Judas' Death

[JBlack]

5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

18(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. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

1. How do Christians explain this clear contradiction between Matthew and Acts concerning the manner of Judas' death?

2. How did Judas die?

[Paul2]

Miles,

And your source of information is _____fill in the blank_____ .

Common sense, given that Matthew and Acts are both true. (See the "Guidelines for the TD&D subforum".)


Paul

[Miles]

Miles,

And your source of information is _____fill in the blank_____ .

Common sense, given that Matthew and Acts are both true. (See the "Guidelines for the TD&D subforum".)


Paul

You mean, "In this sub forum, the Bible is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here"?
Are you under the impression that an authoritative source must, by definition, be infallible? Please say no.

In any case, if both Matthew and Acts must be correct in every respect than I assume you'd claim Mark and John must also be as correct; therefore, at the sixth hour Jesus was both hanging on the cross

• Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

and was standing before Pilate

• John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

Pretty neat device, this common sense of yours.

[Paul2]

Miles,

You mean, "In this sub forum, the Bible is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here"? Are you under the impression that an authoritative source must, by definition, be infallible? Please say no.

Hitler was considered, by some, as an authoritative source. Hitler was not infallible.

One or both of the stories is wrong.

I believe I have shown that it is not impossible that both stories are true.

In any case, if both Matthew and Acts must be correct in every respect than I assume you'd claim Mark and John must also be as correct; therefore, at the sixth hour Jesus was both hanging on the cross

Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.


and was standing before Pilate

John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

The following is from the Concordant Literal New Testament which is based on the Concordant Greek Text which is a Greek text restored from uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) and their ancient editors with the variant readings in the superlinear:

John 19:14 Now it was the preparation of the Passover; the hour was about the third (tritE). And he is saying to the Jews, "Lo! your king!"

Pretty neat device, this common sense of yours.

As far as I'm aware, no one is stopping you from presenting a refutation of my claims regarding the property purchases.


Paul

[Miles]

Hitler was considered, by some, as an authoritative source. Hitler was not infallible.

That's very nice, but then what is it you feel I should take note of in "Guidelines for the TD&D sub forum" that somehow makes your claim that both Matthew and Acts are true? Your reasoning eludes me.

I believe I have shown that it is not impossible that both stories are true.

To yourself perhaps, but certainly not to me.

The following is from the Concordant Literal New Testament which is based on the Concordant Greek Text which is a Greek text restored from uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) and their ancient editors with the variant readings in the superlinear:

John 19:14 Now it was the preparation of the Passover; the hour was about the third (tritE). And he is saying to the Jews, "Lo! your king!"

That's interesting because both Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Lexicon say it's hektos "six" (Greek:ξκτος), and you know what, every one of the 19 Bibles listed below disagree with your Concordant Literal New Testament and agree with Strong and Thayer.

• New International Version
  
  American Standard Bible
  
  The Message
  
  Amplified Bible
  
  New Living Translation
  
  King James Version
  
  English Standard Version
  
  Contemporary English Version
  
  New King James Version
  
  New Century Version
  
  21st Century King James Version
  
  American Standard Version
  
  Young's Literal Translation
  
  Darby Translation
  
  New International Reader's Version
  
  Wycliffe New Testament
  
  Worldwide English (New Testament)
  
  New International Version - UK
  
  Today's New International Version

As far as I'm aware, no one is stopping you from presenting a refutation of my claims regarding the property purchases.

You mean your claim of "Common sense, given that Matthew and Acts are both true"? I guess because it hardly bears refuting. You seem to think that because there is absolutely no way both Matthew and Acts, or any book of the Bible for that matter, could be wrong, it's beyond question that the fields spoken of in each cannot be the same. Absolutely no other answer is possible. First of all, I'm a bit amused at the surety of your conclusion. Secondly, because I don't believe the Bible to be infallible, I find such an argument specious at best.

[Paul2]

Miles,

That's very nice, but then what is it you feel I should take note of in "Guidelines for the TD&D sub forum" that somehow makes your claim that both Matthew and Acts are true? Your reasoning eludes me.

That is your idea of what I meant, but that is not what I meant.

Common sense, given that Matthew and Acts are both true. (See the "Guidelines for the TD&D subforum".)

IE Because the Bible is to be regarded as authoritative in this subforum, I am starting with the premise that Matthew and Acts are true and have presented a common sense solution to the perceived contradiction.

To yourself perhaps, but certainly not to me.

Do you assert that it is impossible that two different properties were involved?

