I posted this several days ago for Dave Butler.  He may have missed it - my Usenet board has changed a little.  Just in case he missed it, here it is again.   Dave Butler writes...   From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) >Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas) Date: Thu Apr  1 20:52:11 1993   "I can basically restrict this post to showing the type of evidence Mr DeCenso has presented, and answering his two questions (and a couple of his spurious insults and false claims)."   MY REPLY... O.K.   DB... [By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference.]   DB later corrected himself... _____________________________________________________________________ From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) >Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas) Date: Fri Apr  2 02:32:11 1993   I owe the group an apology.  It is my habit to check my articles before and after their submission for errors.  In my last article I stated:   > (By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your > Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in > Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere > in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary > of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It > discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various > meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions > nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus > it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference).   I was wrong. I admit that I do not have a handle on Greek grammar, and thus confused "kleros", the second to last word in Acts 1:17 as being the plot of land discussed.  In actuality it is "chorion", which is the last word Acts 1:18.  Unfortunately my Greek dictionary does not discuss "chorion" so I cannot report as to the nuances of the word.   I don't know if someone else would have caught this, though I am sure that someone would be able to do so, but I have an aversion to disseminating mistakes, especially when someone else might use that mistake to prove a point"   _____________________________________________________________________   MY REPLY... Vary noble of you Dave.  I didn't want to have to go to x number of sources to show you wrong.  (Although I am researching CHORION a little).   DB... "Of course the only other reference Mr DeCenso has given is Bullinger.  And Bullinger uses such ridiculous exegisis that when I accused Mr DeCenso of actually believing Bullinger, he replied that I misquoted him:   >> "And you maintain that you find such exegesis convincing?  Oh dear." > > My Reply... > Your misquotes of me are astounding, Dave.  Read the beginning of this part of > my response to see what I REALLY said in my posting of this article.    [Actually Mr DeCenso, you said that there was "benefit" to our argument, in   that it caused to to rediscover Bullinger's exegisis.  I did not realize   that you would find such garbage beneficial, unless you were convinced by   it]."   MY REPLY... Thank you for correcting your restating of my points.   DB... "and Mr DeCenso also replied:   > Dave, these are not necessarily my views; they are Bullinger's.  WE will > discuss the land issue in later posts, I'm sure.  I'm only responding to >this one you have directed re: Bullinger's views because it's enjoyable.   Thus I apologize for thinking that even Mr DeCenso could find such "drek" convincing....he should specify which parts of Bullinger he finds convincing and quit hiding behind a disingenuous mask of "This is what Bullinger believed, not necessarily what I believe." So which is it Mr DeCenso? Do you find the exegisis convincing or not?)"   MY REPLY... One of my purposes in debating these alleged contradictions with you and others is to diseminate many different views of possible reconciliations raised by various Bible scholars and students alike.  When I present MY VIEWS, I will clearly distinguish them from now on.   DB... "Of course without Archer and Bullinger we find that Mr DeCenso has presented no Greek exegisis at all, and Mr DeCenso has made a big thing about my not referring back to the actual Greek.  Thus we find this demand on his part for quality Greek exegisis to be a hypocritical requirement."   MY REPLY... Good point.  But in your declaring that these passages are contradictory, you have produced only superficial reasonings and observations. Nor have you dug deeper.  I'm glad you have begun in this post.  I will begin Greek studies on these passages in more depth than I thought necessary, as well.   DB... "It would be appropriate to look at what Mr DeCenso has actually USED as evidence.  Now we know what he claims for a standard, as he has stated it often enough:   > (a) the text itself > (b) parallel passages > (c) other pertinent Scriptures > (d) historical context > (e) historical content > (f) other pertinent historical info > (g) cultural context > (h) cultural content > (i) other pertinent cultural info > (j) grammatical construction > (k) Hebrew and Greek word studies > (l) etc.   But are these actual standards he has used, or simply empty hyperbole.  Let's see, he has used (a), and since he is trying to reconcile it to other passages, we see that he has also used (b).  On the other hand he has presented no use of:   (d) historical context                or (e) historical content                or (f) other pertinent historical info   or (g) cultural context                  or (h) cultural content                  or (i) other pertinent cultural info     or (j) grammatical construction          or even (k) Hebrew and Greek word studies [remember, Archer and Bullinger don't count]   Thus we find his vaunted criteria for exegisis is just empty mouthings."   MY REPLY... Question:  Do you find such criteria important?  If so, do you plan on starting to use them to the best of your ability, or will you continue to present shallow observations (I don't mean this in a bad way). At this point in our _debates_, I have not found it necessary to present a total exegetical analysis of these passages, since we seem to keep beating around the bush and not getting into the core of the verses.  