Matthew 27 NIV
The chief priests schemed to arrest Jesus and kill him. Judas Iscariot went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed.
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Acts 1:15-18
With the “blood money” he received for his betrayal, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
The two accounts above contradict each other in a couple of ways.
1. Matthew says Judas died by hanging, while Acts says Judas died in a fall.
2. Matthew says Judas gave the blood money back, while Acts says he spent it.
These two contradictions show that the Bible falsely teaches in some places, contrary to what is claimed in 2 Timothy 3:16:
“All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching.”
Judas Contradictions
Moderator: Moderators
-
TRANSPONDER
- Savant
- Posts: 8463
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 986 times
- Been thanked: 3656 times
Re: Judas Contradictions
Post #51[Replying to Falling Light 101 in post #49]
I'm not following you. You appear to just post the two accounts and assume that explains the contradictions. These are clear enough that it doesn't matter which translation is used or which Dogma one holds to - it makes no difference.
Judas betrayed Jesus for money mere days before the last supper
The arrest happens before Judas really had time to buy any fields. He still had the money on him He threw the money back at the priests who would in fact be in the Temple if the Praetorium was actually the Antonia fortress.
So Matthew's hanging and the Sanhedrin buying a field for burial works, but Acts really doesn't. Judas buying the field makes no sense, nor the falling headlong, though I get the feeling that Like knew of another event involving bloodsed that he wants to disguise somewhat.
No I think that Acts just runs on conveniently from Luke with Judas explained away, replaced by election (so which of them would be judging Gentiles, sitting on the 12th throne, Judas or Mathias?) and, after getting his pentecostal upgrade to Jesuslike leperhealing sainthood, Peter teaches the primary and most important lesson of the Church: give it all your money and keep not a widows' mite for yourself, if you don;t want to end up like Ananias, Dead, together with his wife and his alsatian dog.
I'm not following you. You appear to just post the two accounts and assume that explains the contradictions. These are clear enough that it doesn't matter which translation is used or which Dogma one holds to - it makes no difference.
Judas betrayed Jesus for money mere days before the last supper
The arrest happens before Judas really had time to buy any fields. He still had the money on him He threw the money back at the priests who would in fact be in the Temple if the Praetorium was actually the Antonia fortress.
So Matthew's hanging and the Sanhedrin buying a field for burial works, but Acts really doesn't. Judas buying the field makes no sense, nor the falling headlong, though I get the feeling that Like knew of another event involving bloodsed that he wants to disguise somewhat.
No I think that Acts just runs on conveniently from Luke with Judas explained away, replaced by election (so which of them would be judging Gentiles, sitting on the 12th throne, Judas or Mathias?) and, after getting his pentecostal upgrade to Jesuslike leperhealing sainthood, Peter teaches the primary and most important lesson of the Church: give it all your money and keep not a widows' mite for yourself, if you don;t want to end up like Ananias, Dead, together with his wife and his alsatian dog.
-
Falling Light 101
- Apprentice
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:16 pm
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Judas Contradictions
Post #52.
Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
The Priests took the money that belonged to Judas and purchased a field - but the money still belonged to Judas - this was his money,
Judas immediately afterward went and committed suicide in a field that was used for the dead - the field already existed and was used for the purpose of burying the dead but it was owned by another owner. The Priests used the money to purchase the burial location and the Bible is mentioning that the money that belonged to Judas was used to buy the field.
Judas hung himself there and his body fell and spilled upon the ground and the Priests took his money and purchased ownership of the field.
It is complete perversity and confusion to pace trust in the Trinitarian translation of the scriptures - this is why we must always go back to the original message in the manuscripts.
Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / indeed - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness - και and - πρηνης headlong - γενομενος when he was - ελακησεν burst asunder - μεσος in the midst - και and - εξεχυθη poured out - παντα all - τα his - σπλαγχνα bowels - αυτου himself
:18
This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness and headlong he was burst asunder in the midst and poured out all his bowels himself.
Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
The Priests took the money that belonged to Judas and purchased a field - but the money still belonged to Judas - this was his money,
Judas immediately afterward went and committed suicide in a field that was used for the dead - the field already existed and was used for the purpose of burying the dead but it was owned by another owner. The Priests used the money to purchase the burial location and the Bible is mentioning that the money that belonged to Judas was used to buy the field.
Judas hung himself there and his body fell and spilled upon the ground and the Priests took his money and purchased ownership of the field.
It is complete perversity and confusion to pace trust in the Trinitarian translation of the scriptures - this is why we must always go back to the original message in the manuscripts.
Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / indeed - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness - και and - πρηνης headlong - γενομενος when he was - ελακησεν burst asunder - μεσος in the midst - και and - εξεχυθη poured out - παντα all - τα his - σπλαγχνα bowels - αυτου himself
:18
This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness and headlong he was burst asunder in the midst and poured out all his bowels himself.
-
TRANSPONDER
- Savant
- Posts: 8463
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 986 times
- Been thanked: 3656 times
Re: Judas Contradictions
Post #53Clearly this comes down to whether one is willing to accept any twisting of the contradiction to try to make it resolve.
I have been warned already about using particular terms, but this: " Judas hung himself there and his body fell and spilled upon the ground and the Priests took his money and purchased ownership of the field." speaks for itself about your methods. It suggests that the priests searched Judas' dead body and took the money (which Acts says has already been used by Judas to buy the field) when Matthew says that Judas had already skung the money back at the priests in the temple, and they had to decide what to do with it.
Acts makes it clear that Judas bought the field himself with his own money, which is not the same as the Priests buying it with the money he had thrown back at them. Just as going out and hanging himself is not the same thing as falling headlong and bursting open. The usual excuse that some bits were left out will not wash
No reasonable person willing to doubt and question would suppose for a moment that the two stories are the same event. This 'weaving together' (as one apologist called it) of contradictory stories to try to make them look the same will not work on anyone who had had the contradictions pointed out - here and elsewhere in the Bible, as there are many such - because the Christian propaganda method is to relate their fiddled account and hope the duped flock doesn't check. This has worked wonderfully with the totally contradictory nativity stories, for instance.
My purpose is to check for them.
I know the believers will accept any excuse, because they want to believe what is unbelievable. Which is why you insist with some torturing of Greek translation that Judas buying a field himself really means the priests bought it with money he had given back and was no longer his and nor was the field. But I recall one poster saying that first read the two accounts side by side and went cold inside (1). He could see clearly they contradicted. And no amount of fiddling could make it look like anything else.
So I won't persuade someone that ignores the bursting open and insists that falling headlong in a field is not fatal that these contradictions are real and quite damning. Just as you won't persuade me that the fiddling of meanings and inventing of explanations really reconcile the two stories. It is (as usual) a case of what do the others think of the case, and (mostly) will they ever get to dear both sides?
(1) I know the feeling. I felt it when I first heard about the T Rex soft tissue found in a fossil.
I have been warned already about using particular terms, but this: " Judas hung himself there and his body fell and spilled upon the ground and the Priests took his money and purchased ownership of the field." speaks for itself about your methods. It suggests that the priests searched Judas' dead body and took the money (which Acts says has already been used by Judas to buy the field) when Matthew says that Judas had already skung the money back at the priests in the temple, and they had to decide what to do with it.
Acts makes it clear that Judas bought the field himself with his own money, which is not the same as the Priests buying it with the money he had thrown back at them. Just as going out and hanging himself is not the same thing as falling headlong and bursting open. The usual excuse that some bits were left out will not wash
No reasonable person willing to doubt and question would suppose for a moment that the two stories are the same event. This 'weaving together' (as one apologist called it) of contradictory stories to try to make them look the same will not work on anyone who had had the contradictions pointed out - here and elsewhere in the Bible, as there are many such - because the Christian propaganda method is to relate their fiddled account and hope the duped flock doesn't check. This has worked wonderfully with the totally contradictory nativity stories, for instance.
