Is the death of Judas Iscariot a Bible contradiction? Bart Ehrman vs Peter J Williams
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Did Judas Iscariot die by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or did he die by falling and bursting open (Acts 1:18)? Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams debate whether the two accounts of Judas' death represent a contradiction or not.
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconve...
This is an extract of agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman and Peter J Williams debating the reliability of the Gospels.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig: • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
4. John Lennox & Dave Rubin Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconv...
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
If somebody dies by hanging themselves, isn't that the most important detail in how he died? The rope may have snapped, he may have burst due to gases inside him, he may have gone down a rocky hill. Whatever happened as a secondary cinsequence of him hanging himself, surely the hanging would still be mentioned. It kind of key to this whole thing. I find reconciling the two accounts as if they were the same event completely implausible because one of them misses out an absolutely massive, glaring, significant detail. It seems ridiculous that it would be left out by anybody who knew the facts of the matter.
Regarding the ideas about the dead of Judas, I am amazed about the missing link in the opinions, because we can find here one of the greatest apparent contradictions of the bible.
John 20:24 says: now Thomas one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
1 Corinthians 15:5 says: …and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
This was the situation before Matthias was chosen. That can mean only one thing: Judas was with the twelve. How can this happen if Judas had hanged himself. The answer is simple: Judas didn’t hang himself.
When Paul writes about the appearance of Jesus, he writes about the situation before the Ascension, so before the replacement of Judas by Matthias that happened after the Ascension. And then there were twelve. It's not the question that Judas is replaced, but that he didn't hang himself or bursted open. Judas 'went to his own place.' It takes another long story to discuss what is meant by 'Judas turned aside and went to his own place' but apparently he was still alive!
The phrase …hanged himself is nowhere in the text. The famous Dutch Statenvertaling (a 17th century translation like the King James) reads: …verworgde zichzelf. The word zichzelf is written in italics which means that it is added by the translators. As far as I know, ap agchoo means literally something as his throat is been pinched off, or closed, or has been strangled, but not: strangled himself. The google translator gives: anxious.
This mistranslation explains the confusion about the other place in Acts. There is a lot to say about this. That his bowels gushed out is a Hebrew way of saying (see David Flussers Jesus), it means a deep sort of affection. The same word splagchna is been used at several places in the New Testament: 1 John 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:12, 7:15; Col. 2:12 etc.
A Dutch theologian, Frank de Graaff wrote a lot about this in Jezus de Verborgene (Jesus the Hidden One). He translates ap agchoo as benauwd, wich means anxious or worried. De Graaff proposes the following translation in Acts: he has acquired a field with the reward of iniquity and fallen over in the midst (of the field) he screamed (elakèsen) with great affection. He (not a gnostic but a normal scholar) explains the misunderstanding about Judas, because the early church understands that he is Juda (the Jew) and depicted him as the bad betrayer. The horrible contribution of Papias is telling about the anti-judaistic feelings in that time.
Again it is a matter of language
.Not at all There was Matthias.Besides the group was referred to as the 12
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
@@svenshanah The point I'm making is that he did it *to himself* in one account and in the other account mentions nothing of that, so my point is still valid. .
I'd have to check that your explanation is actually correct. It could be something that's passed around and not actually right. What is your source for this explanation?
The author of Acts does not say that Judas fell head first. It says he fell headlong, as in pronated (Greek πρηνής (prénés) meaning prone). It's the same way you fall when you trip while walking forward - headlong. Hopefully that doesn't mean your head hits the asphalt first.
Yeah, so you’re saying that if the rope unscripturally/hypothetically snaps, you’ll fall as if you are randomly tripping instead of randomly flipping?
@@imustkeepremindingmyselfofthis Well yeah. If you're hanging from your head and the rope snaps, there's no force present to add angular momentum to your body and cause it to rotate upside down. This is physics.
Keep in mind that it was Ehrman who added the unscriptural "head first" modifier, not me. Falling head first while hanging from your head isn't a thing, physically speaking. Ehrman knows this, which is why he twisted the words of the passage to make it sound impossible. But falling feet first and having the body crumple forward (prone) is entirely possible.
@@Wesstuntube
I agree, possible, but not scriptural. Then again, I don’t argue possibilities when it comes to the Bible, because there is a talking donkey. So a believer would argue that a talking donkey is possible.
@@imustkeepremindingmyselfofthis Nobody claims that it's scriptural. But it's not unscriptural to form a hypothesis that is not contradicted by the accounts.
What IS unscriptural is what Bart Ehrman did, which is to literally change the text to support HIS hypothesis that the accounts are irreconcilable. We don't get to just change words to support our biases. "Prenes" does not mean "headfirst" as he claimed, which was why I commented in the first place.
Read the Greek. Bart is an expert in Greek and would not make a mistake like that.
Also, isn't it a more direct contradiction that one account said that Judas bought the field, another says that the priests bought it?
Exactly
It was Judas’ money, they used it to buy a field.
@@Nameless-pt6oj no, one gospel said it was judas the one who bought it, and the other one said it was the jews
It is not a ppolice account but an emotional description
Of course it was judas money
C'mon, Peter is lying and he knows he's lying. I'm a Christian but this really is a clear contradiction. One says he bought the land, the other says the priests bought the land. If the rope for the hanging fails, we all know the person doesn't fall as it is described in Acts
The buying of land is a reference to a prophesy of the old testament don't take it literally
@@user-hx6mr3ov5v Here we go again. When you're wrong, then we shouldn't take things literally.
@@eFootkaizenno it’s learning the Bible in its context also these shmucks don’t even know that headlong means uncontrollable and with out pause or decay and with this context we can know it’s without pause with out decay or uncontrollable or uncontrolled and falling with out control etc how u normally fall with this context it’s him falling uncontrollably or with out pause or decay aswell as it is a prophesy to the OT forgot the prophesy so there’s so much reasoning which debunks this and shows harmony in the gospels and ur not Christian stop posing
The fundamental problem with the supposed reconciliation of the accounts is that the 'reconciliation' is not described by either of the original authors. This raises the question of how accurate anything else the original authors wrote if they are so amiss in what they included.
The writers of all the gospel books are anonymous. Matthew Mark Luke and John were illiterate and Aramaic speakers. These books were written in Greek and first compilation 300 years after Jesus died. An original manuscript can only be carbon dated to about 69 AD - 110AD years after Jesus died. We don't even know who passed these stories. An example is the accounts of crucifixion and all Matthew Mark Luke and John weren't present where Jesus was crucified yet they have accounts. How is that possible?
@Renee Arnold The Four ones. Are you a GodLess and Souless person what thinks from 0 comes all if I may ask Godless and Souless person???.
Headlong. Is. In. A. Hurry. 🎼🎼🎼.or. Head in front. Of body.
Lol. So. Simple.
Buy. Now. Pay. Later. Is very. Common.
Potters. Feild mystery solved.
Burst. Asunder.
What. About. It. ?
God's. Judgement. Happens all the time.
Do you reckon they wold make a mistake over whether or not they saw Jesus walking around, eating and drinking days after his death?
Acts 1:18 The Greek word used is πρηνὴς (prēnēs), it means prone. He fell flat. This is not a valid contradiction and does not impact the Gospel one iota.
It's interesting that the authors of the gospels knew the fate of Judas. To reconcile the accounts, like the apologist did in the clip, seems implausible because the question becomes, why would the other author leave the part of him hanging and the rope snapped out of the narrative. You'd think dying from a snapped rope would be crucial in the description of Judas' death. Also the origins of the name field of blood is different in both accounts.
Yes, these are two key points for rebuttal of the way Williams tries to reconcile the two accounts.
No it is the field of blood in both accountsAs for the money Jesus attitude to money is so different from yours and mine.He told us to live like the lilies of the field and the spartows.That does not mean that Judas was the most important disciple
It says He Hanged himself In Matthew and In Acts It simply says he fell Headfirst and His Guts spilled Out… notice it never says he died By Falling to his death…. It’s all speculation but I think its safe to make the assumption the Branch broke Or The rope broke… and it had to have been a couple days for his body to burst because your body builds up Toxins after you die
@@Mojojojo335
I haven't done a comparative analysis of the texts (only watched this clip), but given what you say is true of the accounts, then your deductions seem plausible. Thank you for sharing.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
In Acts 20:9 it is evident that the author knows how to state that someone fell without leaving room for interpretations.
Did you read Acts 1? Please read it.
@@donaldfernandes7798 study γενόμενος at acts 1:18. It does not say fallen. Compare προσέπεσεν at acts 16:29.
@@dunk_law The account in Acts 1:18 is in present continuous tense. ''And falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out''. One of the best authorities on the New Testament describes this scene as ? impalement. 'Fall upon' also means something was thrust inside the abdomen. Judas was killed. That is all I want to say. If so the entire gospel narrative about Judas is false. I am sorry.
@@donaldfernandes7798 γενόμενος NEVER means fall. And yes, you can be sorry. See LSJ etc.
Thank you.
How to self refute:
Bart Ehrman: "Those two accounts cannot be reconciled.
Peter Williams: reconciles the two accounts.
Bart Ehrman: "You can reconcile anything"
@TheNgj Silly Christian.
His first statement is shorthand for "you can't reconcile them rationaly". Let me elaborate. Adam Wale is a black man. The same Adam Wale is a white man. Can both statements be reconciled?
Can they be reconciled rationally?
@@pauljohnbodie5631 are you asking me?
@Aghudum Okawa Yes
If Peter William's was looking at another ancient character where two different versions of their death were given, I doubt he would be bending over backwards to reconcile them.
For instance how did Crasus die? Was he stabbed in a scuffle and then beheaded or did he die from having molten gold poured down his throat. Added to this the fact that no Roman source would have been there, I doubt Perer Williams would want to argue that he must have been stabbed, then fed gold while still alive etc to make the accounts fit. Bet he would say both or one, probably the gold bit, was a legend
This is a perfect example of how apologetics work. There is a clear contradiction, that is indisputable. To assert otherwise is just dishonest. Apologetics offers an answer that a believer can choose to digest to help them keep believing (in this case that the Bible is infallible and/or the word of god) but to a non-believer is utter nonsense, ad-Hoc and unconvincing. This is a consequence of starting from a conclusion, insisting that you cannot be wrong, and working back to fit that conclusion rather than being honest about the actual facts.
There's no problem with that if the conclusion is a reality; There has to be a way of reconciling it. Science is filled with theories to explain conclusions observed. There's no problem with that.
@@owoeyepaul8995 Yes, you have described apologetics aka the opposite of the scientific method. Start with a conclusion that cannot be false and work backward to force the data to fit the predetermined conclusion. A recipe for self-deception.
ACTS-NOTE ON 1:18 this man acquired a field. That is, the field was acquired indirectly by Judas, through the agency of the chief priests. As Matt. 27:3-7 records, Judas brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders. The chief priests then purchased the potter’s field with Judas’s money, with the same effect as if Judas had himself made the purchase. he burst open. The two accounts of Judas’s death are complementary retellings of the same event, each focusing in different ways on the same details. Both accounts involve: Judas’s remorse, the purchase of a field with his ill-gotten money, its reputation as “the Field of Blood,” and Judas’s gory death (for the location of “the Field of Blood,” see note on Matt. 27:7-8). The main difference is that Matt. 27:5 speaks of Judas hanging himself, while Acts speaks of his body falling headlong and bursting open with all his entrails spilling out. One possible explanation suggests that the field overlooked a cliff, and as Judas hanged himself, the rope (or the branch) may have broken, with his body falling headlong over the edge of the cliff onto jagged rocks below. Others have suggested that Judas’s body may have remained hanging for some time decaying and decomposing (“swelling up,” esv footnote), eventually falling to the ground and bursting open in its decomposed condition. In either case, there is no reason to see the two accounts as contradictory, since they focus on complementary details of the same event. In both accounts the effect of Satan’s control over Judas’s life is clear, demonstrating the general principle that Satan brings total destruction and disgrace to the person who comes under his control, for “he was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Bibles, Crossway. ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 277552-277566). Good News Publishers. Kindle Edition.
For every supposed contradiction that Ehrman highlights in the talks I've heard there is a similar, reasonable reconciliation of details.
@@waynephillips7119 But Luke doesn't say the priests bought the field on Judas' behalf. It says that Judas bought the field. It's not as if Judas gave the priests the money and asked them to buy the field on his behalf; he gave them the money back because it was blood money.
No one saw the body fall. Someone found a rotting corpse on the ground with guts everywhere and used the term "fell headlong" to describe the position of the fallen corpse
@Danilo Pie Your use of the NIV is dishonest because this version is one of the least literal translations. Why would you use it if want to find what the text is literally saying? He did speak to Judas obtaining the field indirectly as it was his money that was used in the purchase. It's clearly used in a matter of speaking that he bought the field. You seem to not understand the Bible employs the same variations in speech that we use in our language everyday. You clearly reveal that you have an agenda and bias against the Bible, and not truly searching for truth.
That doesn't make sense. Judas didn't acquire the field. The priests did, with his money. If I dropped a ten-dollar bill on the ground, and someone picked it up and bought a chocolate bar, would you say that I indirectly acquired a chocolate bar? Of course not.
Headlong does not only mean head first. It also means recklessly or without control.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
@SvenShanah I'm interested in this claim I have never heard it before
Is there any source you can point me to for further research?
@@jackcrow1204 doesn’t exist she’s making it up to reconcile the two contradictions. These are eyewitness accounts so one has to be wrong
@@asalti7866 Not at all, in fact the fall would most likely have occurred as part of the hanging, i.e. that the rope used was not strong enough to hold the weight and snapped, resulting in Judas falling headlong and the resulting impact causing his guts to spill out. So the two different accounts are part of the same event and therefore there is no contradiction.
@@acurisur keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better but that’s YOUR own interpretation that’s not fond in the Bible and that’s why you’re trying to reconcile it like with every other error in the Bible.
"I'm trying to use charity (towards my own position)."
not really. Now in what do you believe, as long the msot of scientific theories, even the Big Bang Theory wes theorized by A believer while Godless and Confused gnostics were sleeping 😅 that from 0 comes all??? Godless and Souless people... 😅😅
Yeah, they didn’t mention that in Matthew 27:9-10 it “quotes” a passage that is in Jeremiah, that isn’t even in Jeremiah, and at most may be referencing Zechariah 11:12-13.
Who bought the field of blood?
How did Judas die?
Why is Jeremiah referenced when Zechariah is the one that is kind of being quoted?
Matthew records that “…he [Judas] went away and hanged himself” (Matt. 27:5). Luke records that “…falling headlong, he [Judas] burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out” (Acts 1:18).
According to Bart Ehrman, these passages contradict each other. Do they? Hardly. To logically contradict, one passage would have to declare the exact opposite of the other. One passage would have to say A and the other non-A (at the same time and in the same way). For example, if the Acts passage said Judas did NOT hang himself (ever), these passages would logically contradict each other. This does not happen.
Is there any plausible way to reconcile “hanged himself” and falling headlong”? Sure. Perhaps Judas hung himself at the edge of a cliff, and eventually his body fell. When Judas’ legs hit the edge of the cliff, his corpse pivoted around and Judas hit rocks head first.
Now for another possibility. Was Judas’ hanging successful? The text does not say. Perhaps Judas hung himself but it didn’t actually kill him, and Judas got down frustrated and did a swan dive off the cliff. Decide for yourself which is more plausible or you’re welcome to put forth your own theory. If you don’t think these options are realistic, it doesn’t matter. There is no logical contradiction in these passages.
That scenario is certainly less plausible than the assumption that these accounts contradict one another.
Hepper Why would it be “certainly less plausible?” It’s obvious that these two accounts are different, but why would you assume they are contradictory?
@@williamprice3486 Because, as Ehrman already explained, you have to invent a weird and implausible scenario to reconcile them. In order for Judas to fall ,,head first“ after hanging, something would have had to flip his body when he fell. Also, why doesn't the author of Acts simply mention hanging as the primary cause of Judas' death? That is an important detail that most authors certainly wouldn't gloss over. But the account sounds as though Judas did a swan dive.
Hepper Well, I thought Geo Web did a good job giving a plausible reconciliation. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for a body that was hanging over a cliff to to hit the ledge as it was following. If Judas hanged himself, it would seem reasonable that the structure he used to hang himself with wouldn’t be too far from the edge. The fact that Acts omitted mentioning the hanging is not the same as saying “there was no hanging.” You have to infer that. So to say this is an example of a “contradiction” doesn’t seem justified. We can conclude that these are different accounts.
@@hilfsmittel7934 Either the texts contradict or they do not. It is a binary, yes or no assessment. The texts do not contradict.
Bart's problem solved in 11 easy steps:
1. Judas has a deal pending on the potter's field since before his betrayal of Jesus.
2. He betrays Jesus and receives his money.
3. He is overcome by guilt and returns the money to the priests.
4. He goes to the field for which he has made a down-payment, seeing it as the only place that could in some way be called his, and hangs himself, choosing a branch that is weak enough that he might survive if God so wishes. (He knows he is undeserving of mercy, but through OT teachings, that’s God can show mercy to the repentant).
5. The Potter discovers Judas' body hanging in the field, but now wants more than ever to sell the field.
6. Not wanting to contaminate himself by handling Judas' body, he leaves it hanging in the field and initiates a legal dispute with the priests that they must complete the purchase of the land.
7. The priests are resistant. Meanwhile, the body is decaying on the tree.
8. The neighbors complain about the smell and the cursed nature of the field ruining their property values.
9. The Romans pressure the priests to resolve the issue.
10. The office of the high priest relents and pays for the field.
11. In the meantime, the tree branch has given way, dropping Judas' body onto the rock upon which he had stood to hang himself. The body falls forward onto the field and splits open, spilling forth his entrails
This contradicition can simply be reconciled with St Papias of Hierapolis record regarding Judas. And we can trust St Papias because he was the disciple of St John himself (St John the Apostle has many disciple, such as St Polycarp, St Papias, etc). It is said that *"Judas did not die by hanging but lived on, having been cut down before he choked to death. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: 'Falling headlong he burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out.' Papias, the disciple of John, recounts this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord, as follows: 'Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone else's, and when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day one cannot pass that place without holding one's nose, so great was the discharge from his body, and so far did it spread over the ground..'"*
Thank you for this comment
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
Hiya :-)According to Eusebius Bishop of Caeserea (4th century), the historian of the early Chruch during the age of persecution - Papias of Hieropolis was a supersitious man of crude imagaination who may have been a 'hearer' of John, but was not a discpile who understood John's message. I find his account of Judas' death both vengeful and repellent. Apart from the other inconsitencies between Matthew and Luke/Acts account of Judas' death the main one seems to me is that in Matthew's account Judas attains a sort of pathos in his death, while in Luke's account his end is simply grotesque (some argue that Peter still had much to learn on his journey towards mature insight at Joppa when he gave this speech). Papias account seems to me to be a development of the description in Luke/Acts to a nuaseating extreme. But I do note that it does not reconcile with Luke/Acts; there is no falling headlong and Judas simoy swells up and explodes.
I
@@richardwhittington6210 you could also check svens comment here
The answer is in the Bible. And they do not contradict.
Mathew 27:3
3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9
Acts 1:18
With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
Judas had bought the field by his betrayal with the Jewish leaders. The Jewish leaders had bought the field with their betrayal with Judas.
2 to be hung one would of course be headlong (head first.) if you were to dive into water you would go head first. If you dived into water you could go feet first. If you hung yourself feet first which position do you think you would be.? So of course head first he hung himself and as a result of the event his intestines came out.