I do not believe it necessary to use many of the above criteria to refute your arguments re: Judas in Acts and Matthew, but I will do my best from this point on to use several of the above criteria, since you desire me to.  I hope you will also. It will greatly enhance our study of these passages.   DB... "The only thing he has actually used, beyond the passage itself, is any other passage.  Thus Mr DeCenso should be honest and note that most of his list is red herring and his only real criteria seems to be:   > (a) the text itself > (b) parallel passages   MY REPLY... The reason is simple...you are mistating the passages.  You claim that the PASSAGES contradict one another; I do not see the PASSAGES contradicting one another. (1) They may very well be complimentary, as many scholarly sources mention; (2) Matthew may not be presenting Judas' death, as you claim.  But we'll look at your defense of this later.   Also, the "reward of iniquity" in the Acts PASSAGE may not be the 30 pieces of silver in Matthew's PASSAGES.  (Although you have a valiant attempt later at stating why you believe it is).   At this beginning stages in our debates, we are laying some Scriptural groundwork, which will be expanded upon through deeper exegesis.   DB... "Of course the only reason I can see to so drastically reinterpret a passage as he has done with Judas' death, is to make it agree with another passage so that both could be considered correct."   MY REPLY... One of the reasons I have given a different exegetical view of the passages is that you seem to think the majority of scholarship is wrong in concluding these passages are complimentary.  However, I see no problem in Tony Rose's explanation of Judas' death...   _____________________________________________________________________   HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE INACCURACY BETWEEN JUDAS HANGING HIMSELF IN MATTHEW 27:5 AND "FALLING HEADLONG HE BURST OPEN" =============================================================   This question of the manner in which Judas died is one with which we are constantly confronted in our travels. Many people point to the apparent discrepancy in the two accounts as an obvious, irreconcilable error. Some have gone so far as to say that the idea of an inerrant Bible is destroyed by these contradictory accounts. However, this is not the case at all. Matthew relates that Judas hanged himself, while Peter tells us he fell and was crushed by the impact. The two statements are indeed different, but do they necessarily contradict each other? Matthew does not say that Judas did not fall; neither does Peter say that Judas did not hang himself. This is not a matter of one person calling something black and the other person calling it white. Both accounts can be true and supplementary. A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process. The fall could have been before *or* after death as either would fit this explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the valley of Hinnom is examined.  From the bottom of the valley, you can see rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular. There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on this way down, tearing his body open. It is important to remember that we are not told how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced was the decomposition of his body before his fall. Louis Gaussen relates a story of a man who was determined to kill himself. This individual placed himself on the sill of a high window and pointed a pistol at his head. He then pulled the trigger and leaped from the window at the same time. On the other hand, a person could say that this man took his life by shooting himself, while another could rightly contend he committed suicide by jumping form the tall building. In this case, both are true, as both are true in the case of Matthew's and Peter's accounts of the death of Judas. It is merely a situation of different perspectives of the same event.   _____________________________________________________________________   Your only reason for rejecting this is, I believe, your attempt to discredit inerrancy.  You haven't related how this is IMPOSSIBLE or highly unlikely. Here's what you said in an earlier post...   _____________________________________________________________________ DB [quoting Tony Rose]... > There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom. > Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks > on this way down, tearing his body open. It is important to remember that we >                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > are not told how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > was the decomposition of his body before his fall.   "The added text in this version is so heavy that, assuming you are truly so opposed to such tactics, you should find it not credible.  But you seem to find Tony Rose's eisegesis satisfactory, while clearly rejecting David Joslin's."   _____________________________________________________________________   Here, you discredit Tony's explanation based on what you deem too "heavy" for the passages.  But you haven't addressed why you feel that way.  You can say it's a vain attempt to reconcile the contradiction, but that doesn't tell me it didn't happen, nor have you shown why you reject that possibility.   Questions:  Is Matthew lying or is Luke lying?  Or are they both lying?  Or are either or both of them misinformed?  Why do you think there is such an alleged contradiction?  I do not think you have ever told us what you believe in this respect.   DB... "At present though, Mr DeCenso only asks two questions of me:   > (1) You claim Acts and Matthew contradict one another in representing Judas' >     death.  I ask you again to provide evidence that Matthew stated Judas >     died in the hanging. > (2) You claim that the 30 pieces of silver in Matthew that Judas threw down >     in the temple and the chief priests used, is the "reward of iniquity" >     in Acts that pictures Judas in some way purchasing a field with; >     therefore there is a contradiction.  Prove that the 30 pieces of silver >     and the "reward of iniquity" are one and the same.   Actually I find question (1) to be a rather stupid request, but I will answer it because he now restricts himself to two points.  First I would point out that hanging is a very efficient manner for ending a life.  In fact it is a bit of a fluke when someone survives hanging (except in fantasy cowboy movies), and even then it usually referred to as an attempted hanging."   MY REPLY... I work at an agency that investigates child abuse and neglect.  Today, I got a call re: a child that attempted suicide by hanging himself because his mother is on crack.  He failed in his attempt and is in a child's psych ward at a local hospital.  Hanging attempts are not always successful.   To assume that because most hangings are successful, this one was also is "begging the question", if I may quote you.   [Last night, listening to _The Bible Answer Man_ broadcast, The Christian Research Institute's show, one of the scholars on there used several of these terms that you use.  I am not all that familiar with them.  The man on the BAM show teaches Comparative Religion and Logic.  It was interesting]   DB... "This is so prevalent that, so that to say a man hung himself with no other qualifiers is synonymous with stating that he killed himself."   MY REPLY... Qualifiers are important at times, as we'll see in an OT passage I'll mention below. Does hanging ALWAYS have this outcome?  Did Matthew, who is the only source we have re: Judas hanging himself, state that Judas died as a result?  To say it's synonymous means it has the same meaning as.  A boy (age 14) hung himself.  But he lived.  This is only one of probably thousands of documented cases we can discover.   DB... "Now I am not alone in this thought; in fact, since Mr DeCenso so respects Christian scholarly (including Greek scholars) opinion, I did some research."   MY REPLY... Thank you, Dave.   DB... "Interestingly, not one of the Christian references I read, interpreted the hanging as being anything but a fatal suicide.              ^^^^^^^^^^^   MY REPLY... [^^^ above, mine] So it's OK to use Christian sources to back your points?  What about Tony's position.  Do you value it or even consider it as a valid possibility?   Also, is it possible that the sources you read may be wrong, or lying, or deceived in other parts of their books?  If so, should we do, as we have done with Archer, toss them to the side and not value anything they say, including their "interpretation" of the hanging of Judas?  I am sure _you_ would find some errors and maybe even some deception in those sources.   You also noted they "interpreted" the hanging as meaning he died.  Although that is very possibly true, do you find that in the text itself?  Remember, that's the first criteria we must examine.   DB... "This included:       "The Biblical Knowledge Commentary" by Woodward and Zuck"   MY REPLY... Which I own.  It's a good source of commentary info.  But not inerrant.   DB...     "The Interpreters on Volume Commentary on the Bible" by Laydon     "The one volume Bible Commentary" by J R Dunelow     "Word meanings of the Testament" Ralph Earl     "The Abingdon Bible Commentary" published by Abingdon     "Harpers Bible Commentary" by William Neal      (Actually I could have presented many more as well)   MY REPLY... I appreciate your doing this research, Dave.  Maybe we are getting somewhere in how we both should approach these alleged contradictions - more in depth study.   DB... "In each case, these references specifically describe that the interpretation of Matt 27:5 as successful, suicide and thus I can only conclude that the                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Greek word "apagchw"(ie: hang oneself) is translated as a successful hanging."   MY REPLY... [^^^ above, mine] No you can't only conclude this, although, as Tony says, this was a highly probable outcome.  But Matthew does not state death as being a result.   The Greek word is APAGCHO.  Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New Testament.   In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus), it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb."             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. Sept., APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died".  Here we have no doubt of the result. In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.   Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure.  It simply means "hang oneself".   DB... "But Mr DeCenso, you are more than welcome to disagree and show more reputable                                                                      ^^^^^^^^^ Christian scholars that insist that the hanging was not successful."   MY REPLY... [^^^above, mine] "Reputable"?  You mean ones that have never erred? As far as   insisting that the hanging was unsuccessful, that can't be done, even by me. ^^^^^^^^^   As I said in an earlier post...   _____________________________________________________________________ Although I still agree with Tony's exegesis as being the most probable explanation regarding Judas' death (taking into account several criteria), I've recently noticed some new things in Matthew.   MAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood." And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.   First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along with the other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle, etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cut. ^^^ _____________________________________________________________________   I also wrote...   _____________________________________________________________________ MY REPLY...   Here we have a stickler, Dave, that I have to say I just recently noticed. Let's look at the passage in Matthew:   MAT 27:4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." And they said, "What is that to us? You see to it!"   MAT 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.   MAT 27:6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood."   MAT 27:7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.   MAT 27:8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.   Notice verse 5..."Then he...went and hanged himself." Matthew does not say Judas died, does it?  Should we assume he died as a result of the hanging?                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What does Acts say? ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.   ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'   Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death....So, my line of reasoning to dispel your contradiction myth re:the "two" accounts of Judas' death is this...Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise.  Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' `death'.   .......   MY REPLY... ...we do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records his death.  Although it's possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, I can no longer assume that to be the case.  Therefore, no contradiction.  Matthew did not say Judas died as a                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ result of the hanging, did he?  Most scholars believe he probably did, but...? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ______________________________________________________________________   I quoted all that to show that I highly regard the scholars' explanations, but in looking at the texts initially, we can't assume Judas died.  It is, however, highly probable.                            ^^^^^^   DB... "By the way, while all agree that Judas died from the hanging, the books had different ways of dealing with the contradiction we are discussing.  One simply ignored it entirely and simply referred back to Matthew's version as the correct version in both Matt and Acts.  "The Biblical Knowledge Commentary" suggested the hypotheses that Judas hung and then when he rotted, his belly exploded (which doesn't explain his headlong fall), or that his branch or rope broke, and he fell to his death and his gut gushed out (which doesn't explain how a hanging man, would fall headlong rather than feet first)."   MY REPLY... The outcome of any fall is dependent upon many factors...how high the person was suspended before the fall, any obstructions such as tree branches that may have deviated the fall, how steep an incline of rocky surfaces the victim fell upon, thus possibly rolling or bouncing of several rocks, etc.  In a superficial examination of the Acts passage and the Matthew passage, we are not given a lot of info on the geographical specifics, but Tony in the above quoted post gave us some...   _____________________________________________________________________ A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process. The fall could have been before *or* after death as either would fit this explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the valley of Hinnom is examined.  From the bottom of the valley, you can see rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular. There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on this way down, tearing his body open. _____________________________________________________________________   DB... Now truthfully, I do not see what is comforting about Matthew confusing the source of the Potter's field prophesy, but on the other hand the author is correct: Matthew does make that confusion.  Of course a Biblical inerrantist who claim that every word of the Bible is guaranteed true by God, will have to thereby add one more contradiction to the death of Judas (ie: where the prophesy of the Potter's field came from)."   MY REPLY... Please, when we are done with this study on his death, remind me to discuss this with you.   DB... As to your second question Mr DeCenso, you ask how we could be sure that the money with which Judas purchased the land, was indeed for the betrayal, rather than some other source.  I would point out that in Acts, where it specifically mention "the reward of iniquity" [Acts 1:18], it also specifically mentions what act of iniquity they were talking about (ie: Acts 1:16 "...concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.").  Now I would point out that when the Bible describes an act of "iniquity," and then immediately discusses "*the* reward of iniquity," it would be rather inane to suggest that it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed."   MY REPLY... Dave, we are getting somewhere, aren't we!   ACT 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, ACT 1:16 "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; ACT 1:17 "for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry." ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. ACT 1:19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'   Notice that in verse 16, the word "iniquity" is not used.  Rather, it states that Judas "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus". But the writer DID NOT stop there...vs. 17, "for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."  What part did Judas play in their ministry?          ^^^^^^ JOH 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. JOH 13:29 For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to him, "Buy those things we need for the feast," or that he should give something to the poor.   So, now we know what part Judas played - he was a treasurer, per se. Right after Peter stated that Judas played a part in this ministry (treasurer, according to John), THEN Luke adds the parenthetical explanation of "wages of iniquity" - money that should have been put into the ministry, but was stolen by Judas to purchase a field.  I believe this is a better exegetical explanation of what the "wages of iniquity" are.  What do you think, Dave?   DB... "Now since I have given you clear answers (and even references), perhaps you could unequivocally state what type of inerrantist you are (instead of asking me what type I think you are, as you did to Mr Joslin)."   MY REPLY... I will gladly admit that I am a Complete Inerrantist, although I do not have that big a problem with the Limited Inerrancy view.  Frank