My purpose is to check for them.
I know the believers will accept any excuse, because they want to believe what is unbelievable. Which is why you insist with some torturing of Greek translation that Judas buying a field himself really means the priests bought it with money he had given back and was no longer his and nor was the field. But I recall one poster saying that first read the two accounts side by side and went cold inside (1). He could see clearly they contradicted. And no amount of fiddling could make it look like anything else.
So I won't persuade someone that ignores the bursting open and insists that falling headlong in a field is not fatal that these contradictions are real and quite damning. Just as you won't persuade me that the fiddling of meanings and inventing of explanations really reconcile the two stories. It is (as usual) a case of what do the others think of the case, and (mostly) will they ever get to dear both sides?
(1) I know the feeling. I felt it when I first heard about the T Rex soft tissue found in a fossil.
Re: Judas Contradictions
Post #54Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Act 1:18 This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness and headlong he was burst asunder in the midst and poured out all his bowels himself.
Indeed, there are two fields called the 'Field of Blood': a) the first was purchased by Judas using the money he had taken from the bag of the twelve apostles (John 12:6; 13:29) b) The second was bought with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas returned. These are two different fields. This man indeed acquired a field with the price of injustice, and having become swollen, he tore open in the middle, and all his entrails were spilled.
This man acquired a field at the price of injustice, and swollen, he burst in the middle, and all his entrails were spilled.
To me, it made a lot of sense; Judas hanged himself in a remote place, likely remained there for days, the body swelled, and the middle tore (burst), causing all his entrails to spill out.
Maybe in Greek μέσος (middle) meant "belly" too? Was this word μέσος used as "belly" in some text? The word “half” in translation, in Greek, can be used in the sense of waist, when accompanied by the verb:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
μέσος
I. middle, in the middle, Lat. medius, Hom., etc.; μέσον σάκος the middle or centre of the shield, Il.; ἐν αἰθέρι μέσῳ in mid air, Soph.; with the Art. following, διὰ μέσης τῆς πόλεως, ἐν μ. τῇ χώρᾳ Xen.
2. with a Verb, ἔχεται μέσος by the middle, by the waist, proverb. from the wrestling-ring, Ar.
...καὶ and πρηνὴς swollen γενόμενος which itself became ἐλάκησεν burst μέσος (the) middle...
...and became swollen, the middle burst...
...and became swollen, his waist burst...
πρηνὴς = swollen
We reached this conclusion based on 3 factors:
1. The corresponding verb πρηνὴς that occurs in Vulgate Wisdom 4.19 is Inflatos (That is: swollen/exaggerated).
2. According to the information indicated in the critical apparatus:
(2) A different tradition is represented in the Armenian version and the Old Gregorian version; these describe Judas’s end thus: "Being swollen up he burst asunder and all his bowels gushed out." What the Greek may have been from which this rendering was made is problematic. Papias, who according to tradition was a disciple of the apostle John, described Judas’s death with the word πρησθείς (from Epic πρήθειν, to swell out by blowing).
3. Testimony from Κώστας (KOSTAS)
Where he says that: Being a native Greek speaker who is strongly involved in the ancient language, I consider it as highly unlikely - if not impossible - that «prenes» ever had either the meaning or the connotation of swealling up! …
ἐλάκησεν = burst (meaning of breaking with noise)
μέσος (the) middle, in Greek has the main meaning of the center of an object, or something. It can have a connotation of “waist”, when accompanied by the verb.
