Mr DeCenso, in spite of requiring Scholarly opinion on the hanging of Judas,
rejects that the scholarly opinion of the those scholars and then rephrases
those scholars opinion on the subject:


and 


Actually, if you do further research as to the Greek word "apacgw," you will
find that it does denote success.  Those scholars did indeed have an excellent
reason to assume that the suicide was successful.  As I pointed out, I
recently checked several Lexicons:

	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
	"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
	"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
	"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other 
	 early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
	"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher

A couple simply stated "hanged oneself", and a couple were more explicit 
and stated that "apacgw" means specifically "kill yourself by hanging." A
couple also noted that the meaning of one the root words for "apacgw" is
"strangle, throttle or choke" (which pretty much invalidates the guy who
suggested to David Joslin that Judas was hung upside down).  One of the best
references though, "Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New
Testament," not only stated the translation, it gave both the root words, the
literal translation, related greek words which use the same roots, and also
other presented specific examples of the word in greek literature (to give
further context).  

The word "apagchw" has two root words: "gchw" is the "to strangle" root, and
the root word "apo" means literally "away." This root words is included in
words which denote a transition.  It can mean a transition in place (eg: the
greek word "apagello" means to send a message).  "Apo" can also denote a
change in state and specifically the change from life to death.  Robinson
specifically makes comparison to the word "apokteiuo," which means "to kill."
In literal meaning the word "apacgw" means "to throttle, strangle to put out
of the way," and implicitly denotes a change in life state (ie: away from
life, to death).  So while the word "apacgw" does mean "to hang," it
specifically denotes a death as well.  Thus Robinson is quite specific when he
state that it means "to hang oneself, to end one's life by hanging." He then
notes the the use of "apacgw" in Homers Odessy 19:230 to denote context.  He
presents that example of "apacgw" as being used to explicitly mean "suicide by
hanging." Now since there is a perfectly good word for strangling, without the
added denotation of "death," and as you insist that the Bible was written by
God, and every word is precicely correct, you are stuck with the complete
meaning of "apacgw" (ie: Since the word "apacgw" was used, then death is
denoted as the result). 

By the way, I note that Mr DeCenso also presents an example of "apacgw":


Note Mr DeCenso, as you say, the Septuagint was a translation from Hebrew to
Greek, and you have not shown the original meaning of the Hebrew (ie" the the
Hebrew say "and died"), and thus whether it was simply echoed in the Greek. 
It should also be pointed out that, regardless of the added "and died", the
correct translation would still be "apacgw," as the man did indeed die from
strangulation (redundant, but correct).  Further, we have evidence that the
Septuagint was repeatedly rewritten and reedited (which included versions
which contradicted each other), and such editing was not even necessarily
executed by Greeks.  Thus I am not sure that you can use the Septuagint as it
now stands, as a paragon of ancient greek.  So, what you really need to prove
your point Mr DeCenso, is an example, in ancient greek, of someone committing
"apacgw" and surviving.  Otherwise I would see you as simply making worthless
assertions without corresponding evidence. 

Now I would note Mr DeCenso, that everytime I go out of my way to research it
one of your apparently contrived exegisis, I pretty much find it false.  Thus,
I think that if you are going to add to the text, something over and above
what the source clearly says, then you had better have an explicit Greek or
historical source to justify it. 

By the way, as to Mr Rose's statement about trees around the Potter's Field:


Unless Mr Rose can show that these trees are two thousand years old, or that
there are 2000 year old stumps there, or has a 2 thousand year old description
of the area which mentions such trees, then it is inappropriate for him to
assert that the present placement of trees prove the location of the trees two
thousand years ago (after all, things change). 

Now as to your other argument, ie: that the money Judas used is not the same
as the 30 silvers:


True, Peter (or the author of Acts) does not specifically call Judas' betrayal
"an iniquity," but for that matter, neither does John specifically call Judas'
actions "an iniquity" either.  Further John 13:29 did not say that Judas took

    "Some thought that because, Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling
     him "Buy what we need for the feast"; or that he should give something
     to the poor, So after receiving the morsel he immediately went out, and
     it was night."

Note that it is said that Judas left, it does not say that he took the money
box.  Thus when I see your explanation it still seems to me you would choose
the a an unproven iniquity, mentioned by another author, in a different
book, written at a different time, over the iniquity explicitly mentioned by
the author of acts.  I find this forced and contrived. 

Of course this particular argument becomes moot, since we have have seen
evidence that "apacgw" means suicide.  You see, since Judas' hanging was
successful, he could not have spent the money mentioned in John 13:29, because
Matthew and Mark explicitly say the betrayal was on the high holy day (ie:
Passover), and thus he could not have spent the money before killing himself
the next day.  Thus the money which bought the "Field of Blood" would have to
have been the 30 pieces of silver (Of course he got the 30 pieces of silver
that night as well, and thus couldn't have spent that either.  Oh dear, I
believe that the house of cards is comming down). 

Maybe we should at this point, discuss now whether Jesus was crucified on
Friday or Saturday as that is now part of the argument about Judas.

By the way, as to where the prophesy of the Potter's field came from (ie: the
mention of it in Matthew), you say:


I am reminding you now to discuss it now. It's all part of the same verse we
are discussing, and I wish you would quit procrastinating and sidestepping 
these issues.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

	A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
				David Hume, Philosopher
				An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding