Discrepancy in Judas' death

[daveleau]

One of the issues that I often hear about regarding inerrancy of Scripture is the death of Judas. I believe that Scripture is inerrant, but recognize these perceived problems. I believe that there are specific things that explain many (if not most) and the rest will be resolved through further revelations. Judas is one such revelation.

There are two reports of Judas' death.
1) Matt 27:5
2) Acts 1:18

Matthew says he hung himself and Acts says he fell headlong.
The word used for "headlong" is prenes (accents left off). Through further research of Koine Greek, it has been found that this also means to "swell up".

If a body is left without embalming for a period of time, the body swells and can burst open. If he were hanging for a long period of time, then this is a very plausible result. His body would have swelled and his organs would have fallen to the ground.

I am not saying that this is absolute, but a possible resolution to this perceived contradiction.

God bless,
Dave

 

[muffler dragon]

That is a plausible explanation, Dave.

As for myself, I've not found myself too bothered regarding the descripancies within the B'rit Chadasha (New Covenant). But I understand why some do.

m.d.

 

[Serapha]

One of the issues that I often hear about regarding inerrancy of Scripture is the death of Judas. I believe that Scripture is inerrant, but recognize these perceived problems. I believe that there are specific things that explain many (if not most) and the rest will be resolved through further revelations. Judas is one such revelation.

There are two reports of Judas' death.
1) Matt 27:5
2) Acts 1:18

Matthew says he hung himself and Acts says he fell headlong.
The word used for "headlong" is prenes (accents left off). Through further research of Koine Greek, it has been found that this also means to "swell up".

If a body is left without embalming for a period of time, the body swells and can burst open. If he were hanging for a long period of time, then this is a very plausible result. His body would have swelled and his organs would have fallen to the ground.

I am not saying that this is absolute, but a possible resolution to this perceived contradiction.

God bless,
Dave

Hi there!




And your source is?


I did a search on the internet, and this is all I found...


http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/judas.html

~thanks~

 

[daveleau]

Erickson "Christian Theology" - a systematic theology text. roughly page 260 in the chapter on infallibility.

 

[SolomonVII]

It may be of some interest to contrast the intense interest that these alleged discrepancies in scriptural text generate today with the near indifference that such concerns held for the early Christians.

Even before canon was closed, differences between the gospels were noted, and there was even one proposal to create one gospel form the four in order to harmonize all the details. However, this idea fizzled, mainly due to lack of concern over discrepancies, nor does there seem to exist much early literature that tries to explain the differences away, as is now the case on so many Christian apologetic sites.

Apparently, the way that early Christians once regarded scripture and the way that many modern Christians now view the same scripture has diverged greatly.

Where once Christological controversies dominated the debates amongst different Christian and pseudo-Christian ideologies, now the literalness of scripture has become of grave concern to so many.

 

[C.A.B.L]

I had heard once that Judas hung himself on a tree limb, overhanging a cliff. And once the limb broke, he feel "headlong" down and his insides come out. That's the best explanation I have heard of the discrepancy.

 

[muffler dragon]

It may be of some interest to contrast the intense interest that these alleged discrepancies in scriptural text generate today with the near indifference that such concerns held for the early Christians.

Even before canon was closed, differences between the gospels were noted, and there was even one proposal to create one gospel form the four in order to harmonize all the details. However, this idea fizzled, mainly due to lack of concern over discrepancies, nor does there seem to exist much early literature that tries to explain the differences away, as is now the case on so many Christian apologetic sites.

Apparently, the way that early Christians once regarded scripture and the way that many modern Christians now view the same scripture has diverged greatly.

Where once Christological controversies dominated the debates amongst different Christian and pseudo-Christian ideologies, now the literalness of scripture has become of grave concern to so many.

I can see that.

And my personal opinion would be that the majority of the early believers (including the authors themselves) did not consider their writings to be on par with the Torah/Tanakh. But once again, that's jmho.

m.d.

 

[SolomonVII]

I can see that.

And my personal opinion would be that the majority of the early believers (including the authors themselves) did not consider their writings to be on par with the Torah/Tanakh. But once again, that's jmho.

m.d.

For many of the earliest Christians, the gospels in written form, but were only spread through the spoken word. As often as not, what was considered scriptural for these Christians would have been the Septuagint, which would have included the apocryphal writings of the intertestament periods as well as the writings that later was formally canonized as the Hebrew Bible.

Yet there is one passage in in the New Testament where Peter states the a writing of Paul had the authority of Scripture. Some of his own statments made in the New Testament, he uttered in such a way so as to leave no doubt that he was speaking with authority.

(Now if I had the scriptural skills of so many of the protestants here I could point to the exact verses, but since this is not the case, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it ).


