Still, if this tradition is correct, since we have a fragment of a Greek codex of Matthew that dates to AD 65, the original had to have been written quite a bit earlier, and Luke would have known all about it.

H: According to this you would have to assume that the Quran and the Book of Mormon and even the Gospel of Judas are all inerrant just because they were or are considered ‘sacred’.

I would not need to assume that the Koran, the Book of Mormon etc. are all inerrant. I would have to give them a pretty strong presumption of reasonableness. And I do.

Gnostic writings, like the Gospel of Judas, fall into a somewhat different category. These writings are explicitly intended to contain secret truths that override the public tradition. So one does not expect that the author made any effort to be consistent with writings in the public tradition, quite the opposite in fact. One expects that there will be some overlap and some inconsistency.

On the other hand, if multiple authors are attempting to contribute to the same tradition (not to a gnostic counter-tradition), I would expect that they would take some pains to make sure that their contributions do not openly conflict with those of other contributors.

This is not, of course, to say that the writings of many, or even one, author will read so consistently that an uncharitable reader will not be able to find contradictions. Of course they will.

That brings us to the alleged greater agreement (or lesser disagreement) between Matthew and Luke where there’s a Markan parallel.

This greater agreement simply does not exist. There are plenty of places where Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote on the same sets of events, but where skeptics will claim that Matthew and Luke disagree. Some of the top-rated ‘errors’ on this very site fall into this category. Indeed, it’s when all three write about the same events that you are more likely to see skeptics crying “foul”. This is probably because those sorts of cases are the ones where each author is liable to put his own spin on the story. The problems surrounding Matthew’s supposed ‘double-vision’ are a case in point.

Obviously, I do not believe that the authors do, really, disagree. But I’m surprised that you, as a skeptic, would make the claim that Matthew and Luke show any greater agreement when there’s a Markan parallel.

As for the synoptic problem, the argument that Mark is first is based entirely on ‘internal’ evidence. All the external evidence points to Matthew being first. For example, the earliest NT fragments are of Matthew from 65AD in Greek in codex form, That indicates that Matthew was written well before 65AD. If so, Luke knew all about Matthew. Indeed, a tradition among early church historians is that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew and it was translated into Greek by none other than Luke. I’m very sorry to say that I give this very old tradition far more credence than any hypothesis by much more recent critics that is based entirely on how cleverly they can read the texts.

1: What is a sacred text? You haven’t defined it. Is the Quran sacred? You said: “I assume the same standard for all allegedly sacred writings. If I find what I take to be an ‘obvious’ contradiction, I tend to assume that I haven’t read or interpreted the text correctly.” This is a bold assumption. According to this you would have to assume that the Quran and the Book of Mormon and even the Gospel of Judas are all inerrant just because they were or are considered “sacred”.

You are committing a philosophical fallacy called “begging the question”. You just assume the inerrant text of “sacred” texts when that is precisely the question at hand.

2: You said: “…at least pay them the compliment of assuming,… a coherent narrative.” I do assume that the independent books are coherent. Acts is coherent and Matthew is coherent. It is illogical to assume coherency between two different authors writing to a different audience at a different time. You are assuming that Matthew and Luke are attempting to tell the same exact story. You are begging the question.

3: Assuming that Acts & Matthew are coherent with each other would not be a “compliment” to them. It very much could be an insult if in fact my thesis is true. Luke might be upset to hear that people believe he is describing the aftermath of a hanging. You cannot assume that Luke was either familiar with Matthew or intent on telling the same account.

4: I think a careful synoptic study might enlighten you on this point. Mathew and Luke typically agree where Mark has the parallel account. This adds further evidence that Mark was a source for both the authors of Matthew & Luke/Acts. On stories where Mark lacks the parallel account, Matthew & Luke/Acts more often disagree, hence the birth narrative difficulties. Mark describes no birth narrative, therefore Matthew and Luke did not share their birth narrative source. This sheds light on the different accounts given in each. The death of Judas has no Markan parallel.

So you are saying, in effect, that the context of the Acts passage makes it OBVIOUS that there was a precipice in the middle of Judas’s field. But no such thing is obvious, and the claim that it is obvious is patently absurd.

My claim that Judas hanged himself, cooked in the sun and burst open as a result is certainly no less obvious. And it is probably a good deal more obvious: that there might be a tree in Judas’s field seems far more likely than that there might be a cliff.

“I am trying to determine what the Bible is actually teaching. I am un-willing to let a difficulty between two texts determine how I should interpret one of them.”

This is not a sound way to go about reading a text, especially a sacred text. Even a text written by multiple authors. One should come to the conclusion that the authors contradict themselves only after being dragged there by argument.

I assume the same standard for all allegedly sacred writings. If I find what I take to be an ‘obvious’ contradiction, I tend to assume that I haven’t read or interpreted the text correctly. This standard actually applies to many kinds of text, but it applies especially to sacred texts. If you want to understand what the authors of sacred texts are actually saying, at least pay them the compliment of assuming, at least initially, that they are trying to provide a coherent narrative.