Wisdom 4:19 καὶ ἔσονται μετὰ τοῦτο εἰς πτῶμα ἄτιμον καὶ εἰς ὕβριν ἐν νεκροῖς δι᾽ αἰῶνος ὅτι ῥήξει αὐτοὺς ἀφώνους πρηνεῖς καὶ σαλεύσει αὐτοὺς ἐκ θεμελίων καὶ ἕως ἐσχάτου χερσωθήσονται καὶ ἔσονται ἐν ὀδύνῃ καὶ ἡ μνήμη αὐτῶν ἀπολεῖται
VUL Wisdom 4:19 et erunt post haec decidentes sine honore et in contumelia inter mortuos in perpetuum quoniam disrumpet illos inflatos sine voce et commovebit illos a fundamentis et usque ad supremum desolabuntur et erunt gementes et memoria illorum periet
Act 1:18 This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness and headlong he was burst asunder in the midst and poured out all his bowels himself.
Indeed, there are two fields called the 'Field of Blood': a) the first was purchased by Judas using the money he had taken from the bag of the twelve apostles (John 12:6; 13:29) b) The second was bought with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas returned. These are two different fields. This man indeed acquired a field with the price of injustice, and having become swollen, he tore open in the middle, and all his entrails were spilled.
This man acquired a field at the price of injustice, and swollen, he burst in the middle, and all his entrails were spilled.
To me, it made a lot of sense; Judas hanged himself in a remote place, likely remained there for days, the body swelled, and the middle tore (burst), causing all his entrails to spill out.
Maybe in Greek μέσος (middle) meant "belly" too? Was this word μέσος used as "belly" in some text? The word “half” in translation, in Greek, can be used in the sense of waist, when accompanied by the verb:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
μέσος
I. middle, in the middle, Lat. medius, Hom., etc.; μέσον σάκος the middle or centre of the shield, Il.; ἐν αἰθέρι μέσῳ in mid air, Soph.; with the Art. following, διὰ μέσης τῆς πόλεως, ἐν μ. τῇ χώρᾳ Xen.
2. with a Verb, ἔχεται μέσος by the middle, by the waist, proverb. from the wrestling-ring, Ar.
...καὶ and πρηνὴς swollen γενόμενος which itself became ἐλάκησεν burst μέσος (the) middle...
...and became swollen, the middle burst...
...and became swollen, his waist burst...
πρηνὴς = swollen
We reached this conclusion based on 3 factors:
1. The corresponding verb πρηνὴς that occurs in Vulgate Wisdom 4.19 is Inflatos (That is: swollen/exaggerated).
2. According to the information indicated in the critical apparatus:
(2) A different tradition is represented in the Armenian version and the Old Gregorian version; these describe Judas’s end thus: "Being swollen up he burst asunder and all his bowels gushed out." What the Greek may have been from which this rendering was made is problematic. Papias, who according to tradition was a disciple of the apostle John, described Judas’s death with the word πρησθείς (from Epic πρήθειν, to swell out by blowing).
3. Testimony from Κώστας (KOSTAS)
Where he says that: Being a native Greek speaker who is strongly involved in the ancient language, I consider it as highly unlikely - if not impossible - that «prenes» ever had either the meaning or the connotation of swealling up! …
ἐλάκησεν = burst (meaning of breaking with noise)
μέσος (the) middle, in Greek has the main meaning of the center of an object, or something. It can have a connotation of “waist”, when accompanied by the verb.
Wisdom 4:19 καὶ ἔσονται μετὰ τοῦτο εἰς πτῶμα ἄτιμον καὶ εἰς ὕβριν ἐν νεκροῖς δι᾽ αἰῶνος ὅτι ῥήξει αὐτοὺς ἀφώνους πρηνεῖς καὶ σαλεύσει αὐτοὺς ἐκ θεμελίων καὶ ἕως ἐσχάτου χερσωθήσονται καὶ ἔσονται ἐν ὀδύνῃ καὶ ἡ μνήμη αὐτῶν ἀπολεῖται
VUL Wisdom 4:19 et erunt post haec decidentes sine honore et in contumelia inter mortuos in perpetuum quoniam disrumpet illos inflatos sine voce et commovebit illos a fundamentis et usque ad supremum desolabuntur et erunt gementes et memoria illorum periet
-
TRANSPONDER
- Savant
- Posts: 8463
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 986 times
- Been thanked: 3656 times
Re: Judas Contradictions
Post #55We are familiar with efforts to retranslate the Bible (Greek, Hebrew or just Meaning) to make it say other than what it actually says.