The scriptures do not contradict themselves. And Jesus is Alive.
The word "contradiction", maybe is not the best way to describes this differences. Why? Because, those two books, did not contradict one another about the death it self, it only differentiate about the detail, and both was not explain it in detail. They just want to give a slide picture about how judas end up. And both agreed on the death of judas and also on the land.
Besides that, the explaination about judas is irrelevant with christianity faith. If the death of judas were never mentioned at all in the bible, it doesnt change anything about christianity faith.
If this one is consider as contradiction in the bible, so what? It doesnt matter, because the bible teaching it self is not contradicting each other.
About reconcile, is it comparable, to reject reconciliation of the two stories that survive for 2000 years, and accept the reconciliation an event that happen to day, like barth example?
The survival of the story it self without any changes for 2000 years, is a great evidence of thruthfull act. Every single christians or church leaders has the opportunity to change it into same story, but they never did it. For me, it is a strong evidence of honesty for 2000 years. So, it is more likely to see this events as one event that describe into different point of few rather than contradiction that had been directed into doubt about the autenticity of the bible's writter.
Agreed there is no contradiction, he hung himself and died. then the rope/branch snapped and he fell and split open on a rock. As you said the specific detail of the death isn't paramount.
If one gospel said Jesus was crucified and another said he was stoned to death, would it not matter? Of course it would. It would call into question the validity of the gospel which said Jesus was stoned to death.
@@ajmalsarwar2939
The facts are, gospel told us one stories about crucifixion. There are no other stories besides He was crucified.
Whe we talk about Jesus, there are many important thinks beside crucifixion. Moral teaching, Obedient teaching, prayer teaching, His salvation, His position as Elohim, His holiness, His miracles, His flawless deeds and acts, His love, His position towards violents, His existance before His birth in this world, etc.... And all of it builds our faith, not only just because He was crucified. And if someone is really honest, then he will admid that there are no man that ever life could do such thing, not any phropet not any kings. So, they will knew that something holy and glorious is within Jesus. His spirit control His body entirely. So is there anyman ever done that? Did any one ever holy? Mention one beside Jesus if anyone can. There was and will be no one.
@@Jordan4601 But Acts said he fell on his head. If the rope snapped, he would've fallen feet first.
@@jasper2621 Acts does not say he fell on his head, it said he fell headlong. The fact it reads that his intestines spilled out means he most likely fell on his stomach after the weight of his corpse snapped the rope. This isn’t a contradiction, it’s one description of Judas hanging himself and another of his body decomposing and falling apart.
For full context, the story in Acts is being told by Peter. It is not just a passive narration of "Judas died in this way" but rather Paul is talking about how Judas' betrayal, or handing over, of Christ fulfilled scripture, and then Peter is basically reminiscing saying that "Judas was one of us," working and ministering alongside Peter and the group, before mentioning his purchase of a field or farm and his gruesome end. In this sense, I think Peter's recollection may be more accurate than "Matthew"s solely because we do not know that Matthew himself wrote the Gospel bearing his name. If Peter truly said what he is quoted as saying in Acts 1, then I think Peter would have a decent idea of what happened to his former colleague, at least relative to the anonymous person writing as "Matthew."
When I first read the bible, I was amazed at the sincerity and honest reporting. Not legendary style. My take was “these are honest people reporting what happened”. I never thought “there are ZERO ZERO ZERO mistakes ever!!” Dogma might be over-reaching here, inerrancy may be a step too far. Honest eye witness account always have such discrepancies.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
@@svenshanah Oh, thanks for the info. Yes it is a surprise they didnt know that
His body may have remained suspended for a prolonged period, undergoing decomposition, so that upon its eventual fall, it would have experienced rupture causing the intestines to spill. The incongruity between the information provided can be resolved by considering multiple plausible scenarios. I am perplexed as to why this contradiction exists.
New International Version
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri
New King James Version
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.
This is completely contradiction in the bible..same verse 2 chronicles 22:2..
That's not the logical conclusion.
Those are 2 different translations of the Bible. Bible translators work off a multitude of copies of the original text to determine what the original text said. Pen, paper, and people are fallible, so sometimes they'll run into issues where the copier on one manuscript made a mistake or the material written on has a hole in it or something like that. The NIV translators for whatever reason decided 22 was the better translation with the resources available, while NKJV opted for 42. Not a contradiction.
@@homeschooledrapper9174 real contradictions cuz bibles don’t have any original ones
@hares saade so whoever read the king james version is wrong??
@hares saade oh come on..your god come from vagina..so keep your sexy virgin word in your pocket..
@@homeschooledrapper9174 better translation??your bible is the word of god or the word of man??
I agree with justin's question "how much is the importance of this matter to the whole picture?" It is not unimportant at all, but it is secondary, maybe even tertiary matter in the context Jesus' death & resurrection. I believe as it has always been with the Bible accounts, anything seemingly contrary has a reconciling explanation behind it, doesn't matter whether we (will) know it or not
Perhaps Judas’ body started swaying as he hung, due to the subsequent earthquake, or perhaps a windy storm, or wild animals pawing at him, or when someone was trying to cut him down? Any number of scenarios could cause his body to rotate and make him fall on his face. These two accounts are not at all at odds with each other, because Matthew doesn’t even mention how he fell. He just says that Judas hung himself. It’s crazy how extreme Bart’s skepticism is. He completely disregards rationality simply because it’s not spelled out perfectly to him.
Justin Wall, then perhaps you can reconcile that Judas purchased the land and Judas didn't purchase the land.
@@bobrogers734 According to the Bible, It was the priests that purchased the field , that field was called the Potters field and was used to bury strangers in. This is the bibical account. Greetings from Northern Ireland.
@@bobrogers734 I don't think the account in Acts 1 is communicating that Judas literally purchased the field before killing himself there. It was Judas' blood money that paid for the field. It was Judas' betrayal of Jesus that led to the purchase of the field (by the priests) after Judas gave them back the money. And it was Judas' gruesome death on the field that became known to everyone around that area. So Luke could easily and rightly say Judas "acquired" the field by what he did. I checked the lexicon as well and the word used here for "acquire" is most often used in contexts that have nothing to do with purchasing something.
The context of this verse is replacing Judas who betrayed Jesus. In this context, there would be no point in describing the priests' role in the sequence of events. It would be an unnecessary detail and would distract from what the author is focusing on. But even if Luke IS saying Judas purchased the field, he could easily be saying such a thing loosely, in the sense that Judas paid for it indirectly, in light of the things I described above. There's no reason to be hyper literal with this text. The story is obviously compressed in this passage and doesn't give all the details. I see no reason to conclude that it's an "irreconcilable contradiction."
Or maybe Judas hung himself by binding his feet to a branch.
Then a few days later after he starved to death he fell down.
There are so many explanations that are totally not desperate and ridiculous at all.😂
Interesting topics and answers but don't care for Bart's constant interruptions to Peter while he's trying to provide his answer. Yet Peter waits patiently for Barts reply. Bart is just too narcissistic to give others a chance at their answer. I understood where Peter was going with his answer. Maybe the body had been hanging there for days, starting to decay. Then the rope broke, landing feet first then toppling forward onto sharp rocks. There are or can be many other variables. And yes, unless you were there, there will be subjective answers to such topics. Why is Bart Ehrman so set on such negative rebuttal? At least, when he allows the other to speak.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
Writings from/inspired by an ultimate, perfect being should be dazzlingly, obviously, and stunningly the work of a perfect being. Not dozens of disjointed writings that are exactly what we'd expect from men engaged in a centuries long creation of a cumulative religious birth based on superstition, fear, and silly nonsense like talking donkeys.
@Doug
"The Bible should be written the way I want it to be."
-Doug
Or conversely the Bible might be the kind of book you would expect if God accommodates himself to a flawed people and their cultures and inspires some of those flawed people to write about him..you end up with something that reflects the cultures of the writers and their own unique personalities and yet is also inspired by God so there is a kind of unity and consistency about the writings to.
@@gareth2736 I would have said the same thing when I was a believer, but it's really just a justification and rationalization that one has to deploy to defend these writings. Plus, a god isn't just communication to that culture but all future cultures, too.
@@gareth2736 I'm sure God can communicate to people in all times and places, so 21st-century Westerners don't need to rely on translations of translations of copies of copies of archaic texts written by anonymous ancients. Just saying.
@@gareth2736 Please re-post your response to me because it isn't appearing in my thread.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
In Matthew 27:9 Jeremiah is given as the source of the prophecy regarding the purchase of the Potter's Field. (There is no such prophecy!). How did he purchase the field when he had thrown the money to the floor and stormed off?
Correct. Its completely made up as are many parts of the NT. Thats why we were told to rightly divide the word of truth. And truth is divided from lies inserted by scribes to deceive us. The same thing we were told by Jer 8.8. If anyone thinks there are no major bible contradictions, they have truly never read it.
Do search the convordance for the prophecy..what is meant is that the priests used the money that Judas threw to purchase the field because they could not put it in the temple treasury
@@ptk8451 Tosh
"Somehow" needing more context is a perfect example of renegotiating the text the way you need it to read. There could be "multiple scenarios"? In a holy text that guides people through life? It's open to that much interpretation with just this one story? And Mr. Williams, like most apologists, completely dodged the question regarding who paid for the field of blood and why, but chose to focus in on the "multiple scenarios" of how Judas could've have died to harmonize the two stories.
How do you reconcile him keeping the money and giving it back?
@Abdulhalim Mohamed
How did he do business with the money if he gave it back brother
+
@Abdulhalim Mohamed abdul you dont know what you are talking about
@Abdulhalim Mohamed do you want to talk about the errors in you quran abdul?
@Abdulhalim Mohamed What the hec is that question ? You answered it yourself. It was the Gospel. Theirs is only one Gospel abdul. Read john 3:16. Now explain to me why in surah 18:86 your quran says the earth goes to a muddy pool plz I am waitting
- Does not address how both Judas and the priests both managed to purchase the field
- Does not address the two contradictory accounts of how the Field of Blood got it's name
These are two contradictory accounts in the Bible, the death of Judas is not even the biggest contradiction here, it's the other factors that were asked about in the original video.