You said: “Acts was almost certainly written before 70 AD.”

On this I won’t dive into this debate. All I can say is that I have studied this issue quite a bit and I reject your dating ideas. Instead I accept the LARGE majority of scholarship on the dating of Luke.

It appears that because Luke is quoting Peter you assume that Luke heard it directly from Peter. Is this the only possibility? Did the author of Genesis hear the conversations between God & Adam or Noah? Your logic fails here.

You said: “And so you completely ignore Errancy’s point that the literal meaning of the Greek is “become prone”.’

Is it ignoring if I disagree? I think Errancy wouldn’t want people blindly assuming all of his points. On this point I believe he is incorrect. The translators of many other versions of Acts will shed light on my point here:

New Living Translation: “Falling headfirst there, his body split open,”

International Standard Version: “Falling on his face, he burst open in the middle,”

God’s Word Translation: “he bought a piece of land where he fell headfirst to his death. His body split open,”

Bible in basic English: “and falling head first, came to a sudden and violent end there.”

Weymouth New Testament: “he fell there with his face downwards, and, his body bursting open,”

I guess these translators were all bafoons. No, they were trying to accurately convey what the ancient Greek manuscripts were saying. I think these translations are correct as well as the familiar “headlong” translations. They are all speaking of a head first fall. Without becoming Greek scholars ourselves we need to rely on the expertise of others.

You said: “Luke always refers to a corpse as such?
Well…maybe not always.”

Both of your Luke references are irrelevant because Jesus indicated in the second case that the daughter has not died but is only asleep. I think a safe assumption is that the Luke 7 reference is explainable in the same manner.

You are absolutely right about the Acts reference. The pronoun was used to describe the body. I concede that point.

It is noteworthy that every instance you sited revolve around a recently deceased body. In your scenario some time would have passed until Judas body was seen to have burst. In this scenario I believe my original references to Luke 24 are better suited to solve this question. Luke seems to be comfortable using the pronoun “him, he, her, or she” if the person was recently deceased while referring to it as a “body” if some days have passed. This is not a point worth pursuing though. I’ll concede the point to you.

You said: “What? Are we supposed to start from the opposite assumption, of historical inaccuracy?”

No, we are supposed to start with absolutely no conclusion in mind. We shouldn’t be set out to prove or disprove anything. We should seek to accurately determine the meaning of each independent author’s words. If that means finding harmony, great! If that means finding contradiction, so be it.

You said: “Bad analogy. I’m not a juror. I’m a defense attorney. And what you seem to be advocating is that my opening statement should include the claim that my client is probably guilty.”

Hmm you are the defense attorney? So your job is to defend the Bible from me, the prosecution? That actually makes sense, defense attorney’s are known for twisting the truth as much as possible in order to defend their client. That is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are taking liberty to interpret the Bible how you feel fit and distorting it out of the OBVIOUS context.

I am trying to determine what the Bible is actually teaching. I am un-willing to let a difficulty between two texts determine how I should interpret one of them. As a logical person I can’t just assume harmony.

I don’t want to come across nasty, I have really enjoyed our interaction!

Acts was almost certainly written before 70 AD. Probably well before 70 AD. The section we are talking about was reporting a speech by Peter, who was, presumably, Luke’s source. Peter was alive when and where Judas killed himself.

“The fact that he fell headlong indicates some sort of height.”

And so you completely ignore Errancy’s point that the literal meaning of the Greek is “become prone”. And, BTW, headlong does not indicate any great height or any height at all. A runner can slide headlong into third base, yet, oddly enough, baseball diamonds are seldom constructed on precipices.

“The Acts account sounds more like a suicidal jump.”

I suppose if you’re in for a penny you’re in for a pound. As long as you want to read between the lines to the bizarre idea that Judas fell from so great a height in his field that he burst. You might as well say that he jumped from that height.

“Look up suicide jump photos and you will see a lot of bowel gushing.”

What you will actually see is a lot of heads split open. Of course, you may see some bowel gushing. You may also see limbs torn away and all sorts of carnage. But this is what you see when people jump from skyscrapers and such. What we are talking about here is, at best, a hilly field (unless you now want to say that the text plainly reads that Judas bought a field with a cliff somewhere in the middle of it). And that is based on the unwarranted assumption that the field was purchased with a modest sum. Judas was embezzling money from Jesus and the disciples throughout their ministry. He may have had more than a modest sum to purchase the field.

“Additionally even if a death in this matter is unlikely, it is irrelevant because it assumes historical accuracy. Luke could have been telling an oral tradition, or he could have lied.”

What? Are we supposed to start from the opposite assumption, of historical inaccuracy? I suppose that proving Biblical error from the assumption of Biblical error is good work if you can get it, but…

“You failed to address my point about Luke describing Judas falling as “He”. This implies a live body not a dead one. Luke always refers to a corpse as such.”