There are many translations of this passage ,and I have seen none other than imply that Judas bought the farm by falling headlong. He burst open and his guts gushed out (Acts 1.19). But it's not just the one apparent discrepancy. There are many.
Let's consider the events
Some time before the Last supper, Judas sells Jesus out. Supposedly he buys a piece of land before going to the last supper.
Sometime during the trial Judas goes to the Temple where the priests are (though one would expect that from securing Jesus'condemnation to watching the crucifixion they wouldn't have time to go to the Temple, so let's say they left when the crucifixion was essentially over) and he throws the money back at them. We'd have to suppose that the sale of the field falls through so he had not 'bought a field' even if the disciples hearing of the transaction is improbable (1). Then he goes out and hangs himself. The implication is surely that this was the end of Judas. Not that he hung there for a month till the rope broke, he fell on his tummy and walked away rubbing the sore spot. He died, in two apparently different ways in a place apparently bought by different people with money in apparent different ownership. We have two apparently different stories.
Around a month later The hanging rope breaks and Judas falls and so on. Now one might suppose the priests had already bought that defiled field to bury foreigners in, but wouldn't the first act be to get rid of Judas' hanging body? Why would they wait until the rope breaks Judas falls and they sigh with relief "At last, now we can use that money to buy that field". Aside from Peter thinking that means that Judas spent his blood money on buying it, it all makes no sense, but two different and contradictory stories does.
I don't even address those absurd and fiddled 'prophecies' or why the synoptic original did not have the hanging and throwing the money back if Matthew did not invent it. Nor does John have this of course.
(1) it is the Luke writer inventing a link between this field where Judas ended up dead and his claimed betrayal of Jesus. Just say that was what Judas spent the money on, even though there wasn't really time, and Matthew says Judas had thrown the money away anyway. Tinkering with Greek words doesn't overcome these problems.
There are many translations of this passage ,and I have seen none other than imply that Judas bought the farm by falling headlong. He burst open and his guts gushed out (Acts 1.19). But it's not just the one apparent discrepancy. There are many.
Let's consider the events
Some time before the Last supper, Judas sells Jesus out. Supposedly he buys a piece of land before going to the last supper.
Sometime during the trial Judas goes to the Temple where the priests are (though one would expect that from securing Jesus'condemnation to watching the crucifixion they wouldn't have time to go to the Temple, so let's say they left when the crucifixion was essentially over) and he throws the money back at them. We'd have to suppose that the sale of the field falls through so he had not 'bought a field' even if the disciples hearing of the transaction is improbable (1). Then he goes out and hangs himself. The implication is surely that this was the end of Judas. Not that he hung there for a month till the rope broke, he fell on his tummy and walked away rubbing the sore spot. He died, in two apparently different ways in a place apparently bought by different people with money in apparent different ownership. We have two apparently different stories.
Around a month later The hanging rope breaks and Judas falls and so on. Now one might suppose the priests had already bought that defiled field to bury foreigners in, but wouldn't the first act be to get rid of Judas' hanging body? Why would they wait until the rope breaks Judas falls and they sigh with relief "At last, now we can use that money to buy that field". Aside from Peter thinking that means that Judas spent his blood money on buying it, it all makes no sense, but two different and contradictory stories does.
I don't even address those absurd and fiddled 'prophecies' or why the synoptic original did not have the hanging and throwing the money back if Matthew did not invent it. Nor does John have this of course.
(1) it is the Luke writer inventing a link between this field where Judas ended up dead and his claimed betrayal of Jesus. Just say that was what Judas spent the money on, even though there wasn't really time, and Matthew says Judas had thrown the money away anyway. Tinkering with Greek words doesn't overcome these problems.