That's interesting because both Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Lexicon say it's hektos "six" (Greek:ξκτος), and you know what, every one of the 19 Bibles listed below disagree with your Concordant Literal New Testament and agree with Strong and Thayer.

Hmmm...I haven't fully formed an opinion on this one yet.

You mean your claim of "Common sense, given that Matthew and Acts are both true"?

The above was not a claim but was an explanation which you misunderstood. My claim, in brief, was that there were two different properties.

I guess because it hardly bears refuting.

Not relevant, since you misunderstood what I meant.

You seem to think that because there is absolutely no way both Matthew and Acts, or any book of the Bible for that matter, could be wrong, it's beyond question that the fields spoken of in each cannot be the same.

There is no way to prove, now, that the books of the Bible, in their original form, contained errors. It is known that Bible manuscripts existing today, contain errors.

No field is mentioned in Acts 1:18. The verse has "freehold" (chOrion). The Greek word used in Matthew 27:7 is "agron", meaning "field".

Absolutely no other answer is possible.

Already covered.

First of all, I'm a bit amused at the surety of your conclusion. Secondly, because I don't believe the Bible to be infallible, I find such an argument specious at best.

Not relevant, since you misunderstood what I meant.


Paul

[Miles]

Miles,

That's very nice, but then what is it you feel I should take note of in "Guidelines for the TD&D sub forum" that somehow makes your claim that both Matthew and Acts are true? Your reasoning eludes me.

That is your idea of what I meant, but that is not what I meant.

Okay, then just what did you mean? You wrote."The field the priests bought and the freehold Judas acquired were not at the same location and had similar names." Now it's obvious that the Guidelines for the TD&D sub forum weren't written to address this particular claim, or whether or not you have common sense, so you must feel that it addresses the truth aspect of it, which is why I surmised that when you wrote, " Common sense, given that Matthew and Acts are both true. (See the "Guidelines for the TD&D subforum" you had to be telling me to look at the sub forum to validate the truth of Matthew and Acts. But now you're saying that's not what you had in mind. So, just what is it I am supposed to gain by going to the sub forum?

I wrote

Common sense, given that Matthew and Acts are both true. (See the "Guidelines for the TD&D subforum".)
IE Because the Bible is to be regarded as authoritative in this subforum, I am starting with the premise that Matthew and Acts are true and have presented a common sense solution to the perceived contradiction.

What solution? Where do they write that the field bought was different?

No field is mentioned in Acts 1:18. The verse has "freehold" (chOrion). The Greek word used in Matthew 27:7 is "agron", meaning "field".

Definitions from Strong's Concordance.

Acts' "ch�rion"

• 1) a space, a place, a region, a district
  
  2) a piece of ground, a field, land [<-- PLEASE NOTE]
  
  source

Matthew's "agros"

• 1) land
  
  a) the field, the country
  
  b) a piece of land, bit of tillage [<-- PLEASE NOTE]
  
  source

Matthews "argos," meaning a piece of land, is used 20 times in the Bible. Here are three of them.

Mat 6:28
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is,

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:


Acts' "ch�rion,": meaning a piece of land, is used 9 times in the Bible. Here are three of them.

Jhn 4:5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

Act 5:3 Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

Act 5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

Do you assert that it is impossible that two different properties were involved?

Using given scriptures I find absolutely no reason to think so, particularly when there's been no evidence to your claim (You've given no reason I should deem Concordant Literal New Testament to be superior to Strong and Thayer.). Proposing such a solution simply to resolve a contradiction may be original, but that's all. If all I have to do to make the Bible come out as I'd like it to, is to propose alternatives, then let the games begin. I have some great ones in mind.

[Cathar1950]

There is another tradition where Judas is so fat he is crushed by a wagon wheel or something. As the Judas story grew he became more identified with Jews and his character evolves. Then there is the Gospel of Judas. How many gospels were in circulation? A program on the History channel says there were over 50. I think all the stories and traditions of Judas should be included in our survey.

[Paul2]

Miles,

Okay, then just what did you mean?

I meant:
Because the Bible is to be regarded as authoritative in this subforum, I started with the premise that Matthew and Acts are true and have presented a common sense solution to the perceived contradiction.

So, just what is it I am supposed to gain by going to the sub forum?

I did not set up this subforum so please address your question to the administration.

What solution? Where do they write that the field bought was different?

Where did they write that the agros and the chOrion were identical? There is no reason why they had to be identical and the solution is that they were not identical.