Anyone who has an answer to this I'd love to discuss it.
Simon O'Dowd
Regarding the ideas about the dead of Judas, I am amazed about the missing link in the opinions, because we can find here one of the greatest apparent contradictions of the bible.
John 20:24 says: now Thomas one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
1 Corinthians 15:5 says: …and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
This was the situation before Matthias was chosen. That can mean only one thing: Judas was with the twelve. How can this happen if Judas had hanged himself. The answer is simple: Judas didn’t hang himself.
When Paul writes about the appearance of Jesus, he writes about the situation before the Ascension, so before the replacement of Judas by Matthias that happened after the Ascension. And then there were twelve. It's not the question that Judas is replaced, but that he didn't hang himself or bursted open.
About John 20:24: there is a problem with the grammar when you take 'the twelve' as a technical term, the pronomen personel 'them' refers directly to the twelve. It cannot refer to a situation in the past...
The translation ’hanged himself’ is reasonable but disputable.The Greek απάγχω, composition of από and άγχω means literally squeeze (esp. the throat), strangle, throttle and is also used in derivative or metaphorical meanings as choked with anger, of pressing creditors, of a guilty conscience etc.
In Matthew 27:5 απήγξατο appears as 3rd sg. Aoristus Medium and can therefore be translated as strangled or hanged himself. But as I said, a derivative meaning is also plausible. I do not consider myself fully competent to judge here and leave it open for debate.
I propose the following translation: And hurling the pieces of silver in the sanctuary he left; and after he went he became very anxious. Or: After he had thrown the pieces of silver in the temple he departed; and after he left he frightened himself.
This mistranslation explains the confusion about the other place in Acts. There is a lot to say about this. That his bowels gushed out is a Hebrew way of saying (see David Flussers Jesus), it means a deep sort of affection. The same word σπλάχνα is been used at several places in the New Testament: 1 John 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:12, 7:15; Col. 2:12 etc.
I propose the following translation in Acts: he has acquired a field with the reward of iniquity and as he kneeled down (πρηνής γενόμενος) in the midst (of the field) he screamed (έλάκησεν) with great affection
About buying of the field: as usual it is a matter of translation. In my Revised Standard Version, I read 'this man bought a field' but that is not in the text. Act 1:18 reads: he has acquired (obtained) a field .... So in that case it is plausible the priests bought the field.
That i think is the stupidest statement If youbuy something especially a property wth mymoney It is I whobought the property
@@ptk8451 how did the field get it's name?
Ithe passage itself gives it .It was purchased withblood money.,As for Judzs suicide it is not spokrn of but Luke wants to give an impression of the horror of his death
@@ptk8451 do you think the account in Acts 1:18-19 about the field being named that way because of Judas' intestines gushing out is non-historical?
The writer of one account ties it to a quote from Jeremiah, the other ties it to a quote in Psalms. His death story was created to fit these scriptures.
"His death story was created to fit these scriptures" except his death story is recorded in sources outside of the Bible that the writers of the New Testament had no control over.
Jesus's death was recorded by many non Christian secular authors, including Thallus (52AD) who said "“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Tacitus (56-120AD) “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
@@acurisur Well, Tacitus wrote almost 100 years later, and he also does not mention where he got this information from. Actually, Tacitus does not say at all that this Christ was crucified, he says that he “suffered the extreme punishment” without specifying what he endured or for what he was sentenced. Some Christian apologist Licona quotes Tacitus as evidence, using the faulty translation that mentions the execution, but then hundreds of pages later, in a small footnote, Licona admits that Tacitus actually does not say
“Execution”. Conclusion, as expected : unreliable.
Thallus actually never mentions any crucifixion either. He mentions some darkness which has arisen and since the Gospels also mention some darkness at Jesus' crucifixion, apologists take Thallus' words as evidence. We do not know anything about Thallus, neither where he lived nor where he got his information from. The claim of some historians that he wrote around 55 A.C. is disputed and uncertain. We actually have nothing from Thallus. This quote from him comes from the monk Georgius Syncellus who claims that Thallus wrote this. The problem is that Georgius lived 800 years later. Conclusion, as is consistently the case : unreliable.
Your rebuttal is bad, to put it nicely.
@@sameerdeen080 The Romans recorded ever crucifixion they ever did. And Tacitus isn't the only external source.
Literally every New Testament scholar, believer OR atheist, agrees that Jesus was crucified.
One prominent New Testament scholar in particular, who's an atheist, would absolutely tear you to shreds for suggesting Jesus wasn't crucified. He goes by the name of Bart Erhman.
Now I got some random idiot on YT telling me all of those people that do this for a living are wrong. Ok bud.
@@acurisur If you make a claim that something transpired, and follow it with a secondary claim suggesting you have a source for the first one, and fail to produce the so-called evidence (at least one which is established) I would suggest that to be more than embarrassing.
The "Roman Empire" isn't exactly a source either.
Appealing to authority is also equally embarrassing. Yes, whether secular or religious, atheistic or Christian, historians do recognize the crucifixion. But, are you willing to expand as to the why ? The answer is obvious, they regard him to be like any other man, not the Messiah, much less God. So, of course, just like any other man, he met his end, according to them.
Mentioning Bart Erhman, as if he agrees with you on most things ..., lol. He has a book titled : How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. From this title alone, I am sure you disagree with him. You'd likely suggest that Jesus was God, and he declared and believed as such, that there were no developments which transpired whatsoever.
A direct quote from page 80/371 of the book, after mentioning different scholarly authors from religious and irreligious backgrounds, such as E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, who, according to him, "all agree on: Jesus did not spend his ministry declaring himself to be divine." He then adds : "The reason we need books like these is that the Gospels cannot simply be taken at face value as giving us historically reliable accounts of the things Jesus said and did."
My grandmother was uneducated and she was awesome mentally ill but that's beside the point she was uneducated and she believed that the Earth was in the form of a square and the reason why was because the Bible says that the angels will come forth from the four corners of the Earth. So she took that quite literally
Omg is Ehrman seriously going to hyper-literalize a purely literary adverbial like “fell headlong?” That is the same as complaining that someone didn’t literally “Fall flat on their face”. This kind of guff is much worse than awkward harmonization, since the goal is to take such a wooden reading as to render simple everyday historiographical harmonization impossible.
So you're Christian.
endofscene YES! EMPHATICALLY, GLORIOUSLY CHRISTIAN!
But enough about me... let’s pretend I am an atheist, Hindu, or even that I don’t exist and my comment was entered by a logic bot of some sort. The point is valid. Ehrman seems to camps on naive, wooden ‘inerrancy’ as an easy pickings straw man, and then insists, “no, answer this”. Whether conscious or not, it’s deceptive.
Example: Moon landing denier: “the astronaut said ‘light this candle’ to signal his desire to launch, BUT WAS IT A ROCKET OR A CANDLE? IT CAN’T BE BOTH! CONTRADICTION! CONTRADICTION! HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT?”
One hopes for more substantive objections.
@@kevinwells7080 If you watch Ehrman's debates or lectures then you will see he raises a lot of significant objections. He is a serious Bible scholar and he used to be a fundamentalist Christian.
I think he makes good points in this video (even if he doesn't make them very well). Anything can be "reconciled" to the point of absurdity, but the fact is that there are many apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible. Fundamentalists can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to "reconcile" these issues but all this shows is that "God" is not a very clear author!
How did Judas Iscariot die?
Matthew 27:5 states that Judas hanged himself, whereas Acts 1:18 says that “falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out.” While Matthew deals with the mode of the attempted suicide, Acts describes the results.
Judas tied a rope to the branch of a tree, put a noose around his neck, and tried to hang himself by jumping off a cliff. Either the rope or the tree limb broke so that he plunged downward and burst open on the rocks below. The topography around Jerusalem makes such a conclusion reasonable!
God is perfect so He cannot lie or make mistakes. Therefore, His Word the Bible NEVER contradicts itself even if some things are difficult to understand at times!
The perfect god requires mental gymnastics for christians to reconcile events in poorly written stories. Right. If a perfect god existed, I would expect better.
@@MrDryqula poorly written? we don’t even talk with the same literary style That they used back then…. Wouldn’t you say if the Bible is poorly written it would be easier To disprove? And every Christian Jew and Muslim would become atheist because it all Relies on the accuracy of the Bible(yes the Quran has a lot of The same people and events as the Bible)…. And Nobody has been anything close to disproving any of the 3 religions…
Bless you,
@@Mojojojo335
As populum.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
I think 75% of atheist in youtube comment section doesn't understand that Bible isn't one book wrote by one man from one perspective..
@M B
Oh man, that could be true and I just took that knowledge for granted...
That's true lol
No, 90% of Christian's believe that the Bible is 100% innerant with no contradictions whatsoever because the writers were influenced by the holy spirit. We atheists just want to point out that it is most definitely not innerant and most definitely contains contradictions.
@@He.knows.nothing I don't personally know even one christian which belives that the Bible is 100% ideal but ok you know better
@@MB-io3jm most denominations center their beliefs on the inerrancy of the Bible. It's a central theme for many preachers
This is the problem with using the Venn diagram system of coming to the truth. People assume that the multiple accounts mean that there's something in the middle, which then biases the individual readings. The author of Matthew had a point so did the author of Acts. Trying to create a synergy can cause you to miss the point.
really?? is it that hard to imagine a scenario where the most wretched man on earth hangs himself, falls off a cliff and busts open? It’s quite a remarkable death but certainly not implausible that the man who betrayed the son of God meet an ugly death like this one.
This will make more sense if you reconsider that Judas did this himself and in haste. Plausibly Judas had some ground beneath his feet to turn his body upside down because he had to step up to hang himself in the first place.
