Bible difficulties and their harmonizations

[Difflugia]

In the spirit of this post, I'd like to try something. For any contradictions or difficulties that are posted, what are the various harmonizations that other members are satisfied with?

The experiment is to try to keep the argument away from whether or not the harmonizations are reasonable, but only to whether or not the harmonization has missed something that might need to be added. I guess I can't think of hard and fast rules for the debate, but the goal is to find harmonizations that others might not have thought of for particular difficulties without turning into a debate about whether they're good enough for a skeptic. If a harmonization claims to cover all the bases, then that's it. A more complete harmonization is always welcome, however.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #41]


Agreed. As I said, some apologists have suggested that Judas hung himself over the cliff of Akeldama, suggested to be at the south end of the mount of olives. What is interesting is that the one thing Matthew and Luke agree on is that the place where Judas met his end was 'the field of blood', though Luke (Acts) says it as Akeldama and Mathew that it was the potters' field. I could speculate about how Judas died there, but this is about contradictions and harmonizations, not speculating about alternative theories.

[1213]

Further, the apologetic that Judas effectively bought the field because the priests used his money is really straining the reading.

If we are literal, and don’t make own additions, Bible doesn’t say Judas bought the field. Bible tells he obtained it, which is obviously not the same.

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out.
Acts 1:18

Psalm 69. 25 'May their camp be a desolation, let no - one dwell in their tents'

Psalm 109. 3 'May his days be few; may another seize his goods'. All in a context of raving against some enemy or enemies the Psalmist wants smitten. I need hardly labour how obviously the OT text has been mangled so that Luke can get a prophecy out of it. Indeed the demise of Judas is my touchstone test case for showing how 'fulfilled prophecy' is either fiddling the OT to fit the gospel or making up gospel - stories to fit the OT, because the death of Judas 'prophecies' do both.

Why do you think those are about Judas?

[1213]

By what I have seen, all “contradictions” that atheists have are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading, not to actual writing of the Bible.

I'll point out yet again that atheists are not the only ones who recognize the fact that the Bible contains contradictions. This is NOT an atheist versus theist issue no matter how many times one attempts to represent it as one.

Did I say that only atheists…? All “contradictions” that I know are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading.

[brunumb]

If we are literal, and don’t make own additions, Bible doesn’t say Judas bought the field. Bible tells he obtained it, which is obviously not the same.

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out.
Acts 1:18

Of course it's the same. How else did he obtain it with the reward for his wickedness? Also, please explain how a hanging body can fall headlong.

[bluegreenearth]

By what I have seen, all “contradictions” that atheists have are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading, not to actual writing of the Bible.

I'll point out yet again that atheists are not the only ones who recognize the fact that the Bible contains contradictions. This is NOT an atheist versus theist issue no matter how many times one attempts to represent it as one.

Did I say that only atheists…? All “contradictions” that I know are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading.

Since the attempted harmonization of the separate stories is essentially an overtly ambitious hybrid account that doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible either, could that amusingly acrobatic apologetic also be based on a loose interpretation and lazy reading or would it be more reasonable to infer it is based on a theological obligation to desperately defend a sunk cost fallacy? I'll leave it to the reader to infer which explanation is the least parsimonious.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #43]

Thank you for raising this significant point.

We could look up the Greek and see what 'bought' or 'obtained' was or whether one is modern English and the other KJV. But it really doesn't matter, does it? It wasn't whether Judas bought or obtained or even 'acquired' the field. It was said to be him in Acts and not the priests. Now one does not simply walk into an estate agents (especially on a Sunday) and walk out with a piece of property, even bought for someone else with their silver. It takes time.
But going out and hanging yourself takes no longer than finding something to use as a noose and a handy tree.

What this means is that, by the time the priests had bought the field, Judas had bought the farm and there is no way that the priests, when buying, obtaining or acquiring the field for their own use (for burying foreigners in, Matthew says) can be passed off as doing it for Judas, no matter where one goes translation - shopping.

Now as to the OT passages, I am going with Biblical cross - references and they appear to be the only OT quotes that bear any resemblance to the Acts 'prophecy' of Judas. It is Acts (Luke) and not me who says those quotes (because the Christian authorities can find no closer ones (1) are prophetic of Judas' death. I don't. Indeed, I say they are nothing to do with Judas and there is no 'prophecy' there.

Mark it well, because that is the Touchstone or test case for how the OT is fiddled by the evangelists (and indeed, Paul, who started this swindle off) to try to make it seem that Gospel -Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. And we can thus see how the other prophecies do the same - Matthew's 'massacre' prophecy, or that absurd prophecy that John puts into the mouth of Caiaphas, of all people. And once the principle of fiddlement is established, then all NT prophecy slides down the same plughole.

(1) you are welcome to suggest closer ones. Until someone does, I'll go with those.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #45]

I can't resist it. I have a very odd feeling about the 'Luke/Acts writer. He evidently has access to Josephus as he uses (and changes) Josephus on the death of Herod Agrippa, the revolts of Judas and Theudas and the registration of Quirinus, not to mention putting Jesus' mission into historical context (Luke 3.1). This does not make him a 'historian' much less an eyewitness, but only that he had a copy of Josephus and could read.

