions!

[dizzle]

Dear Robyn:

I thank you for complying with the Administration's request to use Holding's pseudonym. Your consideration of my time in having to edit posts is appreciated.

[dizzle]

Dear Matthew:

I see no contradiction in how the field got its name, and it seems to be me, with all due respect to everyone involved, to be quite a tempest in a teapot. The naming was a combination of both, which could be validly attributed to either. And the ending of coherent story (ie his death is intimately connected with all the details leading up to the event) has implicit with it the precursive events.

[jpholding]

Oh dear,

I agree. It is quite clear that the Evangelist Matthew intended his narrative to be literal (as well as providing a possible typological inference). Typology doesn't explain New Testament narratives. It is used by the Evangelists to accentuate common themes. But 'JP Holding' would have you believe that it applies any time a contradiction exists between narratives.

ANY time? Did you cut that blanket statement to size? Tell us if you will how it is "clear" that Matthew intended a literal report. I hope you can do better than the, er, evasions you have been supplying elsewhere. The scholar who wrote for TJT certainly did not agree and he did not seem to be fundamentalist.

Well, if you actually pay attention to how the New Testament writers employ typology, you won't sincerely be able to suggest such a thing.

My but these vague instructions accomplish much! :D

Very astute. You're paying attention to what the best meaning of each text is first and foremost.

Indeed. Not contexual studies, which of course do not suit your purposes, my dear Robyn. ;) You are quite the yes man/woman/thing.

"JP Holding", as I have been instructed to call him on this forum, is not primarily interested in interpreting the Scriptures. He is primarily interested in his doctrine of inerrancy. This is 'eisegesis', not (like what you have just done so well) 'exegesis'.

Robyn, contrarily, is not primarily interested in answering arguments but in psychoanalysis and accusation. BTW have you seen the latest on Bishop Holloway's behaviour? Tsk, tsk.

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
I agree. It is quite clear that the Evangelist Matthew intended his narrative to be literal (as well as providing a possible typological inference). Typology doesn't explain New Testament narratives. It is used by the Evangelists to accentuate common themes. But 'JP Holding' would have you believe that it applies any time a contradiction exists between narratives.
jpholding:
Tell us if you will how it is "clear" that Matthew intended a literal report.
That Matthew intended a literal report is clear from the nature of his Judas story. The pericope is a descriptive narrative, which fits within his larger passion narrative, also a descriptive narrative. It does not invoke typology, but for the idea of 'blood money'. To extend the function of the typology beyond 'blood money' is a therefore a disingenuous use of the passage. It is a descriptive narrative, which is clearly intended to narrate the following events:
- Judas seeing that Jesus was condemned
- Judas repenting, and saying he sinned
- Judas returning the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.
- Judas confessing his sin and betrayal of innocent blood
- The chief priests and elders refusing to have anything more to do with him
- Judas throwing down the money in the temple
- Judas hanging himself
- The chief priests refusing to place blood money in the treasury
- The chief priests conferring
- The chief priests using the silver to buy the potter's field as a place to bury foreigners.
- The etiology of the name "Field of Blood" - explicitly stated to be in the author's reality
- the statement that the conclusion of these events marked the fulfilment of what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah - which has been used to correspond to Matthew's story at several points.

Pilate's hand-washing, another literal event, continues this motif of 'innocent blood'. The entire people accept responsibility for the innocent blood, another literal event which is at the same time utilising the Old Testament motif / typology.

You may well want to turn this narrative, or (more specifically) the parts of this narrative which contradict with Acts, into pure typology. But the Judas pericope in Matthew is a narrative, ultilising an Old Testament motif of 'innocent blood'. It is not reducible to a mere typology, without doing damage to the narrative quality of the passage in Matthew.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[dizzle]

Are you suggesting that literal and figurative cannot be used interchangeably in the same narrative? I wouldn't pick up that tar baby if I were you, it could get quite messy.

[Matthew]

Well I don't profess to have any definite proof of a contradiction or two here. It's one reason why I am skeptical and suspicious though. JP, by your accounting, you would place quote marks around "and went and hanged himself" to suggest typology, correct? This is what you are seeing in the text, right? If so..until I see the actual journal article..I feel impelled to give Archer the benefit of the doubt on this one. If you want to mail it to me..that's cool. I'd be more than happy to read it, but since it's part of our discussion I am going to try to locate it anyway. I have listed 50 books from your Book Review page and so..I am going to try to locate and attempt to read 1 book each month on the subject and try to take extensive notes.

As far as the Field name goes, I am still not persuaded that Luke meant no association with the description of Judas' fate at this field. That Luke would describe details of what happened and expect no one to associate this description with the Field's name-that seems rather far-fetched to me. Give me time though! Luke could've ended it by saying "With the reward he got for his wickedness he purchased a field; there he fell headlong and was killed" or "...there..he fell headlong and died". I don't know why Luke would bother going into gory detail.

His "body burst open" and "his intestines spilled out" are pretty strong descriptive words. They're gruesome and convey violent imagery-the landing was violent! So JP and Robyn..what do you guys think?

[jpholding]

Dear He/She/It,

That Matthew intended a literal report is clear from the nature of his Judas story.

Yes. Mr. Till, I do think you need to drop that tar baby Dee Dee mentioned before it gets you too dirty. What we read in your explanation is a grandly spinning begged question of uniformity. Now who's being a fundamentalist?

Hope that helps.

It helps keep the tar spread at any rate.

[jpholding]

Hwdy,

JP, by your accounting, you would place quote marks around "and went and hanged himself" to suggest typology, correct?

Correct. If I were Matthew writing today, this is what I would do.

I'll get you that article next week or two when I get to the seminary again, unless you tell me you found it first.

That Luke would describe details of what happened and expect no one to associate this description with the Field's name-that seems rather far-fetched to me.

Perhaps, though I might add that by Luke's time -- by my accounting, some 10-20 years after Matthew's original Aramaic gospel -- the version of the story he got could very well have been collapsed somewhat by the oral tradition. Both you and I live in areas where Spanish is spoken and you might be able to imagine how Luke could record this piece of local lore and not have grasped the connection as clearly as a native speaker like Matthew would have. Indeed I'll say this -- it's quite possible that Luke himself thought of the connection the same way you did. My doctrine of inerrancy doesn't equate with mechanical dictation...despite what certain persons here may think. ;)

The spectrum of historical reportage leaves open many doors for variation!

I don't know why Luke would bother going into gory detail.

Keep in mind that in these tough times, such "gore" was a matter of everyday life...they were not quite as sanitary or as insulated as we are. You MIGHT be reading the text with a modern value in mind...just a thought.

Time to drop off for the night.

[geebob]

2. If someone commits suicide by hanging, the body has to come down sometime. However, the Jews could not touch the body (it would be unclean) and the Romans could not go on the land (it was owned by a Jew). Thus, it was left to decompose, hence it fell headlong and his guts fell out.

Now if headlong means headfirst, that's quite a lot force the guy thwacking the knife is exerting to make the hanging body flip 180 so it comes down headfirst.

ESV suggests "swelling up" as opposed to headlong and if that works, it would certainly work better for your purposes.

[wienerdog]

Nice threads! Can I throw in a wrinkle?

I understood that the texts are saying that a field was bought to bury poor foreigners; this would have included Judas; thus, with the money Judas earned for betraying Jesus, he essentially "bought his own grave." Is this viable? Please re-educate me.

[dizzle]

Dear Weinerdog:

Welcome! Dig your name. I do believe that your observation is part of the whole richness of that designation. Now of course if that does not support errancy, don't expect Robyn to agree. He is quite ornery about his inerrant opinion of errancy.

[Jaltus]

Literally "headlong" is "being prostrate, it burst from the middle."

Not sure how they got headlong except for the prostrate part.

[geebob]

OIC

[Matthew]

JP states:

Perhaps, though I might add that by Luke's time -- by my accounting, some 10-20 years after Matthew's original Aramaic gospel -- the version of the story he got could very well have been collapsed somewhat by the oral tradition. Both you and I live in areas where Spanish is spoken and you might be able to imagine how Luke could record this piece of local lore and not have grasped the connection as clearly as a native speaker like Matthew would have. Indeed I'll say this -- it's quite possible that Luke himself thought of the connection the same way you did. My doctrine of inerrancy doesn't equate with mechanical dictation...despite what certain persons here may think.

But this is where I find more problems at. Each explanation I hear of this sounds more and more incredulous. One explanation that I read on your website, JP, has it that the field was purchased in Judas' name. To know this, Luke would've had to consult public records. However, in Acts 1:19 we read "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called the field in their language.." It thus appears to me that the people heard about what happened to Judas' body there. "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this ..."

In Acts 1:19.. it appears that the field was named in response to something that spread by word-of-mouth. I doubt it would be named in response to Judas purchasing a field because that is, technically speaking, historically inaccurate. Everyone knew Judas didn't really purchase it. Everyone would've known that it was the chief priests. Why would they name it Akeldama in response to something they knew wasn't true?

The only way, by my accounting, that it could be named the Field of Blood in response to the "reward of wickedness" is if what was recorded in the transactions circulated by word-of-mouth. But then again, wasn't most of the population illiterate? I doubt most of the public had access to these records! It would seem to me, therefore, that they would name the Field of Blood, less in response to something that existed in records, something that they knew wasn't true and wouldn't have been literate enough to read and discern, much less have access to, than the fact that Judas' body was found with blood, guts, and gore all over the ground which would circulate by word-of-mouth.

[jpholding]

One explanation that I read on your website, JP, has it that the field was purchased in Judas' name. To know this, Luke would've had to consult public records. However, in Acts 1:19 we read "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they

Yes, but bear in mind I only use that to explain Luke's understanding of Judas' ownership of the field -- NOT how he determined the etymology of the FoB name.

I've slept on this and want to reiterate my point about how the idea that FoB was named for Judas' death in particular does not make sense in the context of this world. Violent death was a normal, everyday occurrence for these people. Men and animals alike regularly died violent, bloody deaths. If the FoB was named after the death of one person, then we'd have places named after Blood, etc all over the place, which we just don't see. And:

called the field in their language.." It thus appears to me that the people heard about what happened to Judas' body there. "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this ..."

Correct. What I am proposing is that Luke -- who obviously does know the entire story of Judas' bribe and betrayal -- divided between his Gospel and Acts a story that was meant to be told en bloc of how Judas betrayed Jesus and then died. I would add further that if he were giving an etymology for FoB it would seem to me that his explanation would mention Judas' blood specifically. The way he has it explained you would expect him to say, "Field of Bowels". If he were explaining the FoB etymology as we're looking at, I would expect:

"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his blood gushed out."

In Acts 1:19.. it appears that the field was named in response to something that spread by word-of-mouth. I doubt it would be named in response to Judas purchasing a field because that is,

True, but I think again you might be mixing up two of my points.

But then again, wasn't most of the population illiterate?

Estimated 90-95% yes.

I'm short on time this morning but I think for much of this you MAY have mixed two different points I made. Back later or tomorrow.

[dizzle]

What I am proposing is that Luke -- who obviously does know the entire story of Judas' bribe and betrayal -- divided between his Gospel and Acts a story that was meant to be told en bloc of how Judas betrayed Jesus and then died.

This is what I was clumsily trying to say earlier. I would liken this to the idea that when Jesus was on the Cross and cited the first line of Psalm 22, the idea was to bring the listener's attention to the whole of Psalm 22. We do that today by citing a famous line or portion of a story and our listener is intended to bring into mind the entirety. When people in Jerusalem heard about Judas' death, it would not JUST have been that he spilt his guts (pun intended) but that he split his guts.. meaning he betrayed his master, was paid for his betrayal... etc., the whole story. In that culture what went on was everybody's business!! It was a collectivist mentality, not the privacy oriented issues we have with today. So Luke in mentioning a few details, is implicitly bringing in all of the others. This is why I called this a tempest in a teapot.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
when Jesus was on the Cross and cited the first line of Psalm 22, the idea was to bring the listener's attention to the whole of Psalm 22. We do that today by citing a famous line or portion of a story and our listener is intended to bring into mind the entirety.
That's right. As Richard Hays writes in Echoes of Scripture in the letters of Paul, many of the texts cited by New Testament writers invoke "correspondences that suggest more than they assert." (24) The citation of one verse in a Psalm would often trigger the whole received tradition about that Psalm as a whole. And so for Paul, "the modern concern for methodological control in interpretation is foreign to him." (16)

Robyn

[jpholding]

Doid Robyn just AGREE with something Dee Dee said? :hrm:

Like the new page on, er, plate tectonics. ;)

Matthew, I have a few new thoughts for after your next reply.

[Jaltus]

Just by way of correction:

The priests "bought" the field in only the most peripheral terms. They never accepted the money and they probably used intermediaries to buy it. None of them would touch blood money.

Thus, legally, the field was Judas' and purchased in his name.

[dizzle]

Egad!! Robyn agreed with me. :rofl:

[Matthew]

JP, I would definitely be interested in hearing your new thoughts on the matter! I am always looking forward to new information. But, however, there are a few points that I wanted to make in response to what JP said. I have really enjoyed this discussion so far!

First of all, I accept that there is typology being used in Judas' death. But I don't believe in the least that this makes Judas' death in any sense figurative. On the contrary, as Gleason Archer noted, the verb Matthew used is in the aorist sense. If my understanding is correct- verbs in the aorist sense generally denote that of a completed action. However, I do plan to write to some New Testament scholars, perhaps even Archer himself, and ask for their reflections on the typology issue.

Even from what JP spoke about regarding the article that appeared in the Torono Journal of Theology, the author himself didn't think that there were enough parallels. I haven't seen the article myself, but, that would lead me to the impression that even the author didn't exactly think that Judas' death was figurative . I have yet to read the article-and who knows- maybe the author believes Judas' death is not literal.

Next..Luke himself may very well have used public records which legally record Judas as having purchased the field. I think that perhaps being closely associated with Paul, or even Theophilus, gave him special access to records that the public normally wasn't privy to. And being mostly illiterate- the majority of the population of Jerusalem might not have been able to read the records even if they had access to the records.

As far as the Field of Blood goes, the question all boils down to what became known ( my best guess is by word of mouth) that the Field was named in response to( in verse 19 of Acts 1). I strongly doubt it was in response to Judas purchasing the field-because it didn't happen literally. It was only recorded as being purchased in his name .

So we have to ask what became known ( or heard in the New International Translation)? I doubt it was in response to what was recorded in public records, precisely because few people would have read it much less had access to it. What is far more likely, in my opinon, is that Judas "becoming headlong", "body bursting" , and "intestines spilling own" would be circulated more by word-of-mouth, and such a violent description which Luke does seem to want to emphasize more than just the mere fact that a field was purchased. He seems to want to concentrate on what happened at this field because what happened became the focal point of a word-of-mouth response. The reason why I explain below; Luke wants to focus on what happened because of what he wants to convey.

But JP asks a good question or two that I wanted to respond to; not that I think I have proven anything- I can't. I am only using plausibility arguments here- and they may very well be flawed.

The Questions-

I've slept on this and want to reiterate my point about how the idea that FoB was named for Judas' death in particular does not make sense in the context of this world. Violent death was a normal, everyday occurrence for these people. Men and animals alike regularly died violent, bloody deaths. If the FoB was named after the death of one person, then we'd have places named after Blood, etc all over the place, which we just don't see.

I don't deny that violent deaths as such were normal, everyday occurences. I find reason to accept them as normal-although I think it's important not to put oranges in the apple barrel. Judas Iscariot was not a ordinary Jewish fellow. He was a member of the Twelve. He was a man who followed a deeply revered and honored man. He followed Jesus Christ! The people loved and worshipped him. Jesus was a prophet, a healer, the Messiah! Judas was following the the very man God had appointed to rule over Israel!

This kind of honor (being a member of the Twelve) wasn't just granted to any everyday, ordinary citizen. It was a honored and highly envied status! Judas went with the disciples-performed miracles, cast out demons,.,etc. The act of betrayal..the betrayal of not only innocent and highly revered blood-that of Jesus- was not an normal everyday occurence. What Judas did in the eyes of the people was abominable and atrocious! He would've been deeply resented for this. In fact, Judas' very name would come to epitomize shame and betrayal itself.

He is branded in the gospels as a traitor. He was the man who people would remember with scorn and bitterness. Under normal circumstances..JP is right..this sort of thing would go un-noticed and rarely ever would something like this happen. In fact this comparison entirely misses the point of what I think Luke wants to get across. This entire allusion to the Field of Blood in vs 18-19 is not accidental; it is very deliberate. What Luke wants to convey in this reference is a sense of irony . The reference to the Field of Blood, to me, is Luke's way of describing poetic justice

I would add further that if he were giving an etymology for FoB it would seem to me that his explanation would mention Judas' blood specifically. The way he has it explained you would expect him to say, "Field of Bowels". If he were explaining the FoB etymology as we're looking at, I would expect:

Actually, I wouldn't. Blood would be the best way of describingpoetic justice . Judas betrayed innocent blood and they best way to convey poetic justice would be to mention what happened to Judas' body. That Judas' own blood spilled out would be, I think, the ideal way for Luke to express the irony and once again, the sense of poetic justice for Luke's audience. Therefore "The Field of Blood" very adequately captures the poetic justice ; Judas was involved in the death of innocent blood only to have his own death involve the spilling/shedding of his blood- that is for Luke and the citizens of Jerusalem, poetic justice

JP..if you think that I have mixed up your points..just elaborate. I am always willing to listen.

[dizzle]

Hey Matthew... remember (and I am sorry if I missed it somewhere, I am up with the roosters) the idea that I brought up of what JP would call the high context framework, that is that Luke is alluding to some details is expecting his readers to make a mental connection to details not included this is very important.

[jpholding]

Howdy,

JP, I would definitely be interested in hearing your new thoughts on the matter! I am always looking forward to new information.

Dee Dee trumped me on one major point about high context (which you'll learn more about from MR on John). :D But here's some more ideas that came to the fore while I was in church this Sunday being bored by the sermon as usual.

One factor that may come into play here may seem way out in left field but give it a try. One book I have recommended is titled Paul on Trial by Mauck. He presents a very compelling thesis that Luke-Acts was composed as a defense brief for Paul and his trial in Rome. I can't sum up the case here, but one of the results of this would be that Luke would tend to make his presentation more "establishment" oriented. This would explain for example why he passed over the birth details Matthew did (lots to offend the Romans there! -- undermining of Herod, the official Roman client-king; Jesus welcomed by magi from Parthia, Rome's deadliest enemy at the time, etc) and used instead the story he did (Mary and Joseph were good subjects of Rome who took part in the census and paid their taxes).

I'm playing with an idea that Luke's version of the FoB etymology might have something to do with this. Once Judas died the ancient gossip machine would get rolling and the establishment would be compelled to concoct an "official statement" on what exactly happened. They would be inclined I think to claim (however stretchingly) that the FoB name came from Judas' blow-up and not from the "blood money" which would make them look bad. I can see then Luke using the "official" version when writing to Theophilus (who Mauck takes to be a Roman judicial authority), even as his Christian readers would nod knowingly. I can even see him purposely splitting up the story as I've suggested so that only his own "high context" readers would realize that the FoB etymology was actually linked more to the "wickedness" while Theophilus in his "lower context" would be none the wiser and assume (not being familiar with Jewish gossip and methods) that it was the gore that made for the score.

If this sounds complex and incredible -- it is. It's also exactly the sort of machinations these people went through on a regular basis. When you get into Context Group works you'll see some stuff about "honorable lying" that would make your average Baptist turn pale. You will also learn eventually how ancient works were carefully crafted by writers with all manner of literary devices...things like mimesis, chiasms, rhetorical forms, etc. For us this would be pointless work because no one would appreciate it. For them it was part of a day's work.

However, I do plan to write to some New Testament scholars, perhaps even Archer himself, and ask for their reflections on the typology issue.

Please do so -- though I would not expect Archer to look kindly upon my suggestion. :)

Even from what JP spoke about regarding the article that appeared in the Torono Journal of Theology, the author himself didn't think that there were enough parallels.

It was odd, actually, because while he said that in the main text, he seemed to say the opposite in a footnote. As noted if I get hold of it before you do I'll report back.

As far as the Field of Blood goes, the question all boils down to what became known ( my best guess is by word of mouth) that the Field was named in response to( in verse 19 of Acts 1). I strongly doubt it was in response to Judas purchasing the field-because it didn't happen literally. It was only recorded as being purchased in his name .

Yes, this is where I thought you might be mixing two of my points. I only proposed that Luke himself might have accessed records, as a way of explaining his use of a particular Greek word. I was not wishing to imply that anyone else checked records like that.

The basic scenario I see runs like this, following Judas' death. His death defiled the field and made it ritually unclean; the owner of the field would want to get rid of it, and word would spread that the unpopular leadership had been behind all of this. The death, the defiling of the field, the owner's discontent, and Judas' known connection to Jesus -- followed by Christian preaching which emphasized Judas' prophetic fulfillment of Ps. 41:9 -- would all come together and put guilt for Judas' death directly on the leadership, which adds up to a plus for the Christian movement. It would also bring great dishonor on the leaders for having been involved in the first place. The leaders then try to cover themselves (and put a stake in the Christian mission) by buying the field in Judas' name; they may have even claimed that he bought the field beforehand on his own (oblivious to the peculiar coincidence of a man buying a field just so he could kill himself! -- and against testimony that the purchase took place AFTER the death!); nevertheless the story of the "blood money" gets passed around in popular gossip. To counter this they release their own official version -- just like modern politicians! -- which of course is just plain ridiculous, but as in modern politics that never seems to stop any politician, and it sure never stopped any of my prison inmates even when they were caught red-handed.

So then:

So we have to ask what became known ( or heard in the New International Translation)? I doubt it was in response to what was recorded in public records, precisely because few people would have read it much less had access to it.

Again, I think this is where your quite unintentioned mixing occurred. It's the gossip that I would say was heard, not the public records issue. But:

Judas Iscariot was not a ordinary Jewish fellow. He was a member of the Twelve. He was a man who followed a deeply revered and honored man. He followed Jesus Christ! The people loved and worshipped him. Jesus was a prophet, a healer, the Messiah! Judas was following the the very man God had appointed to rule over Israel!

True. Yet I cannot say that I think this would make it any more likely that his violent death would be regarded as any more worth highlighting than any other of the day -- not legitimately, at any rate, in accord with my suggestion above. To the ancients his "betrayal of blood" would be of far more significance than his bloody death. Let me add to that, to confirm some of your own observations, that Judas' behavior is that of one without honor, which pretty well erases any honor he may have had as a member of the Twelve. (Plus I'll add here that his dishonorable acts "rub off" on the leadership as well, giving them more reason to fudge!) For example MR say on Matt. 26:21-25: "Judas proves his total lack of shame [JP note: as he should have had, for being a betrayer] by brazenly asking whether Jesus knew it was he who was part of the secret plan..." Judas' death was also exceptionally dishonorable -- any status he had had with Jesus would have been "out the window". You are quite right to say "...Judas' very name would come to epitomize shame and betrayal itself." Maybe you don't need to read MR after all. ;)

In fact this comparison entirely misses the point of what I think Luke wants to get across. This entire allusion to the Field of Blood in vs 18-19 is not accidental; it is very deliberate. What Luke wants to convey in this reference is a sense of irony . The reference to the Field of Blood, to me, is Luke's way of describing poetic justice

But wouldn't Luke be doing the same even IF his referral (albeit slyly as I have suggested above) was to the blood money and not the bloody death? I can still see a poetic justice in that case and still see an irony. But when it comes down to it, here's another idea -- can you see a double irony in such an allusion, one that both Theophilus AND others would appreciate, even knowing different facts as they do? For comparison consider how John 3:5 cannot possibly refer to Christian baptism (which did not yet exist) but could easily be seen in hindsight to allude to it. This would fit in quite nicely with the way these people played with their literature as I have related above. ("Dang it, Johnny, how many times have I told you not to play with your literature!")

All in all we may not be as far apart as we think. :) But I think I'd probably get thrown out of your average fundamentalist church for suggesting any of this.

[wienerdog]

In the most recent JETS, H. Wayne House (who's a theologian AND a lawyer) argues that Paul on Trial is way too simplistic. Just thought you'd like to know. Have a banana. :yipee:

[jpholding]

wienerdog:
In the most recent JETS, H. Wayne House (who's a theologian AND a lawyer) argues that Paul on Trial is way too simplistic. Just thought you'd like to know. Have a banana. :yipee:

I respect House. However, Donald Hagner who wrote the Foreword didn't agree. :)

I'll see what House has to say next week.

[Matthew]

Now that I have read JP's latest response in more detail, I think the following comments are in order:

One factor that may come into play here may seem way out in left field but give it a try. One book I have recommended is titled Paul on Trial by Mauck. He presents a very compelling thesis that Luke-Acts was composed as a defense brief for Paul and his trial in Rome. I can't sum up the case here, but one of the results of this would be that Luke would tend to make his presentation more "establishment" oriented. This would explain for example why he passed over the birth details Matthew did (lots to offend the Romans there! -- undermining of Herod, the official Roman client-king; Jesus welcomed by magi from Parthia, Rome's deadliest enemy at the time, etc) and used instead the story he did (Mary and Joseph were good subjects of Rome who took part in the census and paid their taxes).

I have read some of Mauck's book. I have to admit that he has an extremely clever thesis and his book is very beautifully written-I can say in response to that much that I have read. However, it is important to keep in mind that Mauck's thesis, although clever, is still a working hypothesis.

As for being "establishment"-oriented, I can see why Luke would want to pass over details in some aspects, but not necessarily the Virgin Birth story. From what I read, the Virgin Birth account in Matthew may very well be a Christian version of the Dangerous Child myth-a hypothesis that I agree with.

I'm playing with an idea that Luke's version of the FoB etymology might have something to do with this. Once Judas died the ancient gossip machine would get rolling and the establishment would be compelled to concoct an "official statement" on what exactly happened.

Wait a minute- Mauck's book entertained the hypothesis that Theophilus was a Roman judiciary officer. The F.O.B. "etymology" would be irrelevant to the Romans. I don't see why they would care what happened to Judas. They're more interested in Jesus and mostly interested in Paul. Why an obscure field in Palestine would be named the way it was, as I figure it, of no interest to the Romans. It's important to keep in mind that it was the citizens of Jerusalem who heard/knew about what happened to Judas and would name the field to express their feeling that poetic justice had been served. That Judas did this or that would be of no interest to the Romans-they had no feelings of animosity or betrayal towards Judas. To them, Judas was just some wicked shmoe who Jesus picked to be a follower of his.

They would be inclined I think to claim (however stretchingly) that the FoB name came from Judas' blow-up and not from the "blood money" which would make them look bad. I can see then Luke using the "official" version when writing to Theophilus (who Mauck takes to be a Roman judicial authority), even as his Christian readers would nod knowingly

Who is they? I don't believe it's plausible that it's the Romans-they would've cared less about what happened to the man who betrayed Paul's Messiah. Another point- I don't think the "blow-up" would've an Jewish "establishment" explanation- it was the citizens of Jerusalem who named the field this-not the chief priests. In fact..the chief priests would've considered the matter closed; getting the records to show that it was purchased in Judas' name would've been a hand-washing act on their part. Judas' gut bust episode was something that was known/heard by the citizens . Nothing "establishment" about it. It was the citizens and not the chief priests who named it in reaction to what it had known. The chief priests had no feelings of animosity towards Judas. The chief priests would not have named it as an expression of poetic justice. In fact..the expression of poetic justice- is very high context as far as I can see.

If this sounds complex and incredible -- it is. It's also exactly the sort of machinations these people went through on a regular basis. When you get into Context Group works you'll see some stuff about "honorable lying" that would make your average Baptist turn pale. You will also learn eventually how ancient works were carefully crafted by writers with all manner of literary devices...things like mimesis, chiasms, rhetorical forms, etc. For us this would be pointless work because no one would appreciate it. For them it was part of a day's work.

Machinations? Let's not put oranges in the apple barrel again. I realized that the gospels and Acts were written using literary devices of the period. BUT we have to recognize that the Bible is suppose to be a divinely inspired collection of books. If Luke was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (which I don't think necessarily amounts to "mechanical dictation"), then it's important to realize that literary forms can only be utilized as long as they express factual information. I don't think that the "holy Spirit" would inspire Luke to use "honorable lies". It doesn't matter how sweet( or in this case "honorable") the coating is..a lie is still...a lie!

Please do so -- though I would not expect Archer to look kindly upon my suggestion.

Until we get detailed evidence to the contrary, for either position-do you want to consider this particular issue temporarily closed?

I only proposed that Luke himself might have accessed records, as a way of explaining his use of a particular Greek word. I was not wishing to imply that anyone else checked records like that.

I agree that Luke may very well have checked the records-even to explain the verb that he used. BUT it's still historically inaccurate, no matter how you slice the cake-technically speaking.

To counter this they release their own official version -- just like modern politicians! -- which of course is just plain ridiculous, but as in modern politics that never seems to stop any politician, and it sure never stopped any of my prison inmates even when they were caught red-handed.

The Jewish establishment releases their own official version? This "official version" of theirs couldn't have been Luke's description of what happened to Judas' body. Luke is describing something that he believes actually happened-something that was actually discovered in the field itself! Luke is describing the ordinary citizens' reaction to what happened. It was the citizens who named the field in response to what happened there. It was the citizens who felt a sense of poetic justice by what happened to Judas' body at this field and named it to reflect just that..the establishment would not have had any sense of poetic justice; they didn't feel betrayed and bitter at Judas for what he did to Jesus.

True. Yet I cannot say that I think this would make it any more likely that his violent death would be regarded as any more worth highlighting than any other of the day -- not legitimately, at any rate, in accord with my suggestion above. To the ancients his "betrayal of blood" would be of far more significance than his bloody death. Let me add to that, to confirm some of your own observations, that Judas' behavior is that of one without honor, which pretty well erases any honor he may have had as a member of the Twelve. (Plus I'll add here that his dishonorable acts "rub off" on the leadership as well, giving them more reason to fudge!) For example MR say on Matt. 26:21-25: "Judas proves his total lack of shame [JP note: as he should have had, for being a betrayer] by brazenly asking whether Jesus knew it was he who was part of the secret plan..." Judas' death was also exceptionally dishonorable -- any status he had had with Jesus would have been "out the window".

Well..I would have to disagree, rather strongly. Judas' violent death, this way, would've circulated widely and become known because as part of the poetic justice concept I repeatedly alluded to, because it would satisfy the citizens' expectations that God would avenge Christ's betrayal and murder-some of the most dishonorble and wicked acts in history. People would naturally expect God to avenge Jesus by allowing or even causing something like this to happen to Judas. Therefore, it would be significant to Luke to record this.

But wouldn't Luke be doing the same even IF his referral (albeit slyly as I have suggested above) was to the blood money and not the bloody death? I can still see a poetic justice in that case and still see an irony. But when it comes down to it, here's another idea -- can you see a double irony in such an allusion, one that both Theophilus AND others would appreciate, even knowing different facts as they do? For comparison consider how John 3:5 cannot possibly refer to Christian baptism (which did not yet exist) but could easily be seen in hindsight to allude to it. This would fit in quite nicely with the way these people played with their literature as I have related above

Not at all. The citizens of Jerusalem would be expecting God to avenge these gruesome, shameful acts of Judas with something even more gruesome to Judas himself. We have to remember that the Old Testament is filled with examples of poetic justice . God was seen as avenging evil acts in a greater degree. God was seen as infinitely just and avenging evil would be an act greater than the evil act(s) committed. So, therefore, Judas' body ripping open and Judas' blood being spilled on the field would, to the minds back then, be sufficent enough to satisfy people's desire for God to avenge Jesus and serve to fulfill their sense of poetic justice.

[jpholding]

Howdy,

As for being "establishment"-oriented, I can see why Luke would want to pass over details in some aspects, but not necessarily the Virgin Birth story. From what I read, the Virgin Birth account in Matthew may very well be a Christian version of the Dangerous Child myth-a hypothesis that I agree with.

The reason for the passover of that would be that the magi were Parthians (deadly enemies of Rome) and to sport Jesus as a king in opposition to a Roman client-king would be seditioius. But that is another topic.

Wait a minute- Mauck's book entertained the hypothesis that Theophilus was a Roman judiciary officer. The F.O.B. "etymology" would be irrelevant to the Romans.

I think you're missing my point. The Matthean version as it stands implicates the priestly leadership which is NOT -- by my thesis derived from Mauck -- what Luke wants to present. He needs to make the Christian movement as much at peace as possible with the establishment (which Rome supports, not because they particularly like them but to keep the Pax Romana intact). As another example of this, note how Luke depersonalizes the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 3:7, Luke 3:7) into a nameless "multitude". It's not that Theophilus would care what happened to Judas particularly.