Gods can have kids? What god is this? Zeus?
Darion Blakesley, when the Gospels say that Judas betrayed Jesus, then the Gospels are LYING. Judas was Jesus' steward and organizer and also his right hand man. He had all the money in the world but most important he was chosen by Jesus the Son of God to be his treasurer. Do you understand what this means. Jesus trusted only Judas. Now who gets a chance like that? Nobody. Judas fed the masses, the hungry and gave money to the orphans, the poor and the widows. Do you know who said this? If you do not know do not worry.
Judas could not have hanged himself because he was in the custody of the soldiers of the Chief Priest. He was taken away and impaled. This is the account of an eye witness. You still have doubts? Please read carefully. The Gospels are mysterious books.
@@donaldfernandes7798 Judas asked Jesus if he would betray him, to which Jesus told him to do what he must do (which was to betray him). Judas literally left after this conversation, supposedly for supplies (if memory serves). It was a betrayal. It’s a prophecy also.
@@Emmanuel-mv3tb If you have read the gospels carefully, you will find that those who wrote the gospels were great manipulators and they did things in style. The verse which you are quoting is one of the most difficult to interpret in the entire gospel. Jesus asked Judas to do something. Not a single Christian in the whole world knows what it is. But the answer is in the same gospel. To understand the gospels, one should be familiar with the book of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Knowledge of Jewish culture is essential. The gospels were written for the Greeks and not for the Jews. Jews regarded Jesus as a very bad man who came to destroy their nation.
Of the twelve disciples, ten disciples supported the Chief priests and only two supported Jesus. One of them was Judas and the other was James. Both were Jewish militants or Nazarenes. Both were killed.
The conspirators under Peter, founded the Christian Church.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
I just looked up ‘headlong’ (KJV) in the dictionary and it doesn’t have to mean ‘headfirst’ as Bart implies. ‘Headlong’ could also mean that he fell down in haste .
I love unbelievable - but who bought the field? Can you reconcile Matthew and Acts on that?
see the comment of Danilo Pie...
@@peterk.6930 Where?
@@jasper2621 hello jasper.
i can't find it anymore, sorry, but i can send you my comment if you like
@@peterk.6930 Send it then.
@@jasper2621 With regard to contradictions in the Bible Bart Ehrman has presented on
various occasions the case of Judas Iscariot. He considers the two different
accounts, in Matthew 27 and in Acts 1 as incompatible. I think he's right, but
he overlooks something important. I commented on different channels, but there
is a lot of confusion. To clarify everything, I want to evaluate my thoughts
and rewrite my comment in a more subtle way.
To argue that Judas did not strangle himself, but was still alive when Jesus appeared to the twelve disciples, I would like to mention six points.
1.
The two accounts indeed seem very weird, it is plausible to reject them as incompatible. So there must be something else going on than a hanging or another accident in which Judas burst open and his guts came out.
2.
John 20:24 says: now Thomas one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
Jesus appeared to twelve disciples, so including Judas, because he is only replaced
after the Ascension. There is a problem with the grammar when you take 'the twelve' as a technical term, please read carefully, the pronomen personel 'them' refers directly to the twelve. The pronoun cannot refer to a situation in the past.
3. 1 Corinthians 15:5 says: …and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
When Paul writes about the appearance of Jesus, he writes about the situation before the Ascension, so before the replacement of Judas by Matthias which happened after the Ascension. And then there were twelve disciples, Judas including. So it's not the question that Judas is replaced, but that he didn't hang himself or bursted open.
4. The translation ’hanged himself’ is reasonable but disputable.
The Greek απάγχω, composition of από and άγχω means literally squeeze (esp. the
throat), strangle, throttle and is also used in derivative or metaphorical meanings
as choked with anger, of pressing creditors, of a guilty conscience etc.
In Matthew 27:5 απήγξατο appears as 3rd sg. Aoristus Medium and can therefore be translated as strangled or hanged himself. But as I said, a derivative meaning is
obvious as well. I do not consider myself fully competent to judge here and leave it open for debate.
I propose the following translation: And hurling the pieces of silver in the
sanctuary he left; and after he went off, he got very scared.
5.
After the Ascension the disciples assembled again to replace Judas. I consider the translation of Acts 1:18 to be very disputable. Only if we assume that Judas has hanged himself and felt, the translation is conceivable.
First I would like to mention the passage in the King James Bible: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.
There are many variants, such as:
... he fell to his death, his body swelled up and burst open (Complete Jewish Bible)
... having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst. (Darby Bible)
… he hanged, burst apart the middle. (Wycliffe Bible)
… but he died on that land-falling so that his abdomen burst and his internal organs gushed out. (The Voice).
Let ‘s focus on the second part of verse 18: καί πρηνής γενόμενος έλάκησεν μέσος καί έξεχύθη πάντα τά σπλάχνα αύτού The word translated as headlong, πρηνής can mean:
with the head foremost, but the first meaning of πρηνής (nom. sg.) is: with the face downwards or prone.
Notice: the word falling is not in the Greek text, γενόμενος (nom. sg. part. Aoristus of the verb γίγνομαι) means: come into being, take place. People have in their mind, Judas has hanged, so he has to fall. That is what we call prejudice. If we look at the text with an open mind, we will translate differently. I propose: (being) with his face turned to the ground; or shortly: stooped or knelt.
To support my argument I want to mention the way in which the Vulgate reconciled the two reports. The Vulgate translates Acts 1:18 as following: …et hic quidem possedit agrum de mercede iniquitatis et suspensus crepuit medius et diffusa sunt omnia viscera eius (…. he hanged, burst in the midst and his viscera gushed out). The Wycliffe Bible remains the same. But this translation is plainly wrong. Does the Roman church want Judas to hang? Subsequent (protestant) translations, as the King James Version, changed the text in the falling headlong.
The word translated as burst, έλακησεν (3rd. sg. Aoristus of the verb λάσκω, λακάω or ληκέω) means: ring, rattle, crack or burst (especially of things) and scream, shout or cry aloud (especially of animals or human beings).
That his bowels gushed out is a way of saying, to express a deep sort of compassion
or affection. In Hebrew it is referred to as rechamim. In particular it is used to mention God's mercy. Dutch has a great word for it, namely: barmhartigheid. σπλάχνα is been used at several places in the New Testament: 1 John 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:12, 7:15; Col. 3:12; Philemon: 7, 12, 20; Philippians 1:8, 2:1, Luke 1:78. To mention only Luke: Through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us. If it is metaphorically translated in those places, it is likely to do this here as well.
To conclude, I propose the following translation: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, when he knelt down, he screamed with great compassion.
6.
Acts 1:25 reads: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.
The current opinion is that the death of Judas is mentioned here, but that can be disputed, again based on the Greek text. Let alone that his own place can be understood as one’s death. The text says: είς τόν τόπον τόν ίδιον. It does not say: τόπον του άυτου, his (own) place, but τόπον τόν ίδιον, his own private place, in the sense of one’s own particular property.
How can it be if Judas is dead, he turned aside and went to his own property?
Compound the issue by realizing that Acts 1:16-20 fails to be any sort of predictive prophecy of David, (read Psalm 69:25; 109:8-9 in context) and that these words can only be applied typologically, at best.
Why is it implausible that someone hanging from a rope over a cliff, who then falls, could not land in a way that fulfills the meaning of headlong?
You are right. Its very plausible. It happens all the time.
Because idk we know how gravity works...
I think it is not meant to be taken literally but is a figure of speech
@@ptk8451 They do not believe it is a figure of speech because they said the passage is untrue.
Who said anything about a cliff? This was supposedly happening at a field. Also his intestines were supposed to spill out.
If Judas hung himself on Passover, he would have been buried after the holiday because of Jewish customs of uncleanness. Decomposition would have started. That would have explained the burstage, do to gas.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
@@svenshanah A rope of straw is mentioned.
Barts excuse is so weak. His own example can be used against him. People who deny the moon landing will use any explaination to justify why they believe the event didn’t happen. Bart himself will deny any plausible evidence of reconciliation because he already has determined ahead of time that the accounts cannot be reconciled and that reconciliation is invalid. Yet he himself cannot present a counter argument for why any one particular theory would be implausible. He’s presenting an inflexible argument from ignorance. He’s basically saying,” I don’t know for sure what happened, and no matter what theory you present, the simple fact that I didn’t know is enough to invalidate the account”.
Danilo Pie the “alternative” account found in the book of acts simply says in Acts 1:18 - "Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." It says that Judas acquired the field, which makes sense since if the priests bought it with his money, which was blood money, they would also have to put it in Judas’ name.
Danilo Pie no I did not, the NIV places Judas in the translation, since it is already implied in the previous verse. I’m going to give you the NIV version, starting from verse 15.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
Again, your complaint about translation doesn’t change the statement made. The money belongs to Judas, the field is paid for in his name since it would be unclean for the priests to claim it, therefore the field belongs to Judas.
Danilo Pie the translation I used said “this man”. The man being referred to is Judas. So nothing was skipped. You simply failed to comprehend....unsurprisingly. 😉
Danilo Pie you posted that verse already. so why am I going to post it again? Again, I just finished answering the question. You and Bart both complain about superficial differences in the scripture that can readily be answered. If I give my son a dollar to buy ice cream, and then he buys it, who bought the ice cream, him or me?
Danilo Pie do you actually read the Bible? Because that account is fairly clear. The only account that says Judas bought the field is the one in acts. Now the one in Matthew says that the priests bought the field with JUDAS’s money, because it was unclean blood money. It was Judas money, so it belonged to him. The account in Matthew gives significant details to account for who owns the field. The verse in Acts gives an overview and cuts out the middleman (the priests) and simply says that Judas acquired the field. Furthermore, you may not know Greek, but Bart should know better. The word bought in The original Greek is different for both accounts. In the Matthew account, the word bought, ἀγορά, literally means “to purchase”. In the acts account, the word ἐκτήσατο means to “come to possess”. Even without the Greek, one need only to look at the purpose of the account to see that the purpose of each account is different. As for your your saying, the same could be said of you my friend. Go ahead and give me your 50 more just like it, and I’ll give you fifty more answers.
