₦airaland Forum

Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed
him, when he saw that he was condemned,
repented himself, and brought again the thirty
pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the
innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us?
see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of
silver in the temple, and departed, and went and
hanged himself. And the chief priests took the
silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put
them into the treasury, because it is the price of
blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them
the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore
that field was called, The field of blood, unto this
day.
Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with
the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he
burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers
at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in
their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The
field of blood.
Here are a series of problems
claimed of these two accounts.
Matthew has Judas hanging himself, while Acts
says he fell over and busted his guts open. So
which is correct?
Here are the explanations to be
considered:
The standard explanation given by
harmonists is that Judas hanged
himself, and then his body fell and
broke open.
This has some promise: Judas
hanged himself on Passover and
before a Sabbath, and no Jew was
going to touch the hanging corpse
(touching a dead body caused
defilement; it would have been work
to take it down on the Sabbath;
added to that, death by hanging was
especially a disgrace; and hoisting
a dead body isn't an attractive
vocation if it isn't on your property),
so it is safe to assume that Judas
hanged himself and that the branch
or rope eventually broke.
Polhill in his Acts commentary
[92n] notes that the phrase
translated "becoming
headlong" ( prenes genomenos --
translated as "falling headlong" in
the KJV, but literally being
"becoming headlong" as shown in
Green's Interlinear translation, 366)
is a mere transcription error away
from being "becoming
swollen" ( presthes genomenos). The
latter may well be what was
originally written, and as such
might describe Judas' body swelling
up after hanging for a while. This
reading is found in later Syriac,
Georgian and Armenian mss.,
though perhaps as an attempt at
textual criticism of the sort we are
doing.
Skeptics do regularly scoff at the
suggestion that such a combination
of events could happen, and yet be
reported differently, but Eddy and
Boyd in The Jesus Legend have
discovered an almost exactly
analogous case involving the
lynching of two brothers in 1881.
[424] Two different witness
accounts indicated that the brothers
were hanged from two different
places: a railroad crossing, and a
pine tree. Historians would have
concluded that there was a
contradiction until researchers
found photographs proving that both
accounts were correct: The brothers
had been hanged in both locations,
having been apparently first hanged
from the crossing, and then later
taken down and hanged on the pine
tree.
Taken together I still consider the
"hanging body/rope broke" solution
possible -- but now find something
else even more likely. But first let's
look at another answer:
Matthew does not even describe Judas' death at
all . Here is how one site puts it:
The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the
word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature
to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with
great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar
expression when we say that someone is "all
choked up." We do not mean that they have died.
We mean that they are overcome with emotion.
Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple
and left doubling himself over with grief.
A check of the lexicons shows that
such a meaning is indeed possible , but
I found only one actual example
listed -- the vast majority of the
meanings given were for a physical
hanging; there was only one
example of a figurative meaning as
described. So I would say that this
is a possible solution, but not likely.
However, I would now opt for the
idea that this is an example of Matthew's
creative use of an OT "type" . This would
combine the idea that Matthew is
not actually describing Judas'
death, with Matthew's use of the OT
texts as typologies.
Audrey Conrad, in "The Fate of
Judas" ( Toronto Journal of Theology [7]
1992), notes that Matthew's unique
words "departed" and "hanged
himself" are found in combination
in another place in the LXX:
2 Samuel 17:23 And when Ahithophel saw that his
counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and
arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city,
and put his household in order, and hanged
himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre
of his father.
Conrad notes that rabbinic
interpretation of Ps. 41:9 ("Yea,
mine own familiar friend, in whom
I trusted, which did eat of my
bread, hath lifted up his heel
against me." thought that
Ahithophel was the traitor David
was describing -- and of course this
same verse was applied by Jesus to
Judas (John 13:18).
Conrad still thinks there are not
enough parallels (!) but we would
maintain that the parallels are
sufficient, and that Matthew is
indeed alluding to the traitor
Ahithophel in this passage, and is
therefore NOT telling us that Judas
indeed hanged himself, but that
Judas fulfilled the "type" of
Ahithophel by being a traitor who
responded with grief and then died.
Matthew is thereby making no
statement at all about Judas' mode
of death, and Luke's "swelling up"
stands alone as a specific
description of what happened.
It makes no sense for the author to tell us that
Judas' guts burst without telling us why it
happened. Spilling out of guts because of swelling
is such a rare event that surely if Luke believed
that this extraordinary thing actually happened to
Judas, he would have made certain to provide the