Rather than making a case for the New Testament being inferior to the Old, which is not my view at all, my own personal view is that for early generations of Christians, the innerrancy of the spiritual message of the gospels always took precedence over the events of mundane history.

In contrast, in the skeptic-driven, hyper-critical environment of today, we do not always appreciate this spiritual commentary which sometimes creates ambiguities to appear in the events being reported upon.

As the link that Serapha provides points out, albeit from the modern vantage point of a skeptical conversation, what appears to be of most important to Luke is the idea that the new wine of Jesus' teaching could not be contained by the old wineskin of Judas, who continued to cling to his own traditional expectations of what the Messiah and the Kingdom were to be like.

Hence the historical event of Judas suicide, also reported independantly im Matthew's gospel, was told in such a way that Luke's vision of this greater spiritual reality would be immediately and graphically understood by his audience.

In today's world, however, the focus is precisely on the weakness of the historical method and the ambiguities. But for the ancient world, where dreams, visions, and archetypes were considered as the true reality underlying the secondary, mundane events of earthly existence, such ambiguities barely registered as worthy of comment.

 

[muffler dragon]

The Bible presents two conflicting
accounts of the manner of Judas'
death. This conflict exists because
the fourth century editors who
decided which writings should be
part of the Bible didn't worry about
whether one author's story
conflicted with another, because
they were not concerned with
presenting the Bible as error-free;
they were more concerned with not
offending anyone by presenting the
traditional beliefs of just one group.

I find that this statement is very similar to what you are stating. I guess what I would like to know is are there any actual reports written about how early believers viewed Scripture? I find the sentiment above to be very non-Judaic, and that is why I ask how people come to that conclusion.

For many of the earliest Christians, the gospels in written form, but were only spread through the spoken word. As often as not, what was considered scriptural for these Christians would have been the Septuagint, which would have included the apocryphal writings of the intertestament periods as well as the writings that later was formally canonized as the Hebrew Bible.

I guess it depends on which believer subculture you're discussing. Torah-observant Jews who believed in Y'shua primarily stuck with the Hebrew Tanakh, even with the Hellenization that occurred outside.

I would agree that Oral transmission was much more pronounced within the first century than it is now. And that may very well be a major source of problems with later writings. Considering the fact that it is hard enough for a circle of people to say the same thing passed on one by one through whisper.

Yet there is one passage in in the New Testament where Peter states the a writing of Paul had the authority of Scripture. Some of his own statments made in the New Testament, he uttered in such a way so as to leave no doubt that he was speaking with authority.

Statements by Kefa regarding Sha'ul:

2 Peter 3
14(AL)Therefore, (AM)beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be (AN)found by Him in peace, (AO)spotless and blameless,

15and regard the (AP)patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also (AQ)our beloved brother Paul, (AR)according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of (AS)these things, (AT)in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and (AU)unstable distort, as they do also (AV)the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I would say that I see the correlation that people make, however, I find it to be a bit of a stretch to say that the epistles are equivalent in inspiration to the Torah/Tanakh. Furthermore, Kefa doesn't say that the Torah and Tanakh are hard to understand; he only makes that comment about Sha'ul's writings; which in my mind are more of a commentary on the Torah/Tanakh. But I digress, this is not a discussion on Scriptural integrity. Therefore, I apologize for being a part of the rabbit trail.

Rather than making a case for the New Testament being inferior to the Old, which is not my view at all, my own personal view is that for early generations of Christians, the innerrancy of the spiritual message of the gospels always took precedence over the events of mundane history.

Do you have any documentation that allowed you to come to such a conclusion?

In contrast, in the skeptic-driven, hyper-critical environment of today, we do not always appreciate this spiritual commentary which sometimes creates ambiguities to appear in the events being reported upon.

I can see that, but I am also wary of the statement. It can be used as a catch-all in problematic circles where it has no place on being.

As the link that Serapha provides points out, albeit from the modern vantage point of a skeptical conversation, what appears to be of most important to Luke is the idea that the new wine of Jesus' teaching could not be contained by the old wineskin of Judas, who continued to cling to his own traditional expectations of what the Messiah and the Kingdom were to be like.

Hence the historical event of Judas suicide, also reported independantly im Matthew's gospel, was told in such a way that Luke's vision of this greater spiritual reality would be immediately and graphically understood by his audience.

I would consider that a tremendous stretch to say the least, but then again, that's strictly my opinion.

In today's world, however, the focus is precisely on the weakness of the historical method and the ambiguities. But for the ancient world, where dreams, visions, and archetypes were considered as the true reality underlying the secondary, mundane events of earthly existence, such ambiguities barely registered as worthy of comment.

That may very well be true, but it does not alleviate the consideration that Judaism does believe in inspiration levels. Not everything that is written is of the same ilk as the Torah and so on.

Anyways... have a pleasant day.

m.d.