Biblical opinion and facts.

[nobspeople]

When reading the bible, how does one separate the opinion of the author from facts?
Is there a sure proof way to do this, or is it based on one's personal experience and opinion?

If there isn't a sure proof way, how can one person (let's call him Bill) how another person to Bill's opinion about a particular biblical verse or story?
In other words, if Bill knows this story means ABC, but someone else disagrees, does Bill have the right to hold the other person accountable to what Bill knows the story means?

[benchwarmer]

...
Perhaps you can explain to us how he fell "headlong" if he was hanging from a rope and it snapped. ...

Firstly, Bible doesn’t say that the reason for death was that he fell.

No, it says he hanged himself in one spot (death by asphyxiation) and accidentally fell headlong to the ground (death by disembowelment) in another spot. That's what it "directly says". If the author knew he actually died another way but was both hanged and disemboweled then the author clearly missed the bigger story. It's like the worst game of telephone ever played.

It is possible that he fell also for example when he was carried a way after he had hanged himself. In any case, by what the Bible tells, there is not given two reasons of death, which is my main point. How it did happen, I don’t know. I can tell different possible ways, but it is only guessing.

You don't fall headlong if you are carried away and accidentally dropped unless you are really belaboring the language. It also makes no sense whatsoever for the author to write what he did if he was dropped.

We haven't even got to the second part of this contradiction yet. In one spot the silver is left at the temple, in the other spot he used silver to purchase a field. What did he do? Purchase the field, resell it, take the money to the temple, go hang himself, get cut down, and then finally dropped on the field he originally bought (but no longer owns) where somehow he "fell headlong" and was disemboweled in the process? Wow.

Let's face it, a straightforward reading of both passages leaves one with two very different stories that don't line up. Can they be torturously spliced together by someone desperate to remove any hint of contradiction? Sure, but it's painfully clear we are no longer reading what it "directly says". We are now reading way between the lines. If this is the effort required to plainly read what's in the Bible, there's no hope of figuring out what it's actually trying to tell us.

[1213]

...We haven't even got to the second part of this contradiction yet. In one spot the silver is left at the temple, in the other spot he used silver to purchase a field. What did he do? Purchase the field,....

By what the Bible tells, he didn’t directly buy it. Bible tells he obtained a field, which means he got it with his reward.

[Difflugia]

...We haven't even got to the second part of this contradiction yet. In one spot the silver is left at the temple, in the other spot he used silver to purchase a field. What did he do? Purchase the field,....

By what the Bible tells, he didn’t directly buy it. Bible tells he obtained a field, which means he got it with his reward.

Acts 1:18 says that "this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness." Isn't that what "purchase" means? To obtain something with money?

Even that doesn't save the apologists' narrative, though, because according to Matthew, Judas didn't obtain the field; the priests did. "The best you've got" doesn't always mean "good enough." Apologists sometimes forget that.

And if we're going to split hairs between the Greek for "purchase" and "obtain with money," then we should also split hairs about what it is that Judas obtained. The English word "field" in the two narratives isn't the same word; what Acts actually says that Judas obtained is a χῶρος (choros), which is usually more of a piece of land out in the country or an estate rather than the "field" indicated by Matthew's ἀγρὸς (agros). Gethsemane is referred to as a choros. The "weeds" in the parable grow in an agros. Judas bought a place to retire. The priests bought a fallow field full of clay.

[1213]

…Acts 1:18 says that "this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness." Isn't that what "purchase" means? To obtain something with money?

Even that doesn't save the apologists' narrative, though, because according to Matthew, Judas didn't obtain the field; the priests did. …

Obtain means get something. Judas got the field by his money, all though he didn’t buy it himself. The priests didn’t get (obtain) the field.

[Difflugia]

Obtain means get something.

Yes.

Judas got the field by his money, all though he didn’t buy it himself.

That's your claim, yes. Your claim is neither supported by the wording of Acts 1:18-19 nor anything you've written.

The priests didn’t get (obtain) the field.

They did in Matthew 27:7 when they bought it.

[1213]

...

Judas got the field by his money, all though he didn’t buy it himself.

That's your claim, yes. Your claim is neither supported by the wording of Acts 1:18-19 nor anything you've written.

Matthew 27:7 says that it was the priests who bought the field for Judas.

...

The priests didn’t get (obtain) the field.

They did in Matthew 27:7 when they bought it.

They didn’t buy it for themselves.

[Difflugia]

Matthew 27:7 says that it was the priests who bought the field for Judas.

Matthew 27:7 says that the priests bought the field. 1213 says that they bought it for Judas.

They didn’t buy it for themselves.

"Then having taken counsel, they bought with them the potter’s field as a burial for strangers."