Peter in Acts is referring to the type not the specifics on how Judas died. He is referencing the story of Amasa in 2 Samuel 20 in order to make the point that Judas needs to be replaced. For other examples of this, see how James quotes Amos 9 in Acts 15 or how Abraham fulfills Scripture in James 2.
Except for the part about the death of Judas probably isn't quoting Peter. There is no symbol for " " in Hebrew, but read it yourself. In the passage before the stuff on the death of Judas, Peter says we need a replacement for Judas, and says we need to listen to scripture. In the passage after the stuff about the death of Judas, Peter quotes Psalms. It seems obvious to me the stuff on Judas is written with the voice of the author, not Peter.
Judas kept a sword/Dagger... When he hanged himself and fell it most likely cut him open.
"His resume may also have included identification as a Zealot, an attribute held by only one other disciple, Simon the Zealot. How do we know that Judas was probably a Zealot? By his surname, Iscariot. Researchers believe this is a form of the title sicarii, meaning "dagger-men," a group of ultra-Zealots who carried a knife with them at all times to be prepared to assassinate traitors and capitulators. In English, we could call him Judas Daggerman."
@UCBMIS8RuFS6rIbIxLZNCbbQ Stated:
In Eastern countries when Judas hung himself, he would have been left hanging nobody was going to release him, nobody cared. Remember this was the passover, and Jesus had just been crucified . So who was worried about Judas, not the rest of the disciples, he was to them a traitor, the one who had sold their best friend to enrich his own coffers. 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave. When a man was left hanging in the heat, his stomach would have swollen up, and when the rope broke or so e one cut it, he would have fallen to the ground, his stomach would have burst open, spilling out his bowels . So both accounts of the Bible are correct, he may have been left hanging 3 or 4 days , before the rope broke, and he hit the ground. This is what would have medically have happened to him in a hot climate .
1) You're ignoring the part where in Acts it states Judas falls HEAD FIRST. If what you said was true, and Judas hanged himself and after that fell, he wouldn't be falling HEAD FIRST. That defies the laws of gravity.
2) You're ignoring the contradiction on who bought the Potter's field. Matthew states the Chief priests bought it with the blood money Judas left. Acts states Judas bought it.
3) You're ignoring the contradiction on why the Potter's field was given the nickname "Field of Blood". Matthew states that it's because the Chief priests used Blood Money to purchase the field. Acts states that it's because Judas fell and died there.
@@redred2 are you one who believe that an almight God can be silent for CEnTURIES before Mu👹aMAD turned 40 years in 610 before to say he was the God??
@@Mar-dk3mp What on Earth are you talking about?
Headlong doesn't just mean head first. In this instance it means in haste. This professor has been debunked so many times. I would run far away from anything he says.
Honestly, if the 2 accounts of Judas’ death were the exact same then I would automatically assume that it’s a collusion and the authors just made them up to fit with one another. 2 different authors having 2 different perspectives of the same event, makes the accounts all the more reliable. The same goes with other things like when Muslims or atheists claim that Jesus never claimed to be god. Even though he didn’t directly say “I am god worship me”, he indirectly stated and showed his divinity. If the gospel writers were just making up their gospels and tried to make Jesus as god then they would obviously have written numerous times that Jesus explicitly claimed to be god. But they didn’t. They record what Jesus said with 100% accuracy.
John 16:13,
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
+Hank Moody - but don't the bible writers have the benefit of God's inerrant hand guiding them? Why can't we hold these writers up to the higher inerrant standard believers claim they have? I agree with you - they don't agree 100% but the real reason for this is because you have fallible writers suffering from human failings like bad memories and prejudices.
Jesus never said he was not subordinate to the 'Father' though.
They record what Jesus said with 100% accuracy? How do you know? What was Jesus' last utterance on the cross? (It depends which gospel you read.)
Those who look for contradictions in the Bible, don’t read the Bible to gain knowledge or wisdom on God and His word - They read the Bible to find fault with the Bible because the Bible finds fault with them. So if they can try to refute the truth, they can then remain in a state of lies... because for someone to acknowledge that the word of God is truth, they would then have to acknowledge that there are a sinner, they’ve fallen short of the glory of God and they need a Savior. But the heart of the matter, is that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil...
They don’t reject the Bible because it’s not true or because the events recorded didn’t happen. They reject the Bible because the Bible is true and they don’t want it to be true.
I’ve never seen anyone ever try to denounce any books written by man or any other so-called bible. But I’ve only ever seen people challenge the word of God, because men like to be their own god and don’t want to submit.
Believe me , there’s a lots of Muslim out there copying Bart questions about the gospel and attacking Christianity
Bart forgot there’s been a great earthquake at the time of crucifixion, he may fell down the cliff and hit sharp rocks or even better after Judas fell down a tons of rock fell on his body ..
Do you think his stomach is ok when a tons of rock fell down on his body ?
Not all Muslims attack Christianity we have good Muslims. Just like you got Christianity to have a hate towards Muslims which is still wrong. Well enough of that but I think Bart Ehrman just won this debate
Moslems never attacking christian but the bible attacking christians.
no bro.. muslim already knew what bart ehrman talking about
we muslim believe that jesus did not hung on the cross.. that judas
@@jhemsajhemsalim3838 that will always be a controversial subject and I'mma tell you why because we don't really know if that's true or not. Just because a book says he went to the cross and the other book says he did not go it was Judas that will always be a controversial subject because the Quran came later on whether people believe he went to the Cross or not we all should have respect for one another you know people got to understand the holy books each religion going to say God inspired the book me personally I think a lot of the stuff with man-made stuff and no holy book is different I think both book of beneficial I don't think you should wash it the man I think you should worship the god that sent the jesus. Most books agree with one thing that he was the Messiah and that he came for the Israelites
It most certainly is a contradiction. It is actually 3 contradictions packed into one.
Matthew 27:5-8 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
Acts 1:18-19 "(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)"
Contradiction 1: One passage says he discarded the silver he was paid, another says he bought a field with the silver. He can't have thrown away the money at the temple and at the same time spent the money on land. The ones who bought the field in Matthew 27 were the chief priests. Judas wasn't one of the chief priests. So Acts says Judas bought it and Matthew says Judas got rid of the money and the chief priests bought it. That's a clear cut discrepancy.
Contradiction 2: In Matthew Judas hung himself. In Acts Judas fell "headlong" and burst open at the belly. If he hung himself he would have fallen feetfirst, not headlong. Surely he did not hang himself upside down. In Acts there is no mention of a hanging. In the field he somehow fell headfirst and his belly burst open. That would not have happened if he had hung himself. That is another clear inconsistency in the two narrations. They are both talking about the same event but give contradictory testimonies.
To support this, the Greek word translated as "headlong" in the text is is "πρηνὴς", which means "Falling headlong, prone. From pro; leaning forward, i.e. Head foremost."
Contradiction 3: Both passages agree that the field was named "Field of Blood", however, they do not agree on why the name was given. Matthew says that the reason why they named it "Field of Blood" is because the field was bought to bury foreigners. Acts says the reason they call it "Field of Blood" was because the people of Jerusalem heard of what happened to Judas there. Another clear as day contradiction in the narratives.
“And say: Truth has now arrived, and Falsehood has perished: for Falsehood by its very own nature is bound to perish.” Quran (17:81)
I hope this illustrates that the Bible cannot be relied on as a means of salvation. There are countless contradictions. Some even bigger than this one. I would ask you to pray to the one true God and ask him for guidance. And read the Quran from cover to cover. A book with no inconsistencies nor contradictions. The final revelation from the Almighty. You will understand it is the truth from your Lord if you read it. "This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those who are God conscious" Quran (2:2). Peace, brother. May God guide us all. Ameen.
This answers the “End Trails” question...Bodies have been know to explode because of all the gasses in the gut. “Google it”. Now, why is it ok for Bart to assume there was nothing between Judas and the ground but we can’t assume that there was something under him that caused him to flip head first??
Javier Lopez
Good point
Or is it possible Judas hung him self bears small cliff or a slope and when the rope snapped his body crushed down?
@@mrniceguy3006 It was also possible that third party was involved. Somebody saw hanging body and decided to take it down and bury. While trying to take it off the rope (this disgusting rotting body) it was very likely that the person who was supporting corps by its legs while the other was cutting the rope couldn't stand it anymore (it was on the slope of the valley - remember) and let it go. Body then flipped head down. Actually the word Luke used may also mean "forward" not necessary "head down".
If thus we do have plausible scenario of how it happened alleged "proof" of contradiction in the Bible is dismissed.
@Danilo Pie
It is " *not* a different story".
In the Bible you got many examples of language utilizing metonymy. Luke uses different word for the action "acquire" Matthew uses normal market term - "buy".
So Luke is talking about who stood behind money used by priests to purchase this field. Why? It was needed in his narration to emphasize that it was payment for the innocent blood he betrayed (by Judas). So Ehrman is wrong again insisting that the name of the field originated from the Judas' guts spilled out on it.
@Danilo Pie Go to original Greek text and you will see the difference... or you will not. Because your bias will ALWAYS keep you away from admitting that there is God who has right to dictate you what is good and what is sin! Am I wrong? Story with Judas is just one more pretext for you to reject God about whom you very well know that He exists.
No ican see the difference as a figure of speech only difference.I cant Think a mind like Barts can see it for a contradiction.
4' Ehrman: " in order to reconcile it you have to come up with completely implausible scenario..."
WHAT? Why Ehrman thinks that William's scenario is "completely implausible"? ONLY because of his bias, his worldview assumptions!
That is why trying to convince a person that Bible is inspired book and without contradictions when he/she already assumes that he/she will not accept divine inspiration is hopeless!