Definitions from Strong's Concordance.

Acts' "ch�rion"

1) a space, a place, a region, a district

2) a piece of ground, a field, land [<-- PLEASE NOTE]

Strong's lists meanings given to Greek words by the translators.

EG G165 aiOn - an age OR eternity OR the worlds OR universe ...etc.

Field is just one possibility. I did not say that a chOrion could not have been a field. A chOrion was not necessarily a field. Some chOrions were fields. Not all chOrions were fields.

(You've given no reason I should deem Concordant Literal New Testament to be superior to Strong and Thayer.)

Even using Strong's, it is obvious that a chOrion was not necessarily an agros. Even if the chOrion Judas purchased was an agros, this is not proof that the chOrion in Acts and the agros in Matthew were identical.


Paul

[Miles]

I meant:
Because the Bible is to be regarded as authoritative in this subforum, I started with the premise that Matthew and Acts are true and have presented a common sense solution to the perceived contradiction.

I did not set up this subforum so please address your question to the administration.

Why should I? You are the one who said. "See the "Guidelines for the TD&D subforum", not the administration.

Anyway . . . . .

Where did they write that the agros and the chOrion were identical? There is no reason why they had to be identical and the solution is that they were not identical.

Of course it's a solution, but good grief man!!!! Is this really how you approach the scriptures? The reader can choose to regard anything they read in any way the care to unless specifically directed not to? And it's perfectly acceptable to do so in order to make the Bible satisfy what ever preconceived notions they have of it? If the Bible is contradicting itself simply think up a solution so that it no longer does so. Doesn't matter if it has any basis or not, just so it satisfies the need.

As I have pointed out, both through the commonality inherent in the words used, and the singular agreement in interpretation among 19 versions of the Bible, your claim is virtually stillborn.

Even using Strong's, it is obvious that a chOrion was not necessarily an agros. Even if the chOrion Judas purchased was an agros, this is not proof that the chOrion in Acts and the agros in Matthew were identical.

Proof only occurs in science; some even going so far as to say, only in mathematics. In any case, are you even aware of what "freehold" means? It simply refers to how the land was legally regarded, not what it consisted of.

• Freehold
  
  1. an estate in land, inherited or held for life.
  
  –noun 2. a form of tenure by which an estate is held in fee simple, fee tail, or for life.
  
  –adjective 3. pertaining to, of the nature of, or held by freehold.

So go ahead and use whatever translation you like. It doesn't matter because all refer to a piece of land. And it doesn't matter that you claim the two references refer to two different properties; without any evidence you may as well whistle in the wind. I give you the last word.

[Paul2]

Miles,

Why should I? You are the one who said. "See the "Guidelines for the TD&D subforum", not the administration.

Anyway . . . . .

This: "I did not set up this subforum so please address your question to the administration." followed directly after: "So, just what is it I am supposed to gain by going to the sub forum?" and was not posted the way you have "quoted" in your last post.

If the Bible is contradicting itself simply think up a solution so that it no longer does so.

In this case there is no contradiction. The contradiction exists only in your mind.

In any case, are you even aware of what "freehold" means? It simply refers to how the land was legally regarded, not what it consisted of.

My argument does not rely on whether "freehold" is the correct definition for "chOrion".

So go ahead and use whatever translation you like. It doesn't matter because all refer to a piece of land. And it doesn't matter that you claim the two references refer to two different properties; without any evidence you may as well whistle in the wind. I give you the last word.

A "chOrion" (whether a freehold or not) is not always an "agros" and therefore the "chOrion" Judas bought was not necessarily an "agros".
If it was an "agros" that Judas bought, it makes no difference because there could have been two different fields with similar names.
The "agros" the chief priests purchased was named "agros of blood" because it was purchased with blood money.
The "chOrion" Judas bought was named "chOrion of blood" because of events relating to Judas' death and the reason for its naming was not because it was bought with blood money.
We are not told that Judas bought the Potter's field.
We are not told that Judas paid for the "chOrion" with the thirty pieces of silver the chief priests paid him.
We are told, elsewhere, that Judas was a thief and stole from the Jesus and the disciples.
Judas could have bought the "chOrion" with stolen money or other ill gotten gains.

The argument that Matthew and Acts contradict each other because Judas could not have both bought and not bought the Potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver is an invalid argument because we are not told that Judas bought the Potter's field and we are not told that Judas bought anything with the thirty pieces of silver the chief priests paid him.


Paul