Who is they?

In the context you asked, the priestly leadership. Beyond this I think you're still missing my point as being that Theophilus would care about Judas particularly. I agree he wouldn't.

Another point- I don't think the "blow-up" would've an Jewish "establishment" explanation- it was the citizens of Jerusalem who named the field this-not the chief priests.

I assume you mean, "would've been an..." :) And quite naturally the priesthood to save their bacon would assume to say they were speaking for the citizens (even as politicians do today...this sort of thing never changes) and actually, could even get some of their thousands of Temple lackeys to adopt the story, just as they probably incited them to form a mob before Pilate. It's all, as I see it, part of the same spin.

Machinations? Let's not put oranges in the apple barrel again.

? -- Not sure I understand what you mean. :)

I realized that the gospels and Acts were written using literary devices of the period. BUT we have to recognize that the Bible is suppose to be a divinely inspired collection of books. If Luke was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (which I don't think necessarily amounts to "mechanical dictation"), then it's important to realize that literary forms can only be utilized as long as they express factual information.

I'm afraid I don't see any basis for that, not as expressed. For one thing, it's not likely that Luke would agree that his report is non-factual. Based on what I know of these people they would say that the report is factual once you get a grip on what is actually being said -- in this case, the context behind the report.

I don't think that the "holy Spirit" would inspire Luke to use "honorable lies". It doesn't matter how sweet( or in this case "honorable") the coating is..a lie is still...a lie!

I'll ask a questiuon to start I posed to my Sunday School class: Would the Holy Spirit inspire Jesus to lie to the Nazis if he was hiding Jews in his cellar? That's a larger moral issue, you might say -- but your reaction here remains that of a Westerner and a modern who is used to the idea that "a lie is a lie" and is thereby always wrong. On the contrary their view was more one of that only certain people had a right to certain information.

Until we get detailed evidence to the contrary, for either position-do you want to consider this particular issue temporarily closed?

I'm fine with that.

The Jewish establishment releases their own official version? This "official version" of theirs couldn't have been Luke's description of what happened to Judas' body

See above. Note as well that it would be easy for the establishment to assume to speak for citizens, since by their groupthink orientation what they asserted was expected to be believed as well by those lower down who they were "lords" over.

Well..I would have to disagree, rather strongly. Judas' violent death, this way, would've circulated widely and become known because as part of the poetic justice concept I repeatedly alluded to, because it would satisfy the citizens' expectations that God would avenge Christ's betrayal and murder-some of the most dishonorble and wicked acts in history.

? -- I'm not clear on what you were disagreeing with specifically...the dishonor and the justice aspect are not, as far as I can see, mutually exclusive...in fact I do not disagree with a word you say (so far) on the subject of poetic justice. Hopefully we will not talk past each other. :)

[Matthew]

After reading JP's most recent post, I would like to say the following:

The reason for the passover of that would be that the magi were Parthians (deadly enemies of Rome) and to sport Jesus as a king in opposition to a Roman client-king would be seditioius. But that is another topic.

But it begs the question that the Virgin Birth narrative in Matthew is historically valid. That's another question indeed. If Mauck's thesis AND Matthew's narrative are valid then it would make sense. But Mauck's thesis is purely hypothetical and I regard the Dangerous Child Myth as hypothetical. And Luke's reason for the passover is hypothetical if Mauck's thesis is valid. It's one hypothetical against another :p

I think you're missing my point. The Matthean version as it stands implicates the priestly leadership which is NOT -- by my thesis derived from Mauck -- what Luke wants to present. He needs to make the Christian movement as much at peace as possible with the establishment (which Rome supports, not because they particularly like them but to keep the Pax Romana intact). As another example of this, note how Luke depersonalizes the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 3:7, Luke 3:7) into a nameless "multitude". It's not that Theophilus would care what happened to Judas particularly.

Wouldn't Luke know such a thing would be in vain from the outset? In Luke 21: 19, his very own gospel, it seems that Luke is aware that Jesus was predicting that his disciples might have to go before kings and governors and I do not doubt that this would include Gentile rulers. I am not ruling this out as Luke's intent, although it seems a tad bit odd. At least you can't blame Luke for trying:thumb:

In the context you asked, the priestly leadership. Beyond this I think you're still missing my point as being that Theophilus would care about Judas particularly. I agree he wouldn't.

Actually..I was trying to use a point that you made to bolster a point of mine. But at least we agree that Theophilus wouldn't care about it.

I assume you mean, "would've been an..." Point very well taken! ;)

And quite naturally the priesthood to save their bacon would assume to say they were speaking for the citizens (even as politicians do today...this sort of thing never changes) and actually, could even get some of their thousands of Temple lackeys to adopt the story, just as they probably incited them to form a mob before Pilate. It's all, as I see it, part of the same spin.

So the priesthood knows that the people would expect God to avenge Judas' act of atrocity and expect a form of justice like the poetic justice recorded in Acts 1:18-19? Why would the priesthood want to "save their bacon"? Also, why would the Romans care what the priesthood did as long as it didn't threaten their interests? An "establishment" story about the traitor of Paul's Messiah would be of no interest to the Romans.

But I feel a significant fact is being over-looked. In Acts 1:19, it records that the citizens knew/heard about what happened to Judas' body at the field. A cause-and-effect relationship is being described here. Luke's describing what happened at the field as a cause and the people's reaction as an effect . Luke was doing an investigative report and therefore Luke would have inner ties to the priesthood ( to borrow your point about Luke consulting priestly records to describe the verb he used for how Judas acquired the field) and the "inner knowledge" of what the priestly circles knew.

If that was so..I think Luke would've worded Acts 1:18-19 as an "establishment story" the same way Matthew describes the chief priests bribing the guards in Matthew 28:12-15. Verse 15 even says "And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this day". Matthew was passing on an "establishment" story even he knew wasn't true. I think Luke would've worded it the way Matthew did and even describe a conversation among the chief priests and some of their scribes, workers, guards, etc,..had he just been relating an "establishment story". But the language seems to preclude this. Luke describes something that he believes actually happened in verse 18 and then the people's reaction to it in verse 19. He uses a Greek word for "know" (NIV has "heard") which means that a known fact was being spread by word-of-mouth. It was a known fact, Luke is explaining, that Judas' body was found in the state it was..and is noting the people's reaction to this known fact, not something that they were being coaxed to accept by the "establishment".

The language that Luke is using seems to indicate that everything that happened was well-known, factual, and it became a tradition among the people. I think my point about the people's known reaction to this fact as a matter of poetic justice stands.

I'm afraid I don't see any basis for that, not as expressed. For one thing, it's not likely that Luke would agree that his report is non-factual. Based on what I know of these people they would say that the report is factual once you get a grip on what is actually being said -- in this case, the context behind the report.

I think this is my fault. I apologize for wording this wrong. What I meant was that, I think that one like Luke can use literary forms as he chooses as long as the literary forms don't stretch or distort any facts.

I'll ask a questiuon to start I posed to my Sunday School class: Would the Holy Spirit inspire Jesus to lie to the Nazis if he was hiding Jews in his cellar? That's a larger moral issue, you might say -- but your reaction here remains that of a Westerner and a modern who is used to the idea that "a lie is a lie" and is thereby always wrong. On the contrary their view was more one of that only certain people had a right to certain information.

I never thought the Holy Spirit had to "inspire" Jesus to say anything. Jesus is believed to be God the Son in human form. As for the Nazi issue- that would strike me as being paradoxal. I never thought God would ever put Jesus into a position where Jesus had to "honorably lie". I freely admit..it may just be my "temporal provincialist" mentality coming to the fore.

? -- I'm not clear on what you were disagreeing with specifically...the dishonor and the justice aspect are not, as far as I can see, mutually exclusive...in fact I do not disagree with a word you say (so far) on the subject of poetic justice.

I was disagreeing specifically with the statement that Judas' bloody death wouldn't have been any more significant than what might have routinely happened. Can you clarify, a bit, what you mean by saying dishonor and poetic justice are not mutually exclusive? I am also glad we can agree on the subject of poetic justice. Are you saying that the people's reaction to what happened to Judas' body is a matter of poetic justice and the naming of the field reflects this?

Stay tuned!

[jpholding]

Yo! :)

But it begs the question that the Virgin Birth narrative in Matthew is historically valid. That's another question

Um, well, not to be disagreeable, but when it comes to historical study, it seems to me that "question begging" is just an inevitable corollary. I mean, I could say, "David Ulansey begs the question of the validity of the records he uses to determine the origins of Mithraism." It's always a matter of "one hypothetical against another" in this arena -- just a matter of whose hypothetical can beat up who else's hypothetical. :rofl: Hey, ever seen the bumper sticker that says, "My child is an honor student at the local correctional facility"?

Wouldn't Luke know such a thing would be in vain from the outset? In Luke 21: 19, his very own gospel, it seems that Luke is aware that Jesus was predicting that his disciples might have to go before kings and governors and I do not doubt that this would include Gentile rulers.

Well -- if they did find out Luke equivocated, they'd probably admire him for his ingenuity. Think of the parable of the shrewd/dishonest steward -- today the manager would kill the guy for being so dishonest. From the looks of the story the two of them instead went out and had a beer. In some cases back then appearances were more important than honesty -- which makes sense when honor (face) and shame are central.

I agree that it is odd -- to us. As with a lot of this stuff I found it odd at the beginning to. Call it culture shock.

So the priesthood knows that the people would expect God to avenge Judas' act of atrocity and expect a form of justice like the poetic justice recorded in Acts 1:18-19?

I wasn't leading that way, but yes, as it happens, the priesthood would recognize that popular opinion would be against a dishonorable traitor like Judas, and that justice (poetic or otherwise -- grin) would be expected.

Why would the priesthood want to "save their bacon"?

To have been involved in such an act as bribing Judas would have been regarded as extremely dishonoring. And that's where we get to the point MR make: that in this day and age, people thought about their personal honor the way we think about paying the bills. So they would be anxious to wash away the stigma of dishonor by whatever means, even if it was via a plainly stupid lie. As an aside, have you ever studied Japanese culture? Their society is still a lot like this.

Also, why would the Romans care what the priesthood did as long as it didn't threaten their interests?

They would not care so much what they did as what the Christian movement did in relation to the leadership (which the Romans stood behind as a matter of course). That may lead to the question of why Luke even bothered to include the story in the first place. Just offhand I'd say that he wanted to show that the Christian movement was an orderly one that followed orderly rules of succession (as opposed to some of the mystery cults that Rome would worry about, or other illegal groups), so he highlighted the election of Judas' replacement, which in turn required him of course to explain where Judas had gone and why the election was needed in the first place. A tangled web weaved indeed.

But I feel a significant fact is being over-looked. In Acts 1:19, it records that the citizens knew/heard about what happened to Judas' body at the field. A cause-and-effect relationship is being described here.

By my view this is explained via what I have noted before -- the priestly spin and presumption to speak for the citizens and what they knew and heard. And as I noted before, I think Luke has left it open so that the "knew/heard" refers back to the treachery rather than the death.

therefore Luke would have inner ties to the priesthood ( to borrow your point about Luke consulting priestly records to describe the verb he used for how Judas acquired the field) and the "inner knowledge" of what the priestly circles knew.

Priestly reaction in this case would probably be public knowledge. On the other hand there were probably some like Gamiliel sympathetic to the movement who could give inside info. That's where I would say Matthew got his info for Ch. 28 -- or from some of the priests who converted (as noted in Acts). But there again Matthew doesn't have a tightrope to walk as I am proposing Luke does with Theophilus.

I think this is my fault. I apologize for wording this wrong. What I meant was that, I think that one like Luke can use literary forms as he chooses as long as the literary forms don't stretch or distort any facts.

No worries. :) I hope you're enjoying this. I am. This would turn back again on the core question of whether indeed these people would do this. I think from my social studies that they would. But:

I never thought the Holy Spirit had to "inspire" Jesus to say anything. Jesus is believed to be God the Son in human form.

Hmm, hmm, hmmm. This could lead to a really productive secondary thread...just to keep it simple for now, how do you understand the phrase, "Jesus is God"?

As for the Nazi issue- that would strike me as being paradoxal. I never thought God would ever put Jesus into a position where Jesus had to "honorably lie". I freely admit..it may just be my "temporal provincialist" mentality coming to the fore.

That's very candid of you. :) When you get MR you'll see they have some pretty hard words for people who won't see (or admit, presumably) that they are capable of this. Beyond that -- you may be interested to know that I see at least one place where Jesus "honorably lied" -- http://www.tektonics.org/didjesuslie.html -- and in so doing, fulfilled a proper moral obligation in the eyes of his contemporaries.

I was disagreeing specifically with the statement that Judas' bloody death wouldn't have been any more significant than what might have routinely happened. Can you clarify, a bit, what you mean by saying dishonor and poetic justice are not mutually exclusive?

I mean by this that I think we are both right on these subjects. :)

Are you saying that the people's reaction to what happened to Judas' body is a matter of poetic justice and the naming of the field reflects this?

No, not that. I just think that yes, people would see poetic justice as you say. But that this is not contrary, actually complimentary, to what I am offering.

Have a splendid weekend!

[Matthew]

I am back..

I wasn't leading that way, but yes, as it happens, the priesthood would recognize that popular opinion would be against a dishonorable traitor like Judas, and that justice (poetic or otherwise -- grin) would be expected.

I don't deny this..but I don't see how it is at all plausible that they would "invent" an establishment story and get the people to pass on. The problem as I see it deals with Luke's sources. I think that Luke interviewed several people, including the apostle Paul, some of the chief priests and some of the pharisees who may have converted just as Matthew would've. I think these fellows would've given Luke the real scoop on what was going on.

To have been involved in such an act as bribing Judas would have been regarded as extremely dishonoring. And that's where we get to the point MR make: that in this day and age, people thought about their personal honor the way we think about paying the bills. So they would be anxious to wash away the stigma of dishonor by whatever means, even if it was via a plainly stupid lie. As an aside, have you ever studied Japanese culture? Their society is still a lot like this

I am afraid that I never studied Japanese culture, to my discredit:frown: I still don't see how the lie could've spread. Luke had inner ties such as Paul, some of the converted priests, Pharisees, Joseph of Arimithea, Nicodemus, scribes. I think that they would've told both Paul and Luke that the Jewish leaders were getting a lie to spread, just like they probably told Matthew that the chief priests bribed the soilders to say that they fell asleep.

Even if Luke didn't have any inner ties, there's always the holy Spirit which can reveal to Luke in a vision of what happened, like Peter saw a vision of a net with wild animals being lowered down and him being told to kill and eat, or like Paul had visions. But Luke had both these inner ties and inspiration. As I see it...Luke would've had more than enough sources for accurate information.

They would not care so much what they did as what the Christian movement did in relation to the leadership (which the Romans stood behind as a matter of course). That may lead to the question of why Luke even bothered to include the story in the first place. Just offhand I'd say that he wanted to show that the Christian movement was an orderly one that followed orderly rules of succession (as opposed to some of the mystery cults that Rome would worry about, or other illegal groups), so he highlighted the election of Judas' replacement, which in turn required him of course to explain where Judas had gone and why the election was needed in the first place. A tangled web weaved indeed.

I agree that they would probably wonder how the Christian movement interacted with Jewish leadership and how this leadership and the Jewish community percieved this movement as a whole. But I think that Luke couldn't have been recording an "establishment" explanation; he had too many inner ties as I noted above which would've told him what really happened. Even the discilpes would've known what really happened; they would've had to know that Judas was dead and they would've had to confirm how he died in order to secure a replacement for him. Even the disciples/apostles would've had to known how Judas really died and how the field got its name. Add the disciples/apostles to the list of sources above that Luke had at his disposal to ensure what he was recording was a real event and not just a leadership spin. The apostles, especially Peter and Paul would've known how the Field of Blood really got its name and so they would've been able to tell Luke what had happened and what the Jewish leadership was passing off as an establishment "story".

Priestly reaction in this case would probably be public knowledge. On the other hand there were probably some like Gamiliel sympathetic to the movement who could give inside info. That's where I would say Matthew got his info for Ch. 28 -- or from some of the priests who converted (as noted in Acts). But there again Matthew doesn't have a tightrope to walk as I am proposing Luke does with Theophilus.