But the odd feeling I have is that Luke knew more than we know today. And more, I have this feeling, that it was relevant to the Jesus story. I'm particularly intrigued by Luke 13 where some tell Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices. This is specific. There is only one place (in Judea) Jews can have sacrifices - in the Temple, in front of the sanctuary. And Galileans shouldn't be there shedding blood or otherwise. And Galileans were notorious for supplying zealots to start revolts. Bear in mind that the only way Pilate would be in the Temple would be at festival times, keeping order, otherwise he'd be at Caesarea.

So what this looks like is that some Galileans, starting trouble in the Temple, got pushed by Pilate and his troops up to the Temple altar -platform where they were cut down amongst their sacrifices. Luke either made this event up or he read it somewhere; and if he read it in Josephus, it isn't there now. Why would the record of a Galilean insurrection in the Temple be cut out of Josephus and be totally lost to history?

But isn't that interesting, that Jesus was told about this insurrection at the Temple that was evidently news, not history, and recall that Barabbas was in jail, charged with insurrection and murder? And he was also called a 'robber' which, going translation - shopping, simply means 'bandit' (lestes) or insurrectionist, and specifically Pharisee zealots.

What this means is that Jesus was nailed up with two of Barabbas' boys to keep him company. And look at Luke 23 at the trial where he adds to the blasphemy charge 'perverting our nation' and stirring up trouble from Galilee to Jerusalem. Was this something that Luke added at random, or did he know something?

I'll tell you what Pilate knew; he knew that Jesus had caused a disturbance in the Temple, and disrupted trade. Now, it may be argued that this doesn't merit crucifixion, but you'd think that it would be at least considered to see whether it would back up the accusations at the Sanhedrin hearing and the trial. But it is not even mentioned.

To me this is a big red flag that says 'That was a possible charge that the Gospels - writers do not want to mention'. Add to this my conviction that the 'Passover exchange' (which is unknown outside the Gospels) exists for one reason - to give the Christians the peaceful Jesus and the Jews opting for the insurrectionist, means that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person.

So just suppose that Jesus/Barabbas and his Galileans are battling with Pilate's Auxiliaries in front of the Temple. Well, Jesus and some others survive to be crucified (a punishment specifically for rebellion), but just suppose that he and his closest followers escape and recall John 8.59, where Jesus, under threat of a stoning hid himself and slipped out of the Temple...ok, maybe nothing to do with it... and then think of Gethsemane with Jesus and a few followers (at least one with a sword) have a posse of Temple men (if not Pilate's) coming to arrest them.

Well, just suppose that Judas, rather than being a traitor, fell headlong on this 'field of blood', defending Jesus, thanks to a legionary sword?

It would explain why that epithet 'field of blood' is the only thing Matthew and Luke agree on and it would explain the Passover exchange, the constant harping on insurrectionists and zealotry and those odd references to events that have vanished from the histories - including of course any valid account of Jesus by Josephus, Tacitus or Philo, where one would expect it, only that forgery in Josephus.

Ok, I know it reads like a conspiracy theory, if not a novel (I'm trying to write it up as one) but I couldn't resist it, after your post about 'falling headlong' not being what happens when a rope breaks, but it's what happens when a Roman soldier disembowels a rebel.

[1213]

...But it really doesn't matter, does it? It wasn't whether Judas bought or obtained or even 'acquired' the field. It was said to be him in Acts and not the priests. ...

I think it matters. If it would be said “he bought”, it would mean he did it. If it is said “he obtained”, it means he got the field, but not necessary bought it by himself.

What this means is that, by the time the priests had bought the field, Judas had bought the farm and there is no way that the priests, when buying, obtaining or acquiring the field for their own use (for burying foreigners in, Matthew says) can be passed off as doing it for Judas, no matter where one goes translation - shopping.

How could Judas buy it, when he had returned the money? The money was not priests, it was money of Judas and therefore, what was bought with it, was for Judas and so he obtained the field.

Now as to the OT passages, I am going with Biblical cross - references and they appear to be the only OT quotes that bear any resemblance to the Acts 'prophecy' of Judas. It is Acts (Luke) and not me who says those quotes (because the Christian authorities can find no closer ones (1) are prophetic of Judas' death....

it is possible that the references are to some other scriptures.

[brunumb]

Now as to the OT passages, I am going with Biblical cross - references and they appear to be the only OT quotes that bear any resemblance to the Acts 'prophecy' of Judas. It is Acts (Luke) and not me who says those quotes (because the Christian authorities can find no closer ones (1) are prophetic of Judas' death....

it is possible that the references are to some other scriptures.

Please enlighten us as to which scriptures that might be.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #50]
Post #49
Unread post by brunumb » Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:39 pm

1213 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:02 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:38 pm
Now as to the OT passages, I am going with Biblical cross - references and they appear to be the only OT quotes that bear any resemblance to the Acts 'prophecy' of Judas. It is Acts (Luke) and not me who says those quotes (because the Christian authorities can find no closer ones (1) are prophetic of Judas' death....
it is possible that the references are to some other scriptures.
Please enlighten us as to which scriptures that might be.

In respect of Acts 1.20, they refer to a desolated habitation and an office filled by another. The Biblical cross -references are given as Psalms 69 and 109. Acts is clearly derived from them but much altered to fit Judas. If Biblical scholarship could find any close OT passages, I reckon they would have found them by now.