extraordinary explanation for its occurrence.
This "surely" is the objection of a
low-context modern demanding full
explanations for every unusual
event, but when it comes down to it,
neither Luke nor any person could
have been able to "provide the
explanation" without knowing why it
happened. Unless Luke or some
other physician had access to Judas
(not likely) they could not so much
as mount a guess as to "why". (See
here -- secular historians have no
problem with similar ideas.)
Matthew says the priests bought the field, but
Acts says that Judas did. So who did it?
The alternate site opts for this
explanation:
The chief priests did not want to put the money
paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple
treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought
an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because
blood money was used to purchase the field it was
called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different
than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased
himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1.
The problem here is that both Acts
and Matthew connect the purchase
specifically with Judas' act of
treachery. Thus I cannot accept this
solution. However, it does lead into
our own answer. There are a few
factors here -- one linguistic, the
others sociological.
The word used by Matthew for
"bought" is agorazo -- a general term
meaning, "to go to market." It
means to purchase, but also to
redeem. It is a verb that refers to
the transaction of business. Note
how Luke uses it in opposition to
another word:
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he
that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell
(poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one.
Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary
meaning has to do with trading and
bartering. Therefore the translation
of "buy" (and "sell" is made
according to context.
How does this mean anything with
regard to Judas?
First, note the word Luke uses. It is
ktaomai , which means to "get, acquire,
obtain, possess, provide, purchase."
This word has the connotations of
ownership that agorazo does not.
Matthew says that the priests
transacted business for the
obtaining of the field, but they did
not thereby have possession of the
field. The money they used was
Judas' and the field was bought in
his name; the field was technically
and legally his.
And that leads to another question
no one has yet raised, but which I
will:
It seems too much of a coincidence, that the
priests managed to buy the exact same field that
Judas died in.
Not at all. Once Judas died in the
field, the land became defiled by
his corpse. Hence it would become
perfectly suited to become a full-
time cemetery. In this ancient
collectivist society, the gossip would
readily get around as to where and
how Judas died and it would not be
a burden for the decision to be
made to purchase the field in Judas'
name (see below) to turn into a
cemetery.
If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his
anymore, it belonged to the priests.
This is where our social factor
comes into play. Note that the money
cannot be put in the treasury -- it
cannot be made to belong to the
temple again -- because it is blood
money. Keener observes in his
Matthean commentary [657-8]:
Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously
the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in
terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the
priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with
the situation, and likewise understand that the
blood was innocent...
The money was profaned and
tainted by the way it was used. By
ancient thinking, it was ritually
unclean -- though even today a
charity may refuse money if it is
gained by ill-gotten means.
Now it follows that when they
transacted the business of the field
for the temple, to avoid association
with ritual uncleanness, the priests
would have to have bought it in the
name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose
blood money it was. The property
and transaction records available to
the public and probably consulted
by Luke would reflect that Judas
bought the field -- or else Luke is
indeed aware of what transpired
and is using just the right verb to
make the point.
Matthew says the name 'Field of Blood' came
because it was bought with blood money. Luke
says it was because Judas split his guts all over.
So which is it?
This objection assumes that what
was "known unto all the dwellers"
was Judas' gut-bust episode, but it
would seem that the phrase modifies
all that precedes it: "Now this man
purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst asunder
in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out."
Judas' gut-burst would hardly
warrant a "field of blood"
designation for the whole property.
There would not be blood everywhere.
The "Field of Blood" name was
derived -- even as Matthew says --
from the act of purchase with the
reward of Judas' iniquity -- what
iniquity? The betrayal of innocent blood ,
which Luke recorded in his own
Gospel.
-JPH

Mynd_44: Use shades. Always safer that way

Leyqute: Its going to last for abt 3 hrs? Wow!
Na hin pastor tek preach today.
Say na ETT o.

drnairalov: well its a female pastor..so no problem...she prolly cudnt control her puC so it was being delivered..or she has a genital disease blah blah blah,..na dem sabi..

davecrouch: sent

cupid4ig: sorry to say but ur post isnthe stewpid one, do u even think b4 u comment? Yes he asked how many of us has prayed tk God aboutbthis strike. The bible said that if God does not guide city that the watchmen (security men) are watching in vain. It is just like praying to god in the times of need cos u believe he has the power to change every situation. Seriously u need help

mr.ceo63:
We r al hear insultin ASUU & FG bt let me ask hw many of us hv prayed abt it 2 GOD?!!!
Or u tink nfin consin GOD

executinal: Source = Facebook