Paul also studied under this very Gamiliel, and also Paul would have come into contact with some of the priests and others who would have converted. These would all be sources of information for Luke and Luke would have a chance to verify wether the people calling the field in response to Judas ripping open was a valid story or wether it was a "establishment spin". Luke had too many reliable sources just as Matthew would and he could've let it known just like Matthew did about the Pharisees bribing the guards. As far as the tightrope goes..I don't think the Romans would've cared if it was some spin on the part of the Jewish leadership. I can understand that Luke may want to portray the Christian movement as peaceful, but it's not like the Romans ever had a favorable attitude towards the Jews. So what difference would it have made to record what actually happened rather than a mere "establishment spin"? Recording the real story wouldn't have brought any harm to the Christians regarding how the Field of Blood was really named.

Hmm, hmm, hmmm. This could lead to a really productive secondary thread...just to keep it simple for now, how do you understand the phrase, "Jesus is God"?

I understood it to mean that the divine essence of Jesus..as Jesus' Spirit would inhabit a physical body just like our spirits inhabit physical bodies.

No, not that. I just think that yes, people would see poetic justice as you say. But that this is not contrary, actually complimentary, to what I am offering.

Well I don't see how people would name the field in response to it being purchased as blood money as a form of poetic justice. In fact I don't think that they would name it that to bring shame upon Judas-he was already dead. Rather, I think that Judas merely committing suicide with nothing happening to his body afterwords would not have satisfied the desire for God to avenge Jesus' betrayal and death. I think that something worse would've had to have happended to Judas- hence Luke's description of the violent fate that met Judas' body in the field. What I am proposing is that when this happened-his body bursting and his blood and guts spilling-was when the people felt satisfied that God has answered their desire for him to avenge Jesus.

I only see the poetic justice in naming the Field of Blood in response to what happened at the Field. I don't see any poetic justice in Judas hanging himself or dying any kind of death where it didn't have violent consequences for his body or involve his blood shedding/spilling in a violent fashion. Only this, I think, could've conveyed the kind of poetic justice and vengence that the people were expecting from God.

More to come!

[jpholding]

Howdy,

don't deny this..but I don't see how it is at all plausible that they would "invent" an establishment story and get the people to pass on.

For no other purpose than to save face (honor). I do not doubt that Luke interviewed people and knew what actually happened :) Yes, if you have not studied Japanese culture (for example) it may be hard to get a grip on this. China is much the same way; actually most cultures are still like this. America is an oddball.

I still don't see how the lie could've spread. Luke had inner ties such as Paul, some of the converted priests, Pharisees, Joseph of Arimithea, Nicodemus, scribes. I think that they would've told both Paul and Luke that the Jewish leaders were getting a lie to spread

Yes, I agree, but this is where what I said earlier about Luke's motives before Theophilus come into play. I agree he HAD accurate data in hand...but he had his main reader to consider, and I have argued that he used the "establishment story" purposely (but in a way that those who knew better of the truth would recognize). As for how it could spread...gossip was the leading source of communication for the day. Ear to ear would have done it. After all, there was not much else one could do for entertainment back then. :)

It gets back to this key point, which seems to reflect a fundamental disagreement we have:

I don't think the Romans would've cared if it was some spin on the part of the Jewish leadership. I can understand that Luke may want to portray the Christian movement as peaceful, but it's not like the Romans ever had a favorable attitude towards the Jews.

They didn't, but they did care about maintaining the Pax Romana. They saw themselves as the ones who were responsible for civilizing the world (the "Roman man's burden"!) and anyone who tried to sow division would have gotten their attention. So I have to disagree -- based on what I know of this world, the real story presented "as is" in Matthew's Gospel would indeed have brought discredit to the Christians in the eyes of a Roman like Theophilus.

I understood it to mean that the divine essence of Jesus..as Jesus' Spirit would inhabit a physical body just like our spirits inhabit physical bodies.

Not bad. :) If you have time maybe we'll discuss this someday:
http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

Well I don't see how people would name the field in response to it being purchased as blood money as a form of poetic justice

Um, no, that's not what I said. :) I was saying that your idea about them seeing poetic justice is not contrary to my own ideas. In fact I welcome it.

Take care.

[Joseph Alward]

I joined this forum this afternoon, and this is my first post in this thread.

I believe that Matthew or his oral traditional source used the betrayal of David's by his counselor, Ahithophel, as the model for a fictional story of Jesus' betrayal by Judsa.

Just as David was betrayed by one who was close enough to him to dip his bread in the same bowl, then so was Jesus betrayed by one who dipped his bread in the same bowl as Jesus.

Furthermore, David's prayerful lament at being betrayed, and his climb up the Mount of Olives in an attitude of prayer, was reprised by Matthew in the fiction of Jesus' prayerful lament at the Mount of Olives following his betrayal.

Furthermore, just as David in his prayer told God that his fate was in God's hand, and that God would do with David what he will, so did Matthew have Jesus' say the same thing to God in his prayer at Gethsemane.

The evidence that the evolved oral tradition that Matthew reported is largely fictional is too strong to ignore. A fuller exposition of the parallel between the story of Judas's betrayal and David's betrayal is found in the article, "David and Jesus," at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/David_and_Jesus.htm

Now, about the Matthean and Acts descriptions of Judas' "death" :

The Matthean author tells his readers that Jesus' blood paid for the field, and that's why the field is called the Field of Blood. However, in the Acts passage, the writer gives us a completely different reason for the name of the field. This author strongly implies that field is called the Field of Blood because Judas's blood and guts were spilled over it.

Which is it? Jesus' blood paid for the field, and that's why it's called the Field of Blood? Or, Judas's blood was spilled on it, and that's why it's called the Field of Blood?

The contrast between the two different explanations is much too stark to imagine that they are compatible. Thus, there seems to be a contradiction here.

I have more to say on the origin of the story of Judas's death in Acts, but I will save it for later.

[Joseph Alward]

In my previous post I said I would offer my thoughts on the origin and meaning of the story in Acts about Judas's "death." Here they are:

Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, while the writer in Acts seems to indicate that Judas fell and his guts spilled out. Here are the relevant verses:

The writer in Matthew wrote, "When Judas...saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse...Then he went away and hanged himself."(Matthew 27:1-5 NIV)

However, Acts describes Judas "dying" when his guts burst open in a fall: "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." (Acts 1:15-18 NIV)

I believe the author (Luke) of this passage in Acts was using literary license to construct a fictional spiritual death scene in which Judas' "bursting guts" were not literally bursting guts, but represented his failure to accept the new teachings of Jesus, which to Luke evidently was like the spiritual death he alluded to in his gospel:

"And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined." (Luke 5:37)

Old skins cannot expand to accommodate the gases released from still-fermenting new fine, while new ones are still elastic enough to accommodate the release of gas. Luke expected his readers would see that Judas was holding on to the old law, the old way of thinking, and was unable to accommodate the new teachings of Jesus and thus "burst open" just as does an old wineskin filled with new wine. Luke clearly never meant for his readers to take his description of Judas literally.

[jpholding]

Hey Mr A,

I believe that Matthew or his oral traditional source used the betrayal of David's by his counselor, Ahithophel, as the model for a fictional story of Jesus' betrayal by Judsa.

You have probably not would you way through the thread here yet, but you will see that I agree with you -- with the exception that I don't see any reason why this renders the Gospel story wholly fictional. In particular:

Furthermore, David's prayerful lament at being betrayed, and his climb up the Mount of Olives in an attitude of prayer, was reprised by Matthew in the fiction of Jesus' prayerful lament at the Mount of Olives following his betrayal.

Back further you will see (if I recall correctly) a quote from Malina and Rohrbaugh which I use to explain this. That said, of course I recognize this as one of your, um, key themes: "imitation = fiction". The problem is that you never explain how the leap is made from one to the other. It's merely assumed in your paradigm. Anyway much of what you say also is addressed earlier...I am sure you will wind your way through in time...

I believe the author (Luke) of this passage in Acts was using literary license to construct a fictional spiritual death scene in which Judas' "bursting guts" were not literally bursting guts, but were represented his failure to accept the new teachings of Jesus, which to Luke evidently was like the spiritual death he alluded to in his gospel:

Interesting idea, and I recall you posing it on Errancy, but there's a wee problem: If this was the intended allusion, why did Luke use an entirely different word than the one he did in Acts? Your idea is creative and is actually the sort of thing I would expect an ancient writer to do, even if reporting an actual historical event -- but the particular just doesn't work out. Also:

Luke expected his readers would see that Judas was holding on to the old law, the old way of thinking

Where specifically do we see this of Judas in his actions? He is mentioned but four times by Luke and not a word is said about his motives, which seems to be another flaw in your theory.

I commend you for being the only member of Errancy to answer my challenge so far. :smile: As an aside, if no one will take up my challenge, I''ll suggest that I scan your site for issues we have differences over, to suggest for a more formal debate. Sound good?

[Homie]

Dee Dee directed me to this forum, so here I am. Maybe you can help me with :read:

I read this article at http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html. But it implies that Judas dies by bursting apart in the field. And the field is then purchased by the priests in Judas's name, after he has died! Imagine being the owner of the field: Judas dies a strange death in your field and then some priests come and purchase it in his name!? When his corpse lies in the field!

I have another question: Why do you guys keep saying "Luke this and Luke that"? Was it not Peter who described Judas's death in Acts? As I understand it, Luke wrote Acts but he was quoting PETER who described Judas's death. If the account in Acts was wrong (not saying it was though) it would be Peter who was wrong, not Luke, he only did his job writing down what Peter said.

[dizzle]

Welcome Homie!!

[Homie]

Thanks Dee Dee :)
Is this a christian college's forum?

[Homie]

So what do you say?

[dizzle]

Sorry Homie, I did not see this, and I am sure that JPHolding has not seen your posts either or he would have responded.. he generally checks in once a day.

And no this is not the forum of a college, but rather we just adopted a campus theme as our format.

[Joseph Alward]

J.P. HOLDING

I''ll suggest that I scan your site for issues we have differences over, to suggest for a more formal debate. Sound good?

JOE ALWARD
Sounds good.

[Joseph Alward]

HOMIE
I read this article at http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html. But it implies that Judas dies by bursting apart in the field. And the field is then purchased by the priests in Judas's name, after he has died! Imagine being the owner of the field: Judas dies a strange death in your field and then some priests come and purchase it in his name!? When his corpse lies in the field!

I have another question: Why do you guys keep saying "Luke this and Luke that"? Was it not Peter who described Judas's death in Acts? As I understand it, Luke wrote Acts but he was quoting PETER who described Judas's death. If the account in Acts was wrong (not saying it was though) it would be Peter who was wrong, not Luke, he only did his job writing down what Peter said.

JOE ALWARD
Priests Purchased Field with Rotting Corpse
Good observation, Homie. I was to going to mention this yesterday, Homie, but decided it wasn't a strong enough point. You see, it is purely conjecture that the priests either would have seen, or heard about, the corpse lying in the field, prior to purchasing the field.

Luke's Peter
Homie, when I say, "Luke said that Judas fell headlong in the field," I mean that according to Luke's Peter, it happened.

[Homie]

Priests Purchased Field with Rotting Corpse
Good observation, Homie. I was to mention this yesterday, Homie, but decided it wasn't a strong enough point. You see, it is purely conjecture that the priests either would have seen, or heard about, the corpse lying in the field, prior to purchasing the field.
Yes, but that wasn't really my point. My point was as follows: Wouldn't the field's owner suspect that something was amiss if the priests wanted to purchase his field in the name of the dead man lying in his field?

Luke's Peter
Homie, when I say, "Luke said that Judas fell headlong in the field," I mean that according to Luke's Peter, it happened.
I know. It is just my opinion that the events should be referred to as "according to Matthew" (because Matthew describes the event) and as "according to Peter" (because Peter describes the event, Luke is only quoting him). If Peter is wrong, that is simply an error of a biblical person, but if Acts (Luke) is wrong that is inerrancy.

[Joseph Alward]

HOMIE
Yes, but that wasn't really my point. My point was as follows: Wouldn't the field's owner suspect that something was amiss if the priests wanted to purchase his field in the name of the dead man lying in his field?

JOE ALWARD
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that the text supports the view that the priests purchased the field to honor the dead man in the field?

[jpholding]

Yo, homie, you do have to be patient. As Dee Dee said I don't always get here lickety-split. Depends a lot on my schedule.

But it implies that Judas dies by bursting apart in the field. And the field is then purchased by the priests in Judas's name, after he has died! Imagine being the owner of the field: Judas dies a strange death in your field and then some priests come and purchase it in his name!? When his corpse lies in the field!

Yes -- I explained this back in this thread. The owner would be glad to get rid of the field because Judas' death there made it ritually impure. Under such circumstances the owner of the field would probably not care in the least what the priests were up to. And the priests would frame it as doing him a favor, which in fact they were since Judas' death made his property worthless in terms of trying to sell it to other Jews.

I have another question: Why do you guys keep saying "Luke this and Luke that"? Was it not Peter who described Judas's death in Acts?

Most commentators regard that passage as a parenthetical insertion by Luke into Peter's speech. There was no such thing as footnotes yet. :smile:

[jpholding]

Yo Mr A,

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that the text supports the view that the priests purchased the field to honor the dead man in the field?

I think you may have misread one of my points. I did not say that they were trying to honor Judas. Honor was involved, but not THAT way.

You see, it is purely conjecture that the priests either would have seen, or heard about, the corpse lying in the field, prior to purchasing the field.

It's not conjecture at all, Mr A. News of a violent death of a follower of a recently-executed religious leader, who had betrayed him dishonorably, and whose death rendered a certain property impure, would have made the run of the ancient gossip mill easily. One look at the body would have gotten tongues wagging and fingers pointing. I think you need some social studies work. :smile:

I'll be checking your site later for some possible topics. By protocol here I would need to issue a challenge in another area (the Coach's Quarters) and I'll let you know.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
It's not conjecture at all, Mr A. News of a violent death of a follower of a recently-executed religious leader, who had betrayed him dishonorably, and whose death rendered a certain property impure, would have made the run of the ancient gossip mill easily. One look at the body would have gotten tongues wagging and fingers pointing. I think you need some social studies work.

JOE ALWARD
I completely agree that news of Judas's death would have spread like wildfire as soon as it was discoverd. However, since the location of the field was not given, we are free to imagine that it was in an isolated area. Futhermore, the body of the fallen Judas was presumably on the ground, so it might have been overlooked in this far-away field until after the field was purchased.

Finally, there is no mention in the Bible of how soon after Judas' hanging and "fall" he was discovered. Thus, the priests easily could have purchased the isolated field days before Judas's body was found lying on it.

This is all conjecture, of course, but so is assuming that Judas was found before the purchase.

[jpholding]

Yo again Mr A,

I completely agree that news of Judas's death would have spread like wildfire as soon as it was discoverd. However, since the location of the field was not given, we are free to imagine that it was in an isolated area.

Argh...I don't see any logic in that argument, sorry. You'd need to show me a consistent pattern in Luke or elsewhere that "location not given" = "isolated area". Which you can't, because if the location is NOT given, how do you know the area was isolated? If anything the texts suggests that it isn't isolated, since the citizens of Jerusalem are the ones credited with the (in my view, "official spin" -- see previous posts) story.

Futhermore, the body of the fallen Judas was presumably on the ground, so it might have been overlooked in this far-away field until after the field was purchased.

Hum. You don't suppose the gathering and circling carrion birds would catch anyone's attention, do you? :smile: Not that it matters since this does depend on the field being far away, which I just don't see based on your reasons above.

Finally, there is no mention in the Bible of how soon after Judas' hanging and "fall" he was discovered. Thus, the priests easily could have purchased the isolated field days before Judas's body was found lying on it.

I don't see any logical chain in that either, sorry. :smile: If I read you right we're down to, "My hypothesis can beat up your hypothesis" and we're going to have to try and poke holes in each others' hypotheseis. Indeed it seems odd here that you as a Skeptic are proposing a remarkable coincidence (that they happened to buy the very far-flung field Judas died in, unknowingly, for no particular reason connected to Judas!) whereas I, who believe in the possibility of the miraculous, am offering a practical and natural solution relying on a direct action rooted in the social conditions of the day.

The irony is amazing.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
The field might have been close enough to populated areas, and small enough, that Judas's body would have been noticed right away, but the field might also have been far enough away from populated areas, or so large, or both, that Judas's body might not have been discovered until after the field had been purchased.

We don't know one way or the other.

[jpholding]

Joseph Alward:
JOE ALWARD
The field might have been close enough to populated areas, and small enough, that Judas's body would have been noticed right away, but the field might also have been far enough away from populated areas, or so large, or both, that Judas's body might not have been discovered until after the field had been purchased.

We don't know one way or the other.

Well, I guess we're at our official impasse. :smile: I'll be back with you in a few days about a debate. Unless one of Till's list members accepts my ostrich/donations challenge in the next 14-16 hours, which seems unlikely. :rofl:

[Matthew]

Well, I think we have come this far, to the point where we might start closing in on any loose ends as this thread winds down. There were some comments I wanted to make about the last post.

For no other purpose than to save face (honor). I do not doubt that Luke interviewed people and knew what actually happened :) Yes, if you have not studied Japanese culture (for example) it may be hard to get a grip on this. China is much the same way; actually most cultures are still like this. America is an oddball.

I am wondering who the Jewish establishment would want to save face from? I don't think the Romans cared, so I think it's implausible that the Jewish establishment would've been trying to save face from them, so that leaves only one alternative: the Jews themselves. However, I think that the Achilles Heel on the "establishment" hypothesis is the fact that Luke had too many contacts, as did Matthew to know what really happened. The fact is that Luke had Paul, several Jewish leadership converts, and other sympathizers whom to interview. Thus, considering this fact, I definitely think that Luke would've worded Acts 1:18-19 like Matthew worded Matthew28: 11-15. I think that Luke would've worded it like that if this had been an "establishment" story that he would've been passing on.

About Luke and the tightrope- I can understand that Luke would want to present Christianity as a peaceful movement that did not threaten Rome. But if Luke wants to get on Rome's good side, why not just come out with the bare truth? If it really was an establishment story, why not explain to Theophilus that it was an "establishment" story like Matthew did in regards to the disciples stealing the body? I think this would definitely have been the case.

Yes, I agree, but this is where what I said earlier about Luke's motives before Theophilus come into play. I agree he HAD accurate data in hand...but he had his main reader to consider, and I have argued that he used the "establishment story" purposely (but in a way that those who knew better of the truth would recognize).

Why would he purposely use the "establishment story"? I don't see what bad consequences would've followed from reporting the real story behind the FoB's origin. If Luke explained that this was an "establishment story" then that would've confirmed the suspicions of the Roman leaders; that the Jewish leadership was a rotten bunch of scoundrels. In fact, if Luke had a "tightrope" to walk, I think he would've either told the story as it happened or at least explained that it was an "establishment story" being passed on and at least he didn't believe it. I think he might have tried as much as possible to get on the Roman's good sides so that the Church woudln't face dual persecution from both the Jews and Romans.

As for how it could spread...gossip was the leading source of communication for the day. Ear to ear would have done it. After all, there was not much else one could do for entertainment back then. :)

Unfortuantely, I have to agree that gossip would've been a leading source of communication ( I don't care for gossip many times). As for it being entertainment- I guess it beats watching gladiators rip each other to shreds and lions devour dissadents.

They didn't, but they did care about maintaining the Pax Romana. They saw themselves as the ones who were responsible for civilizing the world (the "Roman man's burden"!) and anyone who tried to sow division would have gotten their attention. So I have to disagree -- based on what I know of this world, the real story presented "as is" in Matthew's Gospel would indeed have brought discredit to the Christians in the eyes of a Roman like Theophilus.

I agree the Christians would've cared about maintaining the Pax Romana. But why would the real story have brought discredit to the Christians? Why would explaining the naming of FoB as an "establishment story" bring discredit to the Christians? Why would explaining the truth about what happened at the field bring discredit to the Christians? Why would exposing what the Jewish leaders had done in regards to the FoB have brought discredit or shame upon the Christians? If anything, it would only serve to reinforce rather negatively the Roman's preconceptions or stereotypes of the Jewish leadership? They could at least credit Christians with honesty regarding things like these even if they didn't care for the Christians.

Um, no, that's not what I said. :) I was saying that your idea about them seeing poetic justice is not contrary to my own ideas. In fact I welcome it.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point then. So you are arguing that they might have seen poetic justice in Judas' gut-bust, but they just wouldn't have named the field to reflect it? They wouldn't have named the field to reflect their feelings that poetic justice had been served?

Till next time..

[jpholding]

Heya Matthew,

You should be getting an envelope from me this week if you haven't already. :smile:

I am wondering who the Jewish establishment would want to save face from?

Anyone and everyone. Honor was a matter of public perception and you wanted to save it from anyone and everyone -- especially higher-ups of course, but even people lower than you as a whole. Yes, I know, this is hard to perceive -- we care so little about honor here; but I tell you the truth, this is how it is in other cultures.

Check for example what is found here about Japanese culture:

http://business.baylor.edu/Phil_VanAuken//jcul.htm

Note what is said about "face" (honor) and about facades. It's not exactly the same as the ancient Mediterannean, but you get the idea.

However, I think that the Achilles Heel on the "establishment" hypothesis is the fact that Luke had too many contacts, as did Matthew to know what really happened. The fact is that Luke had Paul, several Jewish leadership converts, and other sympathizers whom to interview.

I agree they had plenty of possible contacts, but cultural reasons which overruled a plain and simple report.

But if Luke wants to get on Rome's good side, why not just come out with the bare truth?

The "bare truth" is not what gets you on the good side in this world, necessarily. We value truth above all; they valued honor above all, and appearance above all.

If it really was an establishment story, why not explain to Theophilus that it was an "establishment" story like Matthew did in regards to the disciples stealing the body?

Matthew of course is answering a polemic -- Luke is not, and he is writing to someone in an entirely different position whose favor he wants to court. The basic answer is, they don't do this because who they are talking to runs how they say things.

Why would he purposely use the "establishment story"? I don't see what bad consequences would've followed from reporting the real story behind the FoB's origin.

No offense, but I think I have related this before in one of the first few pages of this thread... :smile:

As for it being entertainment- I guess it beats watching gladiators rip each other to shreds and lions devour dissadents.

True. Even that was limited to a few people in the major cities, as it happens.

I agree the Christians would've cared about maintaining the Pax Romana. But why would the real story have brought discredit to the Christians?

To answer several of the questions at once: To Rome, because it made them look like they were at odds with the establishment that Rome stood behind.

If anything, it would only serve to reinforce rather negatively the Roman's preconceptions or stereotypes of the Jewish leadership?

It would have indeed, but which would you say is more important? Reinforcing stereotypes, or maintaining social order?

They could at least credit Christians with honesty regarding things like these even if they didn't care for the Christians.

You will find that honesty was not always the primary virtue for people in this day. You will indeed read about "honorable lying" -- a concept that would make Jerry Falwell's underwear burn right off.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point then. So you are arguing that they might have seen poetic justice in Judas' gut-bust, but they just wouldn't have named the field to reflect it? They wouldn't have named the field to reflect their feelings that poetic justice had been served?

No worries. :smile: Correct, except I would not say "wouldn't" but "didn't".

Hope all is well these days with you. Take care.

[Matthew]

JP-

Anyone and everyone. Honor was a matter of public perception and you wanted to save it from anyone and everyone -- especially higher-ups of course, but even people lower than you as a whole. Yes, I know, this is hard to perceive -- we care so little about honor here; but I tell you the truth, this is how it is in other cultures.

First of all, I don't doubt that honor was of prime importance in these socities. That would explain why shame was predominant if Milna and Rohrbaugh are correct. However- I don't think that it would've mattered to the Romans. The Romans considered it very shameful for the Jews to worship a false deity rather than the empirial divinities- or, say, the Roman emperor. In one respect, the Jews never had that much honor in the minds of the Romans to begin with being that they were religious as well as social dissadents. They seemed to have tolerated each other at arm's length- the Jews would've known that the Romans didn't consider them a honorable people and Theophilus wouldn't have cared about the Jews in particular. What interests him is wether or not the Christian sect poses a threat to Roman interests.

I agree they had plenty of possible contacts, but cultural reasons which overruled a plain and simple report.

So you think that looking honorable would've overwhelmed any decision to give the plain facts, even if it meant telling an "honorable lie" as long as it wasn't blatant falsehood?

The "bare truth" is not what gets you on the good side in this world, necessarily. We value truth above all; they valued honor above all, and appearance above all.

I understand this- but the problem I have is why Luke would want to make the Jewish establishment look honorable? It doesn't make sense to me. What would Christians gain by making the establishment look honorable? The Romans already considered them to be dishonorable but not necessarily a threat-well..at least not until 70 A.D.

Matthew of course is answering a polemic -- Luke is not, and he is writing to someone in an entirely different position whose favor he wants to court. The basic answer is, they don't do this because who they are talking to runs how they say things

And the establishment story wouldn't have been a polemic as well? :hrm: As far as I can see..the account in Matthew 27 is a polemic to save honor by your reasoning- wouldn't the establishment story also have been a polemic- in fact wouldn't any establishment story be polemical by its very nature since most of them were invented to deflect shame?

True. Even that was limited to a few people in the major cities, as it happens.

JP..I was actually making a joke. I admit it was in bad taste perhaps.

To answer several of the questions at once: To Rome, because it made them look like they were at odds with the establishment that Rome stood behind.

It made them look like they were at odds with the Jewish establishment? Correct me if I am wrong..but weren't the Romans and Jews generally at odds with each other? They had a arms length tolerance for each other but that I don't think that they would let that disrupt the social order-which I would admit would be more important. It wasn't until before 70 A.D. that the arms length tolerance dissolved and the Rome decided it had enough of the Jews.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point then. So you are arguing that they might have seen poetic justice in Judas' gut-bust, but they just wouldn't have named the field to reflect it? They wouldn't have named the field to reflect their feelings that poetic justice had been served?

To which you replied-

No worries. Correct, except I would not say "wouldn't" but "didn't".

Okay, so why would Luke want to make the Jewish leadership look honorable? The Jewish leadership must've looked dishonorable to the people after Jesus exposed their hypocrisy numerous times in the New Testament. Peter reminded the crowed in the Pentecost sermon that they shared the shame in putting Jesus to death- so at least the people knew that the Jewish leadership was partly to blame for putting Jesus to death. If anything- Luke would want to present the Christians as the peace-keepers and the the Jewish leadership as the dishonorable bunch (which the gospels make clear that they were) especially when one reads about the "Seven Woes" or similar ones in the gospels that they appear in. In fact it seems that both Matthew and Luke constantly shame the teachers of the law and Pharisees in their respectful gospels.

Why then would Luke want to present the Jewish leadership in a more positive light by parroting an establishment polemic when he shamed them in his recorded interactions of them with Christ?

One more point I wanted to address:

I can even see him purposely splitting up the story as I've suggested so that only his own "high context" readers would realize that the FoB etymology was actually linked more to the "wickedness" while Theophilus in his "lower context" would be none the wiser and assume (not being familiar with Jewish gossip and methods) that it was the gore that made for the score.

This is what I assumed you meant when you said you already related it in an earlier post. The only problem is why would he purposely do this for Theophilus? I seem to recall in your essay on the "Impossible Faith" you noted that if Luke had made an error that a known king had not been eaten by worms the people would've rejected Luke's account as a fraud-but if he posted a story that the people knew wasn't true-wouldn't they likewise have come to regard the account as fraudulent? The people knew that the Jewish leadership were dishonorable people but for Luke to pass it on- wouldn't this have earned him dishonor since they would've felt so strongly about what Judas had done?

I want to develop this point further in my argument. Before Luke and Matthew were written as gospels..they were part of an oral tradition. Many people would've known as a matter of oral tradition that the establishment polemic of Matthew 27 was false and in addition to many of the dishonorable acts committed by the Jewish establishment, this would also have appeared dishonorable to them. Wouldn't an establishment polemic also have appeared dishonorable to them? It circulated by oral tradition, gossip, and word-of-mouth before being written down. The oral factor would've merely have generated more shame for the establishment. Polemics intended to save face would've backfired like this, and they would've realized that they had just shot themselves in the feet.

Are you going to revise your essay on Tekton to reflect our debate (without necessarily mentioning me of course)? I also got the envelope through the mail. I plan to look at the paper this weekend.

[jpholding]

Yo Matthew,

First of all, I don't doubt that honor was of prime importance in these socities. That would explain why shame was predominant if Milna and Rohrbaugh are correct. However- I don't think that it would've mattered to the Romans.

?? -- You don't doubt that honor was of prime importance, but you ALSO don't think that it would've mattered to the Romans? Er -- oh, I see:

The Romans considered it very shameful for the Jews to worship a false deity rather than the empirial divinities- or, say, the Roman emperor. In one respect, the Jews never had that much honor in the minds of the Romans to begin with being that they were religious as well as social dissadents.

That may be true, but that doesn't seem to be reason to dump whatever shred or potential of honor you DO have in the eyes of others. Yeah, I know: It's the sort of thing WE might do -- i.e., if someone eats out of your bowl of ice cream, one way we like to get ticked off is to shove the whole bowl at them and say, "Fine, here, YOU can have it!" -- but I just can't agree here. You say Theo would not have cared; I say, in this society, he would have -- if for no other reason than to justify his own perceptions. (Though yes he is also interested in whether there is a threat -- I do not deny that.)

So you think that looking honorable would've overwhelmed any decision to give the plain facts, even if it meant telling an "honorable lie" as long as it wasn't blatant falsehood?

It certainly does in honor and shame cultures today. In fact even blatant falsehood was permissible in the right circumstances. Want to see Jerry Falwell burn some more of his own underwear?

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

I understand this- but the problem I have is why Luke would want to make the Jewish establishment look honorable?

Not for their own sake, but for the sake of keeping it from looking like Christianity is interested in shaming, and therefore at serious odds with, the Jewish establishment.

The Romans already considered them to be dishonorable but not necessarily a threat-well..at least not until 70 A.D.

Well, actually, they did consider the Jews to be a threat more or less constantly. :smile:

And the establishment story wouldn't have been a polemic as well?

Not enough to get done what Matthew wanted. He's writing to fellow Jews who aren't too happy with the establishment in some cases themselves. He has no reason to be at peace with them (as Luke would need to show) and if anything wants to shame them, esp. since he wants to show how raunchy they are (for his stolen body apologetic). It runs down to, Luke wants to avoid dishonor on the establishment; Matthew wants to cause it.

in fact wouldn't any establishment story be polemical by its very nature since most of them were invented to deflect shame?

Only if you knew the real truth behind it would that be a problem. :smile:

JP..I was actually making a joke. I admit it was in bad taste perhaps.

Nah. I got it as a joke, but couldn't help myself. :smile:

It made them look like they were at odds with the Jewish establishment? Correct me if I am wrong..but weren't the Romans and Jews generally at odds with each other?

Yep, but it runs like this: Rome may have been the devil, but they were the devils in charge and they had to live with them. If they could, they might try to get enough rights and priviliges to be freer (like a Roman colony) and maybe even overthrow the yoke by gradual means.

Okay, so why would Luke want to make the Jewish leadership look honorable?

If he didn't, he would be seen as being at odds with them and that would displease Rome -- even though Rome disliked them anyway, the establishment did keep the peace and order as they wanted and it served their interests to squelch any dissent.

The Jewish leadership must've looked dishonorable to the people after Jesus exposed their hypocrisy numerous times in the New Testament. Peter reminded the crowed in the Pentecost sermon that they shared the shame in putting Jesus to death- so at least the people knew that the Jewish leadership was partly to blame for putting Jesus to death

The sharing of the blame is also tactically sound -- bearing in mind again that Theophilus is the target reader.

In fact it seems that both Matthew and Luke constantly shame the teachers of the law and Pharisees in their respectful gospels.

True. But the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees were not the political establishment. In contrast compare how many times Matthew names the Sadducees (the establishment) versus Luke (only once, and on an obscure Jewish point of doctrine), and note that Luke "depersonalizes" for example the Saddys who came to John the Baptist. (He depersonalizes the Pharrys, too, of course -- though I see that as being for other reasons.)


The only problem is why would he purposely do this for Theophilus? I seem to recall in your essay on the "Impossible Faith" you noted that if Luke had made an error that a known king had not been eaten by worms the people would've rejected Luke's account as a fraud-but if he posted a story that the people knew wasn't true-wouldn't they likewise have come to regard the account as fraudulent?

Not at all -- because Luke's version is eminently defensible as the truth of the matter, just not the entirety of the story.

The people knew that the Jewish leadership were dishonorable people but for Luke to pass it on- wouldn't this have earned him dishonor since they would've felt so strongly about what Judas had done?