They bought it to be used by somebody as a burial place for strangers. I suppose it's ambiguous whether the burier or buriers were the the priests themselves, but I think we can agree that they didn't buy it for Judas to bury people in.

Can't we?

[John Bauer]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

When reading the bible, how does one separate the opinion of the author from facts? Is there a sure-proof way to do this, or is it based on one's personal experience and opinion?

The context of your question seems to be about getting at the meaning which the author intended to convey. If this can be done, then it's possible for one to hold others accountable to that meaning. So, is there a sure-fire way of getting at the meaning which the author intended to convey?

Let's just get one thing out of the way first: There is no such thing as a "sure-proof way" of doing anything whatsoever. Even within the rigorous disciplines of science, errors cannot be entirely eliminated. Certainty, absolute proof, infallible justification, these kinds of things are unrealistic pipe dreams—and they tend to come up only when dealing with religious matters, which is both interesting and quite revealing. I mean, nobody asks for "absolute certainty" in regards to evolutionary biology, but they do in regards to interpreting the Bible. I would submit that it's an unrealistic expectation in any field, but that's the skeptical realist in me.

However, indeed there is a way of getting at the meaning which the author intended to convey. This gets into biblical exegesis and hermeneutic principles. In Protestant circles, the primary method of biblical exegesis is the "historical-grammatical method," which attempts to derive the author's original intended meaning through critical analysis of the history, culture, and language of the text, its author, and original audience; this includes, among other things, the semantic range and syntactical relationships of the words comprising the text, as appropriate for the genre and the culture and cognitive environment to which that language belonged. Henry A. Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981), lists five important steps in biblical interpretation: Lexical-syntactical analysis, contextual analysis, theological analysis, and special literary analysis. John H. Walton used the example of marriage to underscore the importance of this effort, explaining that what marriage means to us in our culture here in 21st century America is not at all similar to what it meant to the Israelites of the ancient Near East; so even if we happen to translate the word itself properly, "We would seriously distort the text and interpret it incorrectly if we imposed all of the aspects of marriage in our culture" onto the biblical context of marriage.¹

The redemptive-historical hermeneutic is also of vital importance. According to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" (1978), no hermeneutic is acceptable unless the historical Christ is the focal point—for, as Christ himself said, all of Scripture points to him (Luke 24:27; Acts 10:43; John 5:39; John 1:45). "As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. ... Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ." As such, the redemptive-historical hermeneutic is about seeing Christ in all of Scripture, maintaining that Christ is the center of history and that revelation progresses toward Christ as its center, his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and return.² As Edmund P. Clowney said, "The Old Testament follows God's one great plan for human history and redemption, and the plan is not only from him, but centers on him: his presence in his incarnate Son. ... The witness of the Scriptures to Christ is the reason they were written—and of him and through him and to him are all things (Rom 11:36).” Emeritus professor of biblical and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Richard B. Gaffin, put it this way: "Christ is the mediatorial Lord and Savior of redemptive history not only at its end but also from beginning to end. He is not only its omega but also its alpha."³ This is the deep structure of Scripture, that every narrative thread is a witness to Christ and communicates the covenant realities of the gospel.

TL;DR: To the extent that we adhere to historical-grammatical exegesis and redemptive-historical hermeneutic principles, we can be fairly confident that we are getting at the meaning which the author intended to convey.

Not everyone respects this approach, favoring other methods like higher criticism (which seeks to understand the Bible purely as a human, historical document). For various reasons, and usually by definition, they are not getting at what the author originally intended—or even trying to.

... If Bill knows this story means ABC, but someone else disagrees, does Bill have the right to hold the other person accountable to what Bill knows the story means?

Only if the other person is likewise concerned about, and committed to, getting at what the author intended to convey. If they both share the same concern and commitment, then they should hold one another accountable (and each should be willing to admit they could be in error and open to correction). It could be that Bill is the one who made a mistake in his interpretation somewhere.

If, as you said elsewhere (Post #3), the meaning is up to the individual, like Bill, then what you're hearing is not what the text intended to communicate but what it means to Bill—and that's autobiographical, so it is meaningless beyond getting to know Bill better. He is saying, in essence, "This is what it means to me." Yes, well, that's great as far as it goes—which isn't very far, and entirely irrelevant to the question of what the original author meant.

_____

¹ John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 11.

² Peter A. Lillback, ed., Seeing Christ in All of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016).

³ Ibid., page 4.

[John Bauer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #17]

Perhaps you can explain to us how he fell "headlong" if he was hanging from a rope and it snapped. I would assume he was hanging from his neck and not his ankles.