That's why presuppositional approach at least shuts skeptics mouths. Watch Sye Ten Bruggencate debates. Van Tilian approach doesn't allow skeptics to even leave their blocks (using sprint race figure).
@Danilo Pie Wow, you do use your presuppositions. Let me quickly check it. On what basis do you claim your rationality works (its not illusion or Matrix game) IN YOUR WORLDVIEW. Please sketch plausible scenario of origination of human rationality... without my God.
In the meantime please study Craig Keener's book "Miracles" in order to avoid pushing this nonsense about lack of miracles today.
@Danilo Pie Oh really? Engaging in any conversation you betray adherence to certain presuppositions (i.e. my rationality works, laws of logic are immutable and universal and so on).
So in order to prove anything you need to have intelligible basis for the process of proving... and naturalism (for example) is impotent to provide such. So you either borrow from my worldview, or come up with something which would legitimize the process of intelligent conversation. Take your chance!
(And you want me to run these rabbit trails of pseudo-arguments against Bible? Pathetic!)
@Danilo Pie just said "he holds no claim" after claiming the Bible is a fairytale. You are really funny. Funny because you claim the Bible is full of conradictions, yet you aren't capable of making non-contradictory statements even in your short comment.
@@TeiStacja Rational thought first reached reached Europe through Pythagoras, 5th cent. BCE. 500 years before your fairytale.
Obviously, atheists think that any events that lead towards Jesus' divinity are "implausible" and theists think that they are "plausible" because they have different metaphysical commitments. That's why the real debate begins not with history but with philosophy of religion. Only once you've debated worldviews do these debates really matter.
The other possibility is that Luke is merely recording the temporary insight of Peter, shared with others of that particular time. Hence Luke is not recording the actual event of Judas but the event of portraying the temporary insight.
That would still mean the Bible has errors.
@@jasper2621 It actually doesn't, believe it or not. You would fully expect a historian to record events as they are aware of them. That's why the accounts of which of the women witnessed the resurrection, and other details aren't errors, but plausible differences that you would expect from different men writing from their own perspectives and memory.
@@jordant889 There are "plausible differences" throughout a Batman comic book.
Crux of the story. Don't let Greed overcome you.
I think I see a solution to this passage that very few people would ever even think of. In Acts, it never says that Peter was inspired by God to say that Judas died in the field and burst open. It just says that Peter said that. Maybe Peter, not inspired by God, was simply mistaken about this matter? Big deal.
If that were the only contradiction in the Bible then you might have a point. Although, even then, it would still make "the word of God" not very clear (and therefore "God" not a very good writer).
It's unclear if the part about the death of Judas is Peter talking, or the author's voice. Read the passage for yourself. To me, it seems like too much of a tangent to be said by Peter. Read it yourself. He talks about Judas and says we need to listen to scripture. Skipping the part about the death of Judas, he goes seamlessly into quoting Psalms, to say that we need another apostle to fill the place left by Judas.
You havr God working through men
Thr name of the field is tje field of blood Matthew staes the facts in luke it is notpart of the narrative It is part of PetersSpeech. IAM NOT IMplying that Peter did not get the facts of the suicideHe was simply trying to convey the horror of Judas death without mentioning suicide it is peters emotional response to judas betrayal by which he gets hischronology a little mixed up.ThT is perfectly understandable
Does the posture of the hanging play a part here? Maybe there was a bungee jump kind of experience here, where a noose on the neck wasn't even the method. Something very much different?
"Headlong" simply means that he fell forward, which is something that he might have done in the process of hanging himself or even after he died.
@@TimothyFish No, I already commented on this. The greek word absolutely meant headfirst.
@@jasper2621 could happen easily if the branch on which he hung himself broke
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
Judas wasn't lynched, he hung himself. Which means he situated himself to hang. He didn't have a stool to reach a tree limb. If he fell headlong, that means he climbed up a tree, tied a rope or something and hung himself but it wasn't from the lowest limb.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
This is an argument about the semantic minutiae of a fairy tale.
@@Christian-ut2sp You are a special kind of stupid if you believe this.
@@Christian-ut2sp Are there any visible scars from your religious lobotomy?
Follower Of Yahshua
Do you know that “Elohim” is plural for “god”?
Follower Of Yahshua
Nah... “Elohim” is plural, and “Eloah” is singular.
There’s so much about the Bible you don’t understand. Like how it’s a rip off of several cultures preceding it by thousands of years.
Follower Of Yahshua the Bible isn’t real. Neither is hell.
Hebrews worshipped an entire pantheon of gods (much like the Greeks) before centuries of propaganda pushed them to worship Yahweh; who didn’t exist before 840 b.c.e.
I would say this. The field that was bought by the priests was the potters field. So they bought it from a Potter. Now around this field would have been pot shards. Which if fallen upon could burst entrails.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
So… the author of Acts did not think it relevant to add the fact that Judas was hanging before he fell? That is no small omission.
Tracy Baker do you need details for everything in life? Do you have details for everything in life? But when it comes to the word of God, suddenly you are a detailed expert and because the one account doesn’t hold the same details as the other, now it’s a contradiction... the details may differ but they don’t contradict at all.
There is nothing in the book of Matthew to say Judas didn’t fall headlong and there is nothing in the book of Acts to say Judas didn’t hang himself... the details differ because the authors are different and are writing from what they witnessed.
If every book was identical and had the exact details, you would find fault and say “It can’t be true because the stories are all the same and they copied each other” but now when the details differ, you say it can’t be true because the story isn’t the same??
Perhaps instead of fighting the word of God and exalting yourself in foolishness, read the word to gain knowledge and God will give you wisdom to understand.
God’s Child, no, but I do require evidence for outlandish claims. While neither claim of Judas‘s death is outlandish in itself, the claim that they are both the same account is. What is your evidence? You may make up your own reconciliation of these two stories, but then it is YOUR story. This demonstrates your disdain for the word of God. At least I am honest in my disregard for your holy text.
Your claim that if scripture were written better then I would still discount it, is probably true. Other religions have better written texts than yours, and I don’t believe them either.
It was my understanding of the word of God that led me to where I am. For the word of God is the word of men. You may ignore the evidence if you wish, it doesn’t affect me.
When you are finished rationalizing the texts and are about to publish your own version of the New Testament, let me know. I’ll be the first to buy it.
@@sternwheeler What's outlandish about someone falling from a tree and being cut open upon impact? That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
@@michaelnelson3652, please forgive me, but I can't tell if you are serious or using sarcasm. Li'l help?
@@sternwheeler Completely serious. I really don't see the problem with maintaining some combination of both.
Ehrmann is the arch literalist. ‘Headlong’ does not necessarily mean ‘headfirst’ - just fell from a height when his decaying body was cut down and his decaying body slit open. Yes they used the money - his money - to buy the field he died in. Makes sense. My mother ‘sold her house’ - actually I sold it for her as I had power of attorney! Depends how cravenly literal you want to be.
The two accounts are reconcilable. Both hanging and falling involve a downward motion meaning they could be parts of the same event. And each account involved the same plot of land, among other things. Acts was probably emphasizing the blood aspect, the state of his body before burial along with the plot of land since the "field of blood" naming is mentioned afterward. Matthew seems more detailed as to the exact cause of death and the transaction that took place.
Yeah but in one Judas buys a field in the other he gives the money back to the priests.
@@osr4152 Just because he gave the money back doesn't mean he couldn't afford to buy the field.
@@acurisur go and read acts 1 again. It says he bought the field with the 'money he recieved for his wickedness'.
And in case you think this could be other money not the 30 peices of silver he recieved for betraying Jesus, the key question is: why is the field called the 'field of blood'?
In Matthew it's called that cos the priests buy it with the money Judas recieved for his betrayal(presumably reference to Blood money). But in acts it's called the field of blood cos Judas buys it bursts open in it. Completely different reasons.
Also, if your version of events were true it would be laughable. So Judas is so filled with remorse at betraying innocent blood (as in Matthew) he gives the money back and hangs himself but before doing that he decides to buy some real estate 😂?
@@osr4152 I never said that, I said he could have had enough money to buy the field regardless of the 30 pieces of sliver.
If you're an atheist then none of this matters and your opinion is completely irrelevant.
Also whatever happened to Judas is not important in the grand scheme of things.
@@acurisur sorry I see where you are coming from now. As in he gave the money (30 pieces for betrayal) back but with his own money bought the field at some point, maybe even prior to the last supper?
I still think this is problematic because a) Luke (in acts) says he bought the field with the money he recieved for his wickedness which surely relates to the 30 pieces
B) as I said previously the reason why the field is called the 'field of blood' is different in both accounts showing they are different stories, not just a different way of saying the same thing.
The issue is with how Bart interpreted Acts 1:18. The Greek word used is πρηνὴς (prēnēs), it means prone. He fell flat. This is not a valid contradiction and does not impact the Gospel one iota.
Remember, god could have written one book (by Jesus own hand) and also preserved the founding documents of his one true religion.
Instead god prefers that you, faithful believer, defend anonymous authors and contradictory depictions of events written decades after their occurrence.
God wants you to be confused.
No God wants to use human beings as His instruments
@@ptk8451 how do you know what god wants?