Would it have earned Luke dishonor, for passing on the fraudulent version, you mean? No, beecause of what I noted above, plus what I noted about how others would have reacted to attempts to preserve honor (like the steward's manager). Which is not the same as reporting a falsely dishonoring story as the one about Herod would have been if it were untrue.

Wouldn't an establishment polemic also have appeared dishonorable to them?

They would easily recognize it as an attempt to cover dishonor, and so in that sense, yes. But keep the audiences separate: Matthew's Jewish readers in the neighborhood; Theophilus in far-away Rome. Only the former see and know both sides of the story.

Are you going to revise your essay on Tekton to reflect our debate (without necessarily mentioning me of course)?

After it's all over I may do that, but I'd rather just link to this debate which I expect TWeb will keep archived. It would be a major hassle to re-edit and expand any essay; just linking here would be a ton easier.

Take care. :smile:

[Homie]

So you are saying that Matthew (or Luke :huh:) wrote a lie in the NT to protect the honor of the Jewish Establishment, because he didn't want to portray christians as enemies to the jewish establishment, or the Roman Establishment, or he didn't want christians to be people who spread "gossip"?

[jpholding]

Yo Homie,

So you are saying that Matthew (or Luke ) wrote a lie in the NT to protect the honor of the Jewish Establishment, because he didn't want to portray christians as enemies to the jewish establishment, or the Roman Establishment, or he didn't want christians to be people who spread "gossip"?

More like Luke wrote a partial truth in the NT to protect the honor of the Jewish Establishment, because he didn't want to portray Christians as enemies to the Jewish establishment, who in turn stood for the Roman Establishment. Nothing to do with gossip in this context.

And this all reflects the values of the ancient world, not ours. :smile:

[Matthew]

Hey JP

Well, I have made a decision to end my participation on this thread, for reasons that will become apparent below. In the mean time, here are my closing comments on this thread.

?? -- You don't doubt that honor was of prime importance, but you ALSO don't think that it would've mattered to the Romans? Er -- oh, I see:

Actually I apologize for my statement, it was badly worded. What I meant was that I don't doubt that honor was of prime importance, but I doubt that Jewish attempts at saving honor would've made a impact on the Romans. I get the impression they already considered the Jewish establishment to be quite dishonorable, and I suspect that the oral tradition that was circulating around at the time before becoming specialized in individual gospels in which some of the Jewish establishment and Roman officials would become aware of what happened in the intervening years. To this end, I suspect that the Romans considered the Jews somewhat a dishonorable people for religious and social reasons but would rather keep social order before they finally had it with the Jews and sacked Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

I say, in this society, he would have -- if for no other reason than to justify his own perceptions.

So Theophilus would've cared about the honor of the Jews? Well, I don't know what I can argue beyond my preliminary skepticism. I don't deny this but it seems rather far-fetched to me. In any case, I will eventually discover evidence that will either confirm my suspicion or force me to revise my conclusion. Other than this..you'd have to agree there is not really all that much more to discuss/debate.


It certainly does in honor and shame cultures today. In fact even blatant falsehood was permissible in the right circumstances. Want to see Jerry Falwell burn some more of his own underwear?

I will certainly read that book that you have on your list about honor by De Silva. I still have quite a bit to learn about shame and guilt cultures. There's still Milna and Rohrbaugh to consider for me. As for Fallwell's burning undies-sure! I know, I know, this sounds cruel :rofl: but I think I find the burning of fundies' undies to be more entertaining then gossip or gladiator battles. No offense to the more informed and civilized conservative-leaning Christians on here.

Not for their own sake, but for the sake of keeping it from looking like Christianity is interested in shaming, and therefore at serious odds with, the Jewish establishment.

Well I have to see evidence of this in my readings, and I will happily read any book you suggest on the subject. Until then, I have to say that I am still pretty skeptical. I need to study a lot more detailed evidence to the contrary.

Not enough to get done what Matthew wanted. He's writing to fellow Jews who aren't too happy with the establishment in some cases themselves. He has no reason to be at peace with them (as Luke would need to show) and if anything wants to shame them, esp. since he wants to show how raunchy they are (for his stolen body apologetic). It runs down to, Luke wants to avoid dishonor on the establishment; Matthew wants to cause it.

Well my skepticism here was that the since the Romans considered the Jewish community in general and the establishment in particular, to be dishonorable, I didn't see how it would've mattered to the Romans. My own guess is that instead of discussing this and the two of us discussing or even arguing past each other, I want to study the relevant social evidence and inform myself. Once again, I wasn't pretending to present real evidence to the contrary-only my preliminary skepticism.

Nah. I got it as a joke, but couldn't help myself.


You're rather fond of that, aren't you? :tongue:

If he didn't, he would be seen as being at odds with them and that would displease Rome -- even though Rome disliked them anyway, the establishment did keep the peace and order as they wanted and it served their interests to squelch any dissent.

Well, I have some preliminary skepticism about this, but I would have to read more evidence to the contrary on this point.

True. But the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees were not the political establishment. In contrast compare how many times Matthew names the Sadducees (the establishment) versus Luke (only once, and on an obscure Jewish point of doctrine), and note that Luke "depersonalizes" for example the Saddys who came to John the Baptist. (He depersonalizes the Pharrys, too, of course -- though I see that as being for other reasons.)

The Jewish establishment was only a religious establishment? Well, I have my doubts about this and as I repeatedly emphasize, I have to see more evidence to the contrary of my own opinion.

With this post, I hope to end my own particular participation in this thread. I bought a textbook on Greek grammar today and I have one on order coming in on Thursday so I have to begin my studying. Well, I have had a interesting experience with this exchange. Although I found it tedious and exhaustive at times, I never-the-less appreciate the opportunity for discussion. I realized that although I have some deep skeptical reservations about your comments, I should try to inform myself on issues of shame and guilt; otherwise, you'd have to agree, we will only argue past each other.

In fact, it might be a good idea to end this thread right now. It won't do us any good to keep going past each other like this. SO, this will be my last posting on this thread. To paraphrase Bill O'Reilly "Okay, JP, I'm going to give you the final word on this thread".

Take Care!

Matt

[jpholding]

Yo Matthew,

Well, I have made a decision to end my participation on this thread, for reasons that will become apparent below.

Aw, gee! This thread was just about dead until you came back. :smile:

What I meant was that I don't doubt that honor was of prime importance, but I doubt that Jewish attempts at saving honor would've made a impact on the Romans. I get the impression they already considered the Jewish

OK, well, I think I have already addressed this and much of the rest...I'll therefore mostly pass on your "O'Reilly Offer".

undies-sure! I know, I know, this sounds cruel but I think I find the burning of fundies' undies to be more entertaining then gossip or gladiator battles.

I have my own guilty pleasures in that regard. :smile: You have my reading list otherwise; you may also find interesting an article I posted yesterday comparing Japanese culture to Biblical culture:

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

The Jewish establishment was only a religious establishment?

It was religious AND political. Church and state in this day were more unified, especially in Judaea.

In fact, it might be a good idea to end this thread right now.

Well, we shall see if anyone else participates, but otherwise, take care. :smile:

[Homie]

JP Holding
More like Luke wrote a partial truth in the NT to protect the honor of the Jewish Establishment, because he didn't want to portray Christians as enemies to the Jewish establishment, who in turn stood for the Roman Establishment
So when Luke quoted Peter in Acts it was made up by Luke? :hrm: Peter never said any such thing? The meeting of the early christians where Peter is falsely quoted, did that ever happen? How can we trust any of Luke's writings? :huh:

Also, aren't you the guy from www.tektonics.org? Because according to the "field of blood" article at that site, Luke has the account correct, and Matthew is not describing the event at all but using a topology.

[jpholding]

Yo Homie,

So when Luke quoted Peter in Acts it was made up by Luke?

That part actually was probably not quoting Peter but was the closest thing they had to making a footnote.

The meeting of the early christians where Peter is falsely quoted, did that ever happen? How can we trust any of Luke's writings?

The slippery slope is a fallacy, Homie. :smile: Study in context and your worries disappear.

Also, aren't you the guy from www.tektonics.org? Because according to the "field of blood" article at that site, Luke has the account correct, and Matthew is not describing the event at all but using a topology.

Yep that's me. I still say here Luke has it correct, just not complete, and this discussion has been fruitful in helping me develop the ideas further.

Typology, BTW. Not topology. :smile:

[Homie]

JPHolding
That part actually was probably not quoting Peter but was the closest thing they had to making a footnote.
But, but but but....
Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

The slippery slope is a fallacy, Homie
(Although I have never heard this expression) I think I know what you mean. Why is it a fallacy? If something is just plain wrong in the Bible, or even worse: a plain lie, how are we suppose to know what is God-inspired or not (a lie is not God-inspired).

I still say here Luke has it correct, just not complete
How so? What part of the account is false and what part is true?

Typology, BTW. Not topology.
Thx for the correction:thumb: I am not into the scientific terms, yet.

[jpholding]

Yo Homie,
But, but but but....

Irrespective of 1:15, the statements about Judas in 1:18-9 are regarded universally as a sort of footnote. It does not make sense for Peter to have spoken these words to his audience. They would know these things already.

(Although I have never heard this expression) I think I know what you mean. Why is it a fallacy? If something is just plain wrong in the Bible, or even worse: a plain lie, how are we suppose to know what is God-inspired or not (a lie is not God-inspired).

Put it this way. If you took a cookie from the cookie jar one day, how would you like to be branded a thief for life and put on all kinds of restrictions forever?

How so? What part of the account is false and what part is true?

I have been answering this all through the thread. :smile:

[judge]

I'm weighing in to this way late but might add a few points not mentioned (I don't think).

There are several indications in the NT that Judas was alive after this event.

1.1 corinthians 15:3-5 we are told...
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."

This is after Judas "hangs" himself but befire he is replaced.

2.In Luke 24:33 Jesus appears to the eleven

(33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together )

. But John 20:24
(24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came).

tells us that it is Thomas who is absent. Therefore Judas was presnt at this time.
Therefore when Judas "hung " himself he did not die, he was choked with grief



Here a link to another discussion I had on this.

.http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000032.html

[Robyn Banks]

judge:
I'm weighing in to this way late
9 months late. That's a fantastic effort! :smile:


judge:
There are several indications in the NT that Judas was alive after this event.
No there aren't.



judge:
1.1 corinthians 15:3-5 " ... the Twelve"

... John 20:24 "... one of the Twelve..."
"The Twelve" simply refers to Jesus' Disciples, who had been known as "The Twelve" during his lifetime (there are many references in the Gospels and Acts). When a feature of a thing is used to refer to the whole, this is a particular type of metonymy called "synecdoche". Here, a feature of The Disciples is that there were 12 of them. This has led to "The Twelve" becoming a synonym for "The Disciples [of Jesus]". That The Disciples decreased in number over the years did not prevent them still being referred to by the original synecdoche "The Twelve", despite the problems if read literally.

If you think that Luke's reference to 'eleven' excludes Thomas, then you have to deal with Luke's later reference to 'eleven' in the election of Matthias (Acts 1.26). This clearly refers to the dead Judas who needed to be replaced.


Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Here's an old discussion of the Judas passages, as this is being discussed again. From reading through it again, I was struck how the inerrantists attempted to make piecemeal, ad hoc, and often contradictory 'bites' into the overall (errant)interpretation of the story.

But when the two stories were discussed as a whole, as I did, the proper interpretation was clear. I have seen no inerrantist actually attempt to interpret the two Judas stories as a whole, rather than trying to make a series of tendentious harmonizations. But inerrantists are not interested in the best meaning of the text. Inerrantists are only interested in whatever interpretation supports their case - however implausible it is.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Homie]

Inerrantists are only interested in whatever interpretation supports their case - however implausible it is.
Of course we are, as you are, as anybody with an opinion or a case, we want our case to "win".

And even if it seems like a poor attempt at a harmonization, that is because it is being read in the West, in the 21st century and in English. Maybe what seems like "grasping at straws" is the correct answer sometimes. Logically, I would give the Bible
the benefit of the doubt, and accept the "far out" explanation if there is only the slightest possibility that it is true.

[Nicky]

Good call!

[shunyadragon]

Good call!

This was one of JP's better debates, because it closest to his home court that he knows best.

You realize that Robyn Banks is now banned from Tweb.

[Larry Ancil]

[QUOTE=Homie]Of course we are, as you are, as anybody with an opinion or a case, we want our case to "win".QUOTE]

Hey there folks. Please pardon me for jumping in on a dead thread, but I hadn't read it yet. I'll look around and see if some of the other bits I want to discuss are still active.

Homei, I was a bit surprised at the above quote. Perhaps because it is intended to be a joke and I didn't get it. Are you interested in winning or the truth? I would like to believe we are all interested in the truth, even if it starts with us being wrong. This may all have been understood, but I was disturbed that the thread ended on this note.

[Jeannot]

As long as the thread has been revived, let me say that accuracy in detail is not necessary for the message of the Bible to come through. It seems to me, as to Robyn, that Luke's and Matt's accounts of Judas' death are irreconcilable.

Matt also makes a pretty obvious error in the donkey and colt passage near the begging of Ch 21. (Mark avoids this error)

[Yakkity Yak]

As long as the thread has been revived, let me say that accuracy in detail is not necessary for the message of the Bible to come through. It seems to me, as to Robyn, that Luke's and Matt's accounts of Judas' death are irreconcilable.

Matt also makes a pretty obvious error in the donkey and colt passage near the begging of Ch 21. (Mark avoids this error)

Wrong on both accounts! First Judas who died once!

Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 cannot be accepted as legitimately contradicting each other if it is possible for both to be true—and it certainly is scientifically and logistically possible for both incidents to have occurred. Consider a brawl in which two men are fighting to the death. The larger man strikes the undersized man in the throat, crushing his larynx. For nearly 60 seconds, the wounded man stumbles around trying to breathe, but to no avail. He then goes limp, falls to the ground, and strikes his head on the cement, having died from asphyxia. When the police come to the scene and ask witnesses what happened, one person will likely declare, “James struck John and killed him.” Another person may say, “John suffocated,” while another might add, “Falling headfirst, John busted his skull on the ground, causing part of his brain to ooze out onto the concrete.” Are the witnesses’ statements contradictory? No. They are supplementary. Likewise, neither of the statements concerning the death of Judas is contradictory. Simply put, one does not exclude the other.

According to ancient tradition, Judas hanged himself above the Valley of Hinnom on the edge of a cliff. Eventually the rope snapped (or was cut or untied), thus causing his body to fall headfirst into the field below, as Luke described. Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. In short, Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result.

Link: Did Judas Die Twice?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min. (www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2846)

[John Powell]

Wrong on both accounts! First Judas who died once!


POWELL:
So, Yakkity Yak, did Judas die from the loss of oxygen (hanging) or from the exploding?

Did his body fall feet first or did he fall head first?

Did Judas (he) buy the field where he later exploded or did the priests (they) buy a field with the discarded money?

Was the field named the field of blood because Judas' blood was spilt there or because it was bought with blood money (Jesus's blood)?

Eric Lyons:
Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 cannot be accepted as legitimately contradicting each other if it is possible for both to be true—and it certainly is scientifically and logistically possible for both incidents to have occurred.


POWELL:
With such a definition of contradiction, Mormons can harmonize problems in the Book of Mormon as well as Christians can harmonize problems in the Bible.

It's clear to me that both "Matthew" and "Luke" were intending to tell their readers how Judas died.

Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Judas died by hanging and the blood money was used by some people to buy the Potter's field to fulfill a scripture in the Old Testament about 30 pieces of silver being used to buy a Potter's field and a tradition that a field was called the field of blood.

Luke meant for his readers to understand that Judas died by buying a field so that he would own it and then dwell in it in some way. Luke meant for his readers to understand that Judas fell headlong (presumably by tripping) and burst on impact to fulfill a different scripture that he had found in the Old Testament.

It appears that both Matthew and Luke thought that Mark's narrative needed to tell how Judas died and they both knew of a tradition that there was a field associated with the betrayal named the field of blood so they looked in the Old Testament until they found something they thought gave the answer. Unfortunately for Christians, they came up with different scriptures and, so, different answers.

John Powell

[Yakkity Yak]

POWELL:
So, Yakkity Yak, did Judas die from the loss of oxygen (hanging) or from the exploding?

Did his body fall feet first or did he fall head first?

Did Judas (he) buy the field where he later exploded or did the priests (they) buy a field with the discarded money?