Even you could explain it, provided that you have access to a biblical Greek lexicon (and you do). The phrase here is "prenes genomenos," which does not have the sense of walking along, tripping, and falling forward. It simply means "flat on the face," as opposed to on the back (which would be "huptios"). There is nothing inconsistent about Judas hanging himself and, the rope breaking, falling flat on his face, his intestines spilling out ("elakesen mesos").

It's truly fascinating watching the word gymnastics that must be used when discussing something that is "directly as it says".

No linguistic gymnastics are required. A lexicon and basic reading comprehension suffice. The difficulties arise usually when someone pretends the Bible was written in English. The moment one respects the original language in which it was written, most of the difficulties disappear. Funny, that.

[Difflugia]

Not everyone respects this approach, favoring other methods like higher criticism (which seeks to understand the Bible purely as a human, historical document). For various reasons, and usually by definition, they are not getting at what the author originally intended—or even trying to.

I widely agree with the rest of the post, but I think you've missed the mark here.

Higher criticism is trying to find the intention of the "original author," but acknowledges that many of the texts of which the Bible is comprised have a history that involves multiple authors.

An example is Genesis 37:18-36. Source critics believe (and I agree with them) that this is two different legendary stories of the same event that were sliced up into segments and interleaved by a redactor.

Story 1: 18,23,25b-27,28b,31-35

Story 2: 19-22,24-25a,28a,28c-30,36

In the text of the WEB, story 1:

They saw him afar off, and before he came near to them, they conspired against him to kill him. When Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the tunic of many colors that was on him; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing spices and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt.

Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, and let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites, and not let our hand be on him; for he is our brother, our flesh.” His brothers listened to him and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver.

They took Joseph’s tunic, and killed a male goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood. They took the tunic of many colors, and they brought it to their father, and said, “We have found this. Examine it, now, and see if it is your son’s tunic or not.” He recognized it, and said, “It is my son’s tunic. An evil animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces.” Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his waist, and mourned for his son many days. All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. He said, “For I will go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” His father wept for him.

Story 2:

They said to one another, “Behold, this dreamer comes. Come now therefore, and let’s kill him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, ‘An evil animal has devoured him.’ We will see what will become of his dreams.”

Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand, and said, “Let’s not take his life.” Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand on him”—that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father and they took him, and threw him into the pit. The pit was empty. There was no water in it.

They sat down to eat bread. Midianites who were merchants passed by, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit. The merchants brought Joseph into Egypt. Reuben returned to the pit, and saw that Joseph wasn’t in the pit; and he tore his clothes. He returned to his brothers, and said, “The child is no more; and I, where will I go?” The Midianites sold him into Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard.

The chopping is just as apparent in English as in Hebrew. Aside from some minor punctuation changes, the English doesn't change at all in content or order. Rearranging the one story into two, however, explains a few oddities about the combined text. For example, "Ishmaelites" no longer must be synonymous with "Midianites" despite them being different nationalities. Every conservative study Bible recognizes that there's something wrong with that, but has a feeble excuse for why it's still somehow okay ("These various tribal groups were interrelated, since Midian and Medan, like Ishmael, were also sons of Abraham."—NIV Study Bible).

At this point, we have three authors to consider. Story 1 is about the brothers conspiring to kill Joseph, but are talked by Judah into selling him into slavery and faking his death. In story 2, the brothers conspire to kill him, but are convinced by Reuben to throw him into a pit where he would die of thirst instead of making themselves guilty of bloodshed. Reuben secretly intends to rescue Joseph, but Joseph is gone when Reuben returns to the pit. The redactor has created a single story of the two, but apparently preserved all of the text verbatim to the point that there are now weird inconsistencies.

While that is definitely different than trying (naively, in my opinion) to determine the intention of a single, traditional author (Moses?), it is grossly inaccurate to claim that the process isn't "getting at what the author originally intended—or even trying to." In fact, I would claim that the process of higher criticism is a more honest and fruitful means of doing so.

It's truly fascinating watching the word gymnastics that must be used when discussing something that is "directly as it says".

No linguistic gymnastics are required. A lexicon and basic reading comprehension suffice. The difficulties arise usually when someone pretends the Bible was written in English. The moment one respects the original language in which it was written, most of the difficulties disappear. Funny, that.

Your difficulties haven't disappeared, despite your appeal to "the original language." If you were to, as you suggest, consult a good lexicon, you would note that when Greek authors use prenes in the context of falling, they meant "headlong down, ... i.e. forward."



If, as you seem to suggest, the author of Acts intended that Judas "became face down" by falling, but in a way that wasn't forward or headfirst, then he meant prenes in a way that is unnatural to the context. That's technically not impossible, but it hardly shows respect to either the author or his language to seriously suggest it.

The linguistic gymnastics don't lie in pretending that the Bible was written in English, but in pretending that theologically difficult readings can be resolved by pretending that statements have no context.