——————————-
Luke 7:12-14
Now as He approached the gate of the city, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a sizeable crowd from the city was with her. When the Lord saw her, He felt compassion for her, and said to her, “Do not weep.” And He came up and touched the coffin; and the bearers came to a halt. And He said, “Young man, I say to you, arise!”
——————————-
Luke 8:49-54
While He was still speaking, someone came from the house of the synagogue official, saying, “Your daughter has died; do not trouble the Teacher anymore.” But when Jesus heard this, He answered him, “Do not be afraid any longer; only believe, and she will be made well.” When He came to the house, He did not allow anyone to enter with Him, except Peter and John and James, and the girl’s father and mother. Now they were all weeping and lamenting for her; but He said, “Stop weeping, for she has not died, but is asleep.” And they began laughing at Him, knowing that she had died. He, however, took her by the hand and called, saying, “Child, arise!”
——————————-
Acts 5:5-11
And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying himout, they buried him.

Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
——————————-

Luke always refers to a corpse as such?

Well…maybe not always.

“So many Christians will gladly argue for inerrancy while admitting they know the conclusion before they begin. Let me give you an analogy. It would be as if a juror decided the defendant was guilty before ever looking at the evidence.”

Bad analogy. I’m not a juror. I’m a defense attorney. And what you seem to be advocating is that my opening statement should include the claim that my client is probably guilty.

1: On MJ. Now you are assuming that Acts was written when and where people would have been eyewitnesses with the real Judas events. This is a mighty large assumption, an assumption not supported by the large majority of scholars.

2: People DO die from falling and bursting open. All you need is a decent height and a rocky surface and boom. The fact that he fell headlong indicates some sort of height. You would assume that any “field” that could be bought with a modest sum of money would not be a level plot. (Just a guess here). The Acts account sounds more like a suicidal jump. Look up suicide jump photos and you will see a lot of bowel gushing. Additionally even if a death in this matter is unlikely, it is irrelevant because it assumes historical accuracy. Luke could have been telling an oral tradition, or he could have lied.

3: You failed to address my point about Luke describing Judas falling as “He”. This implies a live body not a dead one. Luke always refers to a corpse as such. See references in my previous comment.

4: You said: “Again, that Luke (or Peter) is describing the means of Judas’ death seem bizarre to me.” This is where we have to leave it I guess. To me it seems bizarre that Luke is not describing the means of Judas’ death.

THOUGHTS ON YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS

You are assuming much here. You are assuming an early date of authorship. You are assuming a historical accuracy of Acts & Matthew. You are assuming a harmony between the two accounts.

In order for you to be at all convincing in this you would need to assume a possibility of errors or contradictions. Will you agree that the Bible may have errors? If not then why even argue? You will never admit OBVIOUS errors anyway. Your presuppositions REQUIRE you to hold your positions. (Assuming you indeed hold said positions)

So many Christians will gladly argue for inerrancy while admitting they know the conclusion before they begin. Let me give you an analogy. It would be as if a juror decided the defendant was guilty before ever looking at the evidence.

Before you enter this discussion you need to have an open mind to ALL possibilities. I don’t think you do.

Thanks!

Part of the point of the example is that everyone knows how MJ died. The mention of the brain removal serves a different purpose than describing his mode of death (which, as I said, everyone knows).

It is likewise probable that everyone knew how Judas died. The point was to highlight the ugliness of it. To remove any veneer of high tragedy.

On Silence

“You are taking a supposed silence and adding in details from another author. Then you are saying that just because Luke doesn’t mention the hanging, it doesn’t make it false. That is an argument from silence as well. Surely you need to re-think this.”

There is no ‘supposed’ silence from Luke on the hanging. There unquestionably is silence. The only question is, what does it prove? Usually, the best answer is “nothing”. This need not always be the case. If it were Luke’s intention to provide the definitive account of Judas’ death, his silence would be considerably more telling than it is in the current context.

This, at least, seems wrong-headed:

“It is better to acknowledge the silence than to fill in the supposed gaps in that silence with details from a different author.”

Why doesn’t it make sense to consider multiple accounts if they exist? Isn’t that the the way one ordinarily gets to the bottom of things?

On Bursting

“”People don’t die by falling over and bursting open in the middle.” On this point I believe you may have slipped into the realm of comic insanity. They don’t!?”

You’re kidding right?

OK, clearly if someone did fall over and burst open in the middle so that his guts gushed out, he probably would die. But I pretty clearly was not trying to deny the general lethality of bursting open in the middle and having your guts gush out.

What I was saying is that this kind of scenario is weird in the extreme:

Judas was in out in his field one day. He fell over and burst open in the middle and his guts gushed out

How would that work? Judas would have to be made out of tissue paper. It just doesn’t make sense. And if you say he fell headlong, how would it be that he bursts open in the middle? Even assuming that Judas is made of tissue paper, wouldn’t his head crack open and his brains gush out?

Again, that Luke (or Peter) is describing the means of Judas’ death seem bizarre to me.