Was the field named the field of blood because Judas' blood was spilt there or because it was bought with blood money (Jesus's blood)?



POWELL:
With such a definition of contradiction, Mormons can harmonize problems in the Book of Mormon as well as Christians can harmonize problems in the Bible.

It's clear to me that both "Matthew" and "Luke" were intending to tell their readers how Judas died.

Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Judas died by hanging and the blood money was used by some people to buy the Potter's field to fulfill a scripture in the Old Testament about 30 pieces of silver being used to buy a Potter's field and a tradition that a field was called the field of blood.

Luke meant for his readers to understand that Judas died by buying a field so that he would own it and then dwell in it in some way. Luke meant for his readers to understand that Judas fell headlong (presumably by tripping) and burst on impact to fulfill a different scripture that he had found in the Old Testament.

It appears that both Matthew and Luke thought that Mark's narrative needed to tell how Judas died and they both knew of a tradition that there was a field associated with the betrayal named the field of blood so they looked in the Old Testament until they found something they thought gave the answer. Unfortunately for Christians, they came up with different scriptures and, so, different answers.

John Powell


Are you still lost, or just a wise cracker?

[John Powell]

Are you still lost, or just a wise cracker?

POWELL:
Neither. You posted something that attempted to harmonize the two accounts but focused only on the matter of whether Judas was hanged or whether Judas burst on impact. Did your source also answer my questions? If "yes" then please post the answers. If "no" then will you try to harmonize things?

John Powell

[kerryliz]

I think Judas suffered from a violent psychosomatic reaction involved a lot of movement INSIDE his body in his gut region, but doesn't appear to have actually died from it.

The word translated “hanged himself” (and it’s the only place in the Bible where it appears) is “apagchomai”, made up of “apo” and “agcho”, which is akin to “agkos” (a bend or ache) which is the base of “agkale” (the curve or inner angle of the arm, the bent arm, anything closely enfolding, as the arms of the sea). In 2 Peter 2:18, the “swelling” words are “huperogkos”, made up of “huper” and “ogkos”, probably from the same as “agkale”, which was “agkos (a bend or ache)”, remember?
Combined with the Acts account which describes “bursting forth in the midst”, it seems that Judas suffered a diarrhoeic episode. “Burst” can also mean “crash or crack”. What happened to Judas’ intestines is the same word as is used to describe what happens when you put new wine in old wineskins.

The body fluid analysis of the meaning of Luke's and Matthew's words (rather than a rope-use issue) is important because it runs alongside the argument that the Bible was originally a "quiet" little book explaining various happenings in people's everyday lives and how God's power helped them to overcome such everyday events as run-ins with mental illness. As the apostle Paul pointed out in 1 Cor 8, in the effort to avoid idolatry, some Christians have become superstitious by seeing idols everywhere.

For example, I don't think Jonah was swallowed by a big fish. It seems a typical story of a shaman's journey to the "centre of the earth" and then being chased around by animals, only to re-emerge from the mystic experience due to the efforts of others outside the consciousless state. Joshua didn't make the sun stand still. Superstition means "over standing". Pagan tribes have been ruled by ideas such as that their science is significantly different from the next tribe's over, and the only reason they can see the sun is because their leaders let them when they're behaving themselves. The Mafia still operates this way. The sun has always been a symbol of mythological power. The ancient Greeks believed that light came out of their eyes, the planets revolved around the earth and the sun was whatever the mythmakers said it was. It probably came as a rude shock to the army Joshua was fighting that he, too, could see the sun! Pagans tend to have a way of dismissing everybody else's intelligence and being very surprised that, as Nietzsche said, there is such a thing as taking an outsider's look at a culture. Meanwhile, from within the culture, its mythology is of ineffable import. Perhaps Joshua's even saying the word "sun" was enough to alarm them???

The nature of mythology is that it fills the gap when words fail. Therefore, body fluids crop up repeatedly in the world's mythologies as a communicative device. Mythology addresses practical concerns. It has been said that it began when homo sapiens became homo necans, man the killer. When people have murder on their conscience, their health suffers, and their autonomic functions decline. Mythology retells the archetypal stories so as to make ill health a glamourous indication of having "been there, done that, worn the battle wounds". It co-opts the natural world's phenomena for the purpose of 'signalling' the intention to communicate - flowers, animals, numbers etc.

In contrast, the apostle Paul said in 1 Cor 11:30 that church members were making themselves weak and sick. In fact, in my Bible (NIV), he positively equates the problem with their attitude to the Lord's Supper when he says: "That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number among you have fallen asleep."

Mythology is neither true nor false; it is a public liturgy that is effective inasmuch as people think it is. Semen represents ashes in Hinduism. Jerry Lembke, of the Holy Cross College called "the image of spat-upon Vietnam veterans a myth". John Miletus of the Laiko General Hospital in Athens says: "All ancient people or nations of the East (Phoenicians, Persians, etc) as well as the Egyptians and Hebrews hinged their beliefs about haema (blood) on their religious dogmas to such a degree that they could be seen as directly related to mythology or the origins of religion". Georgios H. Vatistas of Concordia University in Canada comments on: "oceanic whirlpools in the epic poem of Odyssey and in the short story A Descent into a Maelström.”
In Hare Krishna, the story of liquid beauty involves a girl rejecting her suitor by purging herself for a week, storing all her vomit and diarrhoea in pots and showing the pots and her emaciated body to her potential suitor. He gets the message, even without a word. This is the point of mythology.

I will now address the thought of parsimony and the point that “Judas had sticky fingers and wasn't really interested in helping the poor”. Is there such a thing as a person who sees themselves as uncharitable? I tend to think that all misbehaviour in the world is anti-cultural. Then you get to the point of – what is culture? To a totalitarian, free speech is not culture. To a Christian, it is. Mythology glamourises the idea that the “spiritual truth” is just so grand that it can’t be said. Goodness knows how Judas explained his own toileting mishap. It possibly became the cornerstone of his story-telling for the rest of his life (I’m being facetious here) but was reworded to sound something more like the whirlpool of Odyssey or the narrative of the movie “Big Fish”. I really think the Bible writers had a sense of humour about reporting this one. They did know him personally, after all, or at least Matthew did. I really think sometimes that the Bible has been translated into English by people who think a sense of humour is sacrilegious.

Now to parsimony:
Parsimony comes from “parcere” meaning “to spare”. It is noteworthy that parsimony is involved in scientific theory and penal theory. Jeremy Bentham's "parsimony principle" states that any punishment greater than is required to achieve its end is unjust. The concept is related but not identical to the legal concept of proportionality. I believe that this approach is pagan. The essence of paganism, whether urban or rural, is parochialism. Justice is by means of measurement only, hence our “scales of justice”. In the Greek idea of the music of the spheres, the only calculation to be made in leading a balanced life was apportioning one’s time and energy between the different spheres in a harmonious way. In modern parlance, this means juggling all of the balls in the air. However, Jesus said to keep your eye simple and your whole body will be bright. God’s justice is concerned with growth. Isaiah 54:2 says: “Enlarge the place of your tent; Stretch out the curtains of your dwellings, spare not; Lengthen your cords And strengthen your pegs.” The senses have historically been treated as inferior for the purpose of scientific study and even immoral, depending on how much they are experienced (compare Col 2:20-23). However, with Newtonian physics in our scientific legacy these days, the English dictionary says that “sense” is the direction of a vector, mathematically speaking. The prodigal son came to his senses and decided to go back and tell his father he had sinned. At the end of the day, however, as the apostle Paul says: “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith”.

Parsimony is also part of the name of the computer program that runs evolutionary cladistic analyses: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. Apparently, “PAUP requires aligned sequences, all with the same number of bases. SeqApp will not create a file from sequences that differ in length.” This actually ran through my head when I was looking at the accounts of Judas’ activities in his field – were the accounts of roughly similar detail? The representativeness heuristic is a cognitive bias (if I was going to analyse each text in comparison with the other) where we assume commonality between objects of similar appearance. According to what I’ve read, cladistics requires three or more monophyletic groups. According to Wikipedia, “Under maximum parsimony, the preferred phylogenetic tree is the tree that requires the least number of evolutionary changes.”

It seems to me that human society alienated from God fears change. When something works, it wants to keep it that way. The behaviour of those who are condemned is so predictable (2 Pet 2:13) because they ritualize those subjects that would otherwise be spiritually confronting for them. They carouse or riot (truphe) in the daylight. Isaiah 44:16 shows how idol-worshipers perceive warmth. They tell themselves it’s only there because they can see the source of it! A comparable scripture for the behavior of those who are carousing is in Luke 7:25: “But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury (truphe) are in kings' courts.” Jesus was comparing what people were looking for with what they found in John the Baptiser. Perhaps Judas was the more popular apostle with some parts of the population and it went to his head. 2 Peter possibly gives the motivation for Judas’ behaviour in verse 18: “For when they speak great swelling (huperogkos) words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error.”

Huperogkos again seems to be related to the word translated “hanged himself”
Huper + ogkos. Ogkos is probably from the same root as agkale, which meant: “the curve or inner angle of the arm, the bent arm, anything closely enfolding, as the arms of the sea, etc.” It comes from agkos: “a bend, ache”.

The difference between the words huperogkos, translated “swelling”, and apagchomai, translated “hanged himself”, is that huper means “in behalf of, for the sake of” and apo means “of separation”. If one speaks “for the sake of” fellow believers so as to enfold them in the arms of the sea, does it lead to bending, aching and separating as if in the arms of the sea?

[John Powell]

KERRYLIZ:
I think Judas suffered from a violent psychosomatic reaction involved a lot of movement INSIDE his body in his gut region, but doesn't appear to have actually died from it.


POWELL:
Welcome to TWEB, KerryLiz! :cheers:

I think "Mark" made up Judas, the betrayer, after reading Paul speak of Jesus being delivered up (1 Cor 11:23), either not realizing or not caring that Paul meant that Jesus was delivered up by God (Rom 8:32). I think "Matthew" and "Luke" felt inspired to produce different endings for Mark's betrayer character based on different O.T. passages they took a fancy to because "Mark" had not provided an ending for the betrayer.

You seem to favor a mythological interpretation of some of the Bible such as Jonah in the sea animal. I think that's the right idea. I suggest you apply the same kind of reasoning to the betrayer called Judas Iscariot.

John Powell

[Doubting John]

POWELL:
Welcome to TWEB, KerryLiz! :cheers:

I think "Mark" made up Judas, the betrayer, after reading Paul speak of Jesus being delivered up (1 Cor 11:23), either not realizing or not caring that Paul meant that Jesus was delivered up by God (Rom 8:32).

John Powell

Really? Mark knew of and also read the letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians?

Hmmm.

How long would it take for a letter of Paul's to get around the world to Mark?

This, my friend, seems far fetched.

Judas may indeed be a literary invention, as you say, but there's no need to add more complicity to it by also having to defend that Mark had read a letter by Paul to the Corinthians to base such a thing on.

[kerryliz]

I am not saying that the Bible is mythological. I totally don't agree with cladistics, which I believe is just another word for superstition. I am saying that the original text was dealing with everyday concerns that REAL PEOPLE had - such as ill health and mental health concerns. The English language retelling seems much different in every respect to the original Hebrew and Greek. One can almost imagine the secret societies planning the details of their next ritual with some of the ostentatious renderings that are found in the English language version.

[John Powell]

DOUBTING JOHN:
Really? Mark knew of and also read the letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians?

Hmmm.

How long would it take for a letter of Paul's to get around the world to Mark?


POWELL:
Years. "Mark" didn't live in the Americas.

DOUBTING JOHN:
This, my friend, seems far fetched.


POWELL:
Do you really think so, but then you think "Matthew" and "Luke" read Mark before producing their stories?

DOUBTING JOHN:
Judas may indeed be a literary invention, as you say, but there's no need to add more complicity to it by also having to defend that Mark had read a letter by Paul to the Corinthians to base such a thing on.


POWELL:
It's not necessary, but it's currently what I think probably happened.

John Powell

[John Powell]

KERRYLIZ:
I am not saying that the Bible is mythological.


POWELL:
Do you believe that Jonah getting swallowed by the sea animal was mythological?

John Powell

[Doubting John]

POWELL:
Years. "Mark" didn't live in the Americas.
POWELL:
Do you really think so, but then you think "Matthew" and "Luke" read Mark before producing their stories?
POWELL:
It's not necessary, but it's currently what I think probably happened.
John Powell

Do we really stop to think how letters like Paul's got around?

A church received it, read it, preached from it, correct?

Then copies were hand made, by copyists, and taken to other churches, who did likewise.

But not everyone in the Corinthian church thought Paul was even an Apostle, so there would be disputes about preaching from his letter, and whether it was worthy to copy.

Anyway, you'd have to know the date of Paul's letter and the date of Mark's gospel, where they were written from, and how long is a reasonable time for Paul's letter to reach Mark.

Maybe it did happen as you say.

But it's hard to believe it was "probable" that it did. There were early disputes in the early church between Peter and Paul, and it was said in the early church that Mark's gospel was based upon Peter's preaching.

Mark was a creative genius in his own right. He didn't need a suggestion from Paul to conjecture on his own, anyway.

[John Powell]

DOUBTING JOHN:
Do we really stop to think how letters like Paul's got around?

A church received it, read it, preached from it, correct?


POWELL:
I suppose something like that.

DOUBTING JOHN:
Then copies were hand made, by copyists, and taken to other churches, who did likewise.

But not everyone in the Corinthian church thought Paul was even an Apostle, so there would be disputes about preaching from his letter, and whether it was worthy to copy.

Anyway, you'd have to know the date of Paul's letter and the date of Mark's gospel, where they were written from, and how long is a reasonable time for Paul's letter to reach Mark.


POWELL:
Well, probably Paul's authentic letters were pre 70 A.D. and Mark's Gospel was post 70 A.D.

DOUBTING JOHN:
Maybe it did happen as you say.

But it's hard to believe it was "probable" that it did. There were early disputes in the early church between Peter and Paul, and it was said in the early church that Mark's gospel was based upon Peter's preaching.

Mark was a creative genius in his own right. He didn't need a suggestion from Paul to conjecture on his own, anyway.


POWELL:
I agree that Mark was a creative genius and didn't need a suggestion from Paul to conjecture on his own, but I think he was influenced more by Paul than you think he was.

John Powell

[Doubting John]

POWELL:
Well, probably Paul's authentic letters were pre 70 A.D. and Mark's Gospel was post 70 A.D.

I suppose something like that.

POWELL:
I agree that Mark was a creative genius and didn't need a suggestion from Paul to conjecture on his own, but I think he was influenced more by Paul than you think he was.

All I'm saying is that you are conjecturing and then claiming that a conjecture is probable.

The word "maybe," does not have the same force as the word "probable."

You should try to limit yourself to what is probable, that's all, if you use the word probable.

Of course, since you think it is probable, then you have the right to use that word.

I'll just say that it may have happened that way, that's all.

I think saying it this way is more accurate, and less likely to be wrong.

[John Powell]

DOUBTING JOHN:
All I'm saying is that you are conjecturing and then claiming that a conjecture is probable.

The word "maybe," does not have the same force as the word "probable."

You should try to limit yourself to what is probable, that's all, if you use the word probable.

Of course, since you think it is probable, then you have the right to use that word.

I'll just say that it may have happened that way, that's all.

I think saying it this way is more accurate, and less likely to be wrong.


POWELL:
Where do you think "plausible" goes in relation to words like "maybe" and "probable"?

John Powell

[Doubting John]

POWELL:
Where do you think "plausible" goes in relation to words like "maybe" and "probable"?

John Powell

I like Dr. Weisberger's distinctions between the words here:

http://adebateontheproblemofevil.blogspot.com/2007/03/weisberger-evaluates-loftus-wood-debate.html

[John Powell]

I like Dr. Weisberger's distinctions between the words here:

http://adebateontheproblemofevil.blogspot.com/2007/03/weisberger-evaluates-loftus-wood-debate.html

POWELL:
That's what I figured. About that, I disagree with you and Weisberger and I agree with Wood.

Consider the following requests:

1. List the explanation(s) that is/are certainly correct.

2. List the explanation(s) that is/are probably correct.

3. List the explanation(s) that is/are plausibly correct.

4. List the explanation(s) that is/are possibly correct.

For a specific judge dealing with a typical situation, item 1 has no correct answer, item 2 has at most one answer, item 3 has many correct answers, while item 4 has an essentially limitless number of answers.

