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)
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)
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:
 
 
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:
 
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:
 
 
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:
 
 
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:
 
 
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]...
 
"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:
 
 
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