Consider the example of "What's the explanation for the empty tomb?"

There is no explanation that is certainly correct (#1) or else there would be no debate on the matter.

The explanation, if any, that is judged to be probably correct (#2) depends on the particular judge. Each judge will have at most one answer. Christians will have something like "Jesus resurrected" as the answer and all the non-Christians will have something else or merely withhold judgment. As a Jesus-myther, my "most probable" explanation is that the story of the crucifixion and so on was fictional so there was no real tomb.

What about the plausible explanations (#3)? Those are the explanations that skeptics seriously suggest to counter the "Jesus resurrected" explanation regardless whether they think any particular explanation is the most probable. I'm talking about the swoon theory and the body-stealing theory and the twin theory and so on.

What about the merely possible explanations (#4)? People don't bother much with those since the number is huge and not worthy of serious consideration. An example would be: Superman took the body of Jesus to Lex Luthor.

So, it appears to me that you foolishly accepted a debate proposal with Wood, "The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God implausible," that put needlessly extra burden on yourself. Instead of "implausible" you should have argued for "improbable." Then both sides would have had about equal burden. You would have had the burden to show that the extent of suffering tipped the God question to "probably no God" while he would have had the burden to show that it didn't do that. On the contrary despite the extent of suffering, the God question either was balanced on the 50-50 line or tipped to "probably yes God."

Given the topic you agreed to debate, even without reading the debate, I don't hold out much hope for your success. I'm not pleased about that.

John Powell

Charlie Brown: Victory was within our grasp.
Linus: And then the game started.

[Doubting John]

POWELL:
That's what I figured. About that, I disagree with you and Weisberger and I agree with Wood.

Consider the following requests:

1. List the explanation(s) that is/are certainly correct.

2. List the explanation(s) that is/are probably correct.

3. List the explanation(s) that is/are plausibly correct.

4. List the explanation(s) that is/are possibly correct.

For a specific judge dealing with a typical situation, item 1 has no correct answer, item 2 has at most one answer, item 3 has many correct answers, while item 4 has an essentially limitless number of answers.

Consider the example of "What's the explanation for the empty tomb?"

There is no explanation that is certainly correct (#1) or else there would be no debate on the matter.

The explanation, if any, that is judged to be probably correct (#2) depends on the particular judge. Each judge will have at most one answer. Christians will have something like "Jesus resurrected" as the answer and all the non-Christians will have something else or merely withhold judgment. As a Jesus-myther, my "most probable" explanation is that the story of the crucifixion and so on was fictional so there was no real tomb.

What about the plausible explanations (#3)? Those are the explanations that skeptics seriously suggest to counter the "Jesus resurrected" explanation regardless whether they think any particular explanation is the most probable. I'm talking about the swoon theory and the body-stealing theory and the twin theory and so on.

What about the merely possible explanations (#4)? People don't bother much with those since the number is huge and not worthy of serious consideration. An example would be: Superman took the body of Jesus to Lex Luthor.

So, it appears to me that you foolishly accepted a debate proposal with Wood, "The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God implausible," that put needlessly extra burden on yourself. Instead of "implausible" you should have argued for "improbable." Then both sides would have had about equal burden. You would have had the burden to show that the extent of suffering tipped the God question to "probably no God" while he would have had the burden to show that it didn't do that. On the contrary despite the extent of suffering, the God question either was balanced on the 50-50 line or tipped to "probably yes God."

Given the topic you agreed to debate, even without reading the debate, I don't hold out much hope for your success. I'm not pleased about that.

John Powell

Charlie Brown: Victory was within our grasp.
Linus: And then the game started.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=93704

[SaintGeorge]

The correct solution to the discrepancy between these two texts is quite simple. First, the passage from Acts does indeed affirm that Judas hanged himself, in very many early manuscripts.

"Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 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. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood" (Act 1:16-19 DRB).

Hence, there is no disagreement concerning the manner of death. It is probable that "headlong" is a later scribal corruption. Indeed, it is known that St. Jerome, who had access to manuscripts far older than our own, affirmed that the earliest texts of St. Luke's Gospel affirm death by hanging.

Regarding the field, it can be justly attributed to Judas, as it was purchased by his money. Concerning how the field acquired the curious name of "Field of Blood," it is clear from the context that St. Luke is arguing that the name resulted from all the events as a whole. In other words, the field was known as the "Field of Blood" because it was purchased with blood money AND Judas met his demise there.

There is a strange irony present. The man who betrayed the blood of Christ, died in his own blood. Instead of being bathed with the blood of the Innocent Sacrifice, and thus purified of sin, Judas wallowed in the blood of the guilty, and thus merited condemnation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08539a.htm

[John Powell]

The correct solution to the discrepancy between these two texts is quite simple. First, the passage from Acts does indeed affirm that Judas hanged himself, in very many early manuscripts.

"Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 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. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood" (Act 1:16-19 DRB).


POWELL:
So the Douay-Rheims Bible has Judas "being hanged" rather than "falling headlong." That's interesting. Let's look into that some more.

I'm no expert in Latin, but apparently that is what the Vulgate means.


18 And this man certainly possessed an estate from the wages of iniquity, and so, having been hanged, he burst open in the middle and all his internal organs poured out.

http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm
http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/NT-05_Acts.htm#1


POWELL:
Since there's no indication that his bursting was due to falling, rather it occurred while hanging, that would suggest he bloated so much after dying that he burst.

SaintGeorge:
Hence, there is no disagreement concerning the manner of death. It is probable that "headlong" is a later scribal corruption.


POWELL:
Modern scholars, Catholic as well as nonCatholic, don't seem to agree with you. For the conclusions of nonCatholic scholars you can check the various nonCatholic Bibles which don't have "hanged" in Acts 1:18. Let's see what modern Catholic scholars think.

Preface to the New American Bible:
. . .
The first English Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims (1582-1609/10), and its revision by Bishop Challoner (1750) were based on the Latin Vulgate. In view of the relative certainties more recently attained by textual and higher criticism, it has become increasingly desirable that contemporary translations of the sacred books into English be prepared in which due reverence for the text and strict observance of the rules of criticism would be combined.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1.HTM


POWELL:
Now let's see how the Catholic scholars translated Acts 1:18.


18 He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. 7

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXV.HTM

7 [18] Luke records a popular tradition about the death of Judas that differs from the one in ⇒ Matthew 27:5, according to which Judas hanged himself. Here, although the text is not certain, Judas is depicted as purchasing a piece of property with the betrayal money and being killed on it in a fall.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXV.HTM#$3ZS


POWELL:
So tell me, SaintGeorge, given what you claim, why did Catholic translators of the New American Bible reject the Vulgate translation that had Acts referring to Judas getting hanged, rather the scholars fell in line with other translations in which Acts has Judas falling headlong?

SaintGeorge:
Indeed, it is known that St. Jerome, who had access to manuscripts far older than our own, affirmed that the earliest texts of St. Luke's Gospel affirm death by hanging.


POWELL:
Oh really? That's even more interesting. Please quote where St. Jerome affirmed that the earliest texts of ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL affirm that Judas died by hanging. Probably you mean Acts. Anyway, why don't modern Catholic scholars believe that's what Acts said? They don't trust the say-so of St. Jerome on that issue?

How likely do you think it is that St. Jerome would take Greek words in Acts meaning something like "falling headlong" and translate them into Latin meaning something like "being hanged" because he wanted to harmonize the two endings for Judas?

SaintGeorge:
Regarding the field, it can be justly attributed to Judas, as it was purchased by his money.


POWELL:
The important issues here are 1) who possessed the field and 2) for what purpose and 3) with what money. Matthew has the temple authorities possessing the potter's field to bury strangers in with money that had once been Judas' for betraying Jesus. Acts has Judas already possessing the estate before dying, purchased with money he had aquired sinfully, purchased for his own purpose, presumably to build a home.

SaintGeorge:
Concerning how the field acquired the curious name of "Field of Blood," it is clear from the context that St. Luke is arguing that the name resulted from all the events as a whole.


POWELL:
That's not at all clear. What is indicated in Acts is that the field was so called because the blood of Judas was spilt there. That's why Acts points out that his innards came out. On the other hand, what is indicated in Matthew is that it was so called because it was bought with blood money. That's why Matthew points out that it was the betrayal money that the priests used to buy the field.

There's nothing about the blood of Judas in Matthew because that wasn't relevant to the name according to Matthew.

Most people reading "reward of iniquity" in Acts see that as referring specifically to the betrayal money, but it's looking to me like the writer very well may have been referring to a history of sinful gain, such as embezzlement. It's not clear, but the writer of Acts may have had in mind a LARGE field, something you could build a home on and maybe even more, which would require lots of money, while Matthew may have had in mind a small field, something you could bury a few people in, and requiring less money.

SaintGeorge:
In other words, the field was known as the "Field of Blood" because it was purchased with blood money AND Judas met his demise there.


POWELL:
Usually things are named like that for ONE reason. If there were two reasons, that would be notable, so much so that a good writer would clarify that to the reader. On the contrary, each writer indicates the ONE reason they had for the field being so called. Matthew because it was purchased with blood money and Acts because the blood of Judas was spilt there.

SaintGeorge:
There is a strange irony present. The man who betrayed the blood of Christ, died in his own blood. Instead of being bathed with the blood of the Innocent Sacrifice, and thus purified of sin, Judas wallowed in the blood of the guilty, and thus merited condemnation.


POWELL:
Yes. Poetic justice. It's a good story created by a talented writer.

John Powell

[SaintGeorge]

The Catholic scholars who translated the NAB aren't Catholic. Most of them reject even the Virgin Birth of Christ. Continue reading the footnotes and commentaries, and it will become plain to you that they're hardly Christian.

Fortunately, the New American Bible isn't the official translation for us, and it was done during the 1970s, which was a time of great upheavel. Also, keep in mind that the Vulgate is indeed our official translation, and in 2002 a decree was issued called "Liturgian Authenticum." It clearly states that all future translations must follow the Vulgate when textual variants arise.

Many scholars reject the NAB simply because it's a poor translation, which it is. It also rejects Biblical inerrancy. There's been a huge errancy movement here in the United States, and the Church is just now recovering. We're still fighting the spectres of modernism and liberalism.

It is my understanding that the Protestants are fighting these things as well.

In regard to St. Jerome affirming that rendering in Acts, that's what he put in his translation, and he did indeed have access to very many early manuscripts.

[spirit5er]

Yo! :)

But it begs the question that the Virgin Birth narrative in Matthew is historically valid. That's another question

Um, well, not to be disagreeable, but when it comes to historical study, it seems to me that "question begging" is just an inevitable corollary. I mean, I could say, "David Ulansey begs the question of the validity of the records he uses to determine the origins of Mithraism." It's always a matter of "one hypothetical against another" in this arena -- just a matter of whose hypothetical can beat up who else's hypothetical. :rofl: Hey, ever seen the bumper sticker that says, "My child is an honor student at the local correctional facility"?

Two early and critical pillars of Christianity, Mark and Paul, don't mention the virgin birth. Makes us wonder why today's inerrantists consider it essential doctrine. If Mark is the earliest gospel, the omission is all the more striking, and conforms to standard expectations proven correct always in the past. That is to say, that the original story is less fantastic than the final product that emerges some years later, otherwise known as embellishment.

[spirit5er]

I find it curious that nobody in this debate has mentioned the non-canonical tradition Papias relates of Judas' death:

From Papias himself:

“Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.” (ECF, “Fragments of the Lost Writings of Papias“, section 3)

Apollinaris, another early 2nd century Christian, flatly contradicts the written gospel of Matthew, referring to the hanging of Judas in the negative. As quoted by Papias:

“Judas did not die by the halter (hanging), but, after being taken down, lived on before choking to death. The Acts of the Apostles makes this plain: After he had fallen head foremost, his belly), burst open and his bowels gushed out. Papias, John's disciple, relates this incident more clearly in the fourth book of his Exegesis of the Lord's Gospel. (Apollinaris in "Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, Vol 6; The Didache, Barnabas, Polycarp, Papias, Diognetus - ed. James A. Kleist. Publisher "The Newman Press", page 43)

Whether you accept Irenaeus' view that Papias knew John personally, or Eusebius's view that Papias was one generation removed from him, it's still a very early oral tradition that disagrees with the written gospels. Telling us quite a bit about the reliability of oral traditions.

Beyond the obvious direct hit to Christian apologetics (which says the oral traditions behind the written accounts were assuredly reliable !?), there is also the possibility that Judas died by being crushed under a chariot, and the written gospel traditions are fabrications. Either way, somebody in early Christianity wasn't telling the truth, and this fact will hurt anybody who goes around saying we can confidently determine what ancient Christian information is correct and which isn't. Good luck!

Have a look at Acts 21 if you aren't quite convinced that tens of thousands of first-century Jewish Christians could and did hold firmly to false reports about their own contemporaries. Then ask yourself where Christians today get their high confidence that everything biblical is assuredly how it "really happened".

[John Powell]

The Catholic scholars who translated the NAB aren't Catholic.


POWELL:
That's self contradictory.

The url and what little I read in the preface suggests they're Catholic.

SaintGeorge:
Most of them reject even the Virgin Birth of Christ. Continue reading the footnotes and commentaries, and it will become plain to you that they're hardly Christian.


POWELL:
So, they're not your kind of Christian. They're more liberal. More educated.

SaintGeorge:
Fortunately, the New American Bible isn't the official translation for us, and it was done during the 1970s, which was a time of great upheavel.


POWELL:
Ok.

Then what is the official English translation for Catholics?

SaintGeorge:
Also, keep in mind that the Vulgate is indeed our official translation, . . .


POWELL:
Then what is the official English translation of the New Testament for Catholics?

SaintGeorge:
. . . and in 2002 a decree was issued called "Liturgian Authenticum." It clearly states that all future translations must follow the Vulgate when textual variants arise.


POWELL:
Curious. Please quote the 2002 decree.

That gives me the opportunity to engage you in a problem passage that the Vulgate has that other Bibles avoid. It concerns Job 38:32.

Job 38 (Vulgate)
32. numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis

http://vulgate.org/ot/job_38.htm

Job 38 (vulgate.org English):
32. Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth?


POWELL:
The problem is that until it was discovered that the morning star and the evening star were the same planet, everyone (including the Jews) thought they were different planets. They had different names and were associated with different gods. Eosphoros (Latin Luciferus) was the morning star while Hesperos (Latin Vesperus) was the evening star.

Can you imagine the embarrassment of a Jewish scribe aware that they weren't different stars reading Job 38:32 in the Hebrew he was supposed to copy? Can you imagine the pressure on him to change the text so it wouldn't expose the word of God as being mistaken about that?

It is partly because the Vulgate preserves this ancient (mistaken) astronomy that I'm inclined to believe that St. Jerome had access to a Hebrew Bible older than the official Masoretic text that other Bibles rely on. On the other hand, what does this say about St. Jerome? Was he astronomically ignorant or was he dedicated to preserving whatever the manuscripts said regardless of the embarrassment?

SaintGeorge:
Many scholars reject the NAB simply because it's a poor translation, which it is.


POWELL:
I hadn't used it before now, so perhaps you're right. It seemed an adequate translation for the passage under issue.

SaintGeorge:
It also rejects Biblical inerrancy.


POWELL:
Oh then its reliability just rose in my estimation. That suggests that when they read passages in Hebrew or Greek or Latin that seem to contradict they won't automatically choose English language that minimizes the problem.

SaintGeorge:
There's been a huge errancy movement here in the United States, and the Church is just now recovering. We're still fighting the spectres of modernism and liberalism.


POWELL:
Being as big as it is, the Catholic church doesn't seem to be as bothered as smaller churches by such issues.

For example, the Jews were very angry at Mormons for baptizing their dead ancestors while the Catholics didn't seem to care much even when Mormons married long dead priests and nuns.

SaintGeorge:
It is my understanding that the Protestants are fighting these things as well.


POWELL:
Conservative Protestants are. The liberal Protestants and liberal Catholics are, understandably, promoting Christian liberalism.

SaintGeorge:
In regard to St. Jerome affirming that rendering in Acts, that's what he put in his translation, and he did indeed have access to very many early manuscripts.


POWELL:
Yes, but other than that's what's in the Vulgate did St. Jerome make any specific claim that the earliest Greek copies of Acts which he had access to claimed that Judas had died from hanging? If no, then for all you know St. Jerome changed Acts 1:18 like the unnamed Jewish scribe changed Job 38:32.

John Powell