According to the Bible, Jesus is not God, in the Bible there are criteria for God and in the Bible, Jesus does not meet the criteria for being God
1. No one has ever seen God (1 John 4:12) whereas no one has seen Jesus
2. God is not human (Numbers 23: 19, Hosea 11:9) while Jesus is human (Acts of the Apostles 2:22)
3. God did not die (1 Timothy 1:17) while Jesus died (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4)
4. God does not need a savior (Luke 1:37) while Jesus needs a savior (John 4:6-9)
5. God is not weary (Isaiah 40:28) while Jesus was weary (John 4:6)
6. God does not sleep (Psalm 121:2-5) while Jesus sleeps (Mark 4:38)
According to the Bible, Jesus was only a prophet based on 3 testimonies
1. Testimony of people who lived at the same time as Jesus that Jesus was a prophet
# Matthew 21: 10-11 >> all the people who were contemporaries of Jesus called him the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee, descendant of David
# Mark 14:65 >> Jesus' enemies (Jewish high priests) who wanted Jesus to be executed said he was a prophet,
# Luke 24 : 18-19-20 >> After 3 days of the crucifixion, a stranger asked people who were contemporaries of Jesus, about the condition of Jesus, why he was on the cross, then one of the people who were contemporaries of Jesus, his name was Cleopas, said Jesus was a prophet but the Jewish high priests handed Jesus over to be executed
# John 7:40 >> Many people who were contemporaries of Jesus said he was a prophet
2. Jesus' own testimony: Jesus was only a prophet
# Matthew 13:34-35 >> Jesus said he was a prophet who explained people who would enter the kingdom of heaven with parables, without parables they would not understand about the kingdom of heaven
# Mark 6:4, Luke 4:24, John 4:44 >> Jesus said that he was a prophet who was respected everywhere except in his native place
# Mark 12:29 >> Jesus told the Israelites the main law is to worship Allah alone, the Lord of us all, God is One/One
3. Testimony of the Holy Spirit/Gabriel/Gabriel
# Samuel 15:29 >> God is not human
# Deuteronomy 4:35,39, Deuteronomy 6:4 >> He is Allah, there is no god but Him, the only God
10 reasons Jesus is not God but Jesus is only a prophet/apostle just like Abraham/Ibrahim, Moses/Moses and Muhammad, according to the Bible
1. In John 17:3 Jesus said there is no god but Allah and Jesus Christ is only the messenger/prophet/apostle of Allah
2. If Jesus is God, God is all-knowing of everything (Isaiah 46:9-10) but in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 Jesus does not know when the day will end, because Jesus does not know when the day will end, then Jesus does not know everything, because Jesus does not know everything then Jesus is not God
3. In Matthew 7: 21-23 it is stated that everyone who thinks Jesus is God will not enter heaven, in the last days Jesus will not recognize and expel people who think Jesus is God
4. In John 16:25-26, on the last day, Jesus tells us who the Father/God really is, frankly, that prayer should only be to the Father/God, not Jesus, the person who prays to Jesus, Jesus will not ask the Father for salvation for that person, because the one who loves humans is the Father/God, not Jesus, Jesus only comes from the Father and returns to The Father is the same as the prophets and other humans.
5. In Isaiah 29: 12 prophesies that the revelation/word of God will one day be given to a person who when asked to read, he answered I can't read and that's Muhammad because in the history of Muhammad's life all the writers report that, when he received revelation in the cave of Hira he told to read by the angel Gabriel/Gabriel "read" he said I can't read and the first revelation revealed was "iqra" read
6. In Song of Solomon 5:16, it tells a prophecy about the prophet Muhammad, that the future lover of the prophet Solomon/Sulaiman, the name Muhammad, is written there in the original Hebrew language which, if pronounced, reads "mahamadim" the prefix im means respect for the name because of its value. attached to the name (everything about him is attractive, his words are sweet, etc.)
7. In John 16:12-16 Jesus said that I still have a lot to say to you but later there will be a spirit of truth (the angel Gabriel/Jibril) who will come to a messenger/prophet after me who will lead in the truth, who will say no according to him but according to the revelation/word of God, who announces to you things that will come (apocalypse, life after death, etc.), which he will glorify me, that is Muhammad, Muhammad glorified Jesus as a prophet, glorified Mother Mary, the mother of Jesus, Muhammad conveyed news about things the future (apocalypse, life after death) in the Koran, Muhammad comes after Jesus.
8. In the historical writings about Paul, Paul was a person full of hypocrisy, he killed Jesus' obedient disciple (Stephen) and helped King Herod (the Roman-Jewish king) to kill the other disciples of Jesus until they were finished, he only pretended to repent with confession. himself by saying he had met Jesus, to change the gospel with his own hands, (Provenly Paul's letter -14 letters- dominates the New Testament Bible -27 letters-) while his name is not in the 12 disciples of Jesus or the 70 disciples of Jesus
9. There are differences between the teachings of Paul and Jesus, differentiate between the teachings of Paul and Jesus and you will find Islam
1) Jesus said don't think that my coming will abolish the law, no! I just fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17-20), but Paul said the coming of Jesus abolished the law (Galatians 2:16),
2) Jesus ordered circumcision (Luke 2:21), but Paul forbade circumcision (Galatians 5:6 / 1 Corinthians 7:19)
3) Jesus forbade eating unclean meat/swine (pork) (Leviticus 11:7-8), (Isaiah 65:4), (Deuteronomy 14:8) and strong drinks (Isaiah 5:22) but Paul made pork permissible (Romans 14:17) and strong drink (1 Timothy 5:23)
4) Jesus never said he was God but only a prophet (John 13:16), but Paul considered Jesus to be God (1 Corinthians 8:6)
5) Jesus forgave the 2 people who were crucified (Luke 23:32-38), but Paul cursed the 2 people on the cross (Galatians 3:13)
6) Jesus taught that there are no inheritance sins, children are pure from sin (Mark 10:13-16) while Paul taught inheritance sins (Romans 5:12-21)
7) Jesus said the sins were borne by himself (Matthew 16:27) while Paul said the sins were borne by Jesus (Colossians 1:13-14)
10. In the book of Deuteronomy 6 verse 4 God is Ehad/Ahad/Esa (one) not a unity or trinity
See..so many contradiction A LOT and you just guessing by your assumption.
Seriously? Luke describes what happened while Matthew parallels it to the death of Aitofel. 2 Sam 17:23. I think Christian theologians should study more Hebrew culture...
Damn Bart was phenomenal here
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
such was the death of Judas
he strangled and died
then there was a great earthquake after jesus resurrected
“And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”
- Matthew 28:2 (KJV)
“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.”
- Acts 1:18 (KJV)
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
what you guys forget is the earthquake that shook when JESUS gave up the ghost. it's clear he was shaken from the tree fell and burst open
😂😂
Yeah the earthquake on April 3rd, 33 A.D. that isn't anywhere in the archaeological record.
Acts does not say he fell on his head, it said he fell “headlong”. The fact it reads that his intestines spilled out means he most likely fell on his stomach after the weight of his corpse snapped the rope. This isn’t a contradiction, it’s one description of Judas hanging himself and another of his dead body decomposing and falling apart later on.
How did he bought the field with the money after he hanged himself?
Imagine describing the events that befall a corpse but failing to inform your readers that you are describing a corpse. Isn't that way less plausible then that these are two contradictory accounts? Who talks about a corpse without mentioning that it's a corpse?
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
It's an implausible scenario, because it doesn't fit my interpretation.
@CanadianLoveKnot
Signed: Every Atheist in this comment section.
+CanadianLoveKnot - no, it's implausible because a reasonable person does not find it plausible.
@@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016 no man, Ehrman is trying to make it sound worse than it is. His analogy is off about the moon landing too. The moon landing happened vs. it didn't happen is a CLEAR contradiction. There's no reconciling that. If the accounts say Judas died and the other account says Judas lived, that's a clear contradiction. It's simply the same event from two different perspectives.
So who bought the field? Judas or the priests? Or did they go halves?
+disc man - wrong - either Judas died by hanging or he didn't. He either bought the field himself or he didn't. He either returned the silver to the rabbis or he didn't. Seems pretty black and white to me.
A short message to Muslims here, Ehrman is not on your side, everything he says about Jesus, early Christianity and the disciples destroys Islam.
😊
We dont say that, but Ehrman is a big enemy for All christians you need to think if your religion is true, Ehrman prooves a lots of contradiction in your bible and also the manuscipt nothing from 1st century, alhamdulillah in islam we dont see errors like you have
Somehow......the Williams dude is but a hustler....
How is Bart going to say that example implausible??? it’s not exactly determined but it’s definitely reasonable.
Because it quotes an OT prophecy that doesn't exist.
It's not. People don't fall in a field and have their guts spill out. Not even if you climbed a tree and fell from the top of a tree would your guts spill out unless there were and extraordinarily sharp and well positioned rock, which you would probably notice as you climbed the tree. Imagine if a man died and one witness told you he hanged himself and the other said he fell and his stomach burst open. If you respond "Ah so the rope broke and his stomach broke open when he fell" the two witnesses would just call you an idiot and insist the other witness is wrong. That's probably what happened here. But let's face it, the real question is why are Christians willing to take extraordinarily generous interpretations of their own scripture ("there must have been a really well positioned/really sharp rock!") and not extend the same generosity to other scriptures. You are a skeptic when it comes to all the other religious documents out there I assume. Why not apply that skepticism to this scenario?
The timing is imprecise, so Judas may have hung himself in the field the leaders used his money for or they may have purchased the field he hung himself in. Either way, it was his money, so it would be correct to say that he bought the field. As for falling headlong and his bowels gushing out, we don't know how long he hung there before someone cut him down. It could be that the level of decay was so great that he popped open and his guts spilled out. Headlong just means he fell forward, which could have happened either when he was cut down or it could have been the means by which he hung himself. It certainly doesn't indicate a contradiction.
@Jubei Yang, in the case of Judas, it wasn't the government but the religious leaders. They gave Judas the money to betray Jesus. For them to take that money back would be to admit that what they had done was wrong. Their belief was that they were to stay above sin, but Judas dropped that sin right back in their laps. Using the money to buy a field for the poor was a way to get rid of the money without accepting blood money.
@Jubei Yang The story makes perfect sense, and Mr. Fish explained it succinctly.
@Jubei Yang What's "fishy" about it?
They couldn't take the money back, so they used it to buy a potter's field for Judas and other unclaimed/unclean bodies.
It makes perfect sense to me.
@Jubei Yang No, I don't believe everything in the Bible.
However, Mr. Fish and I have just explained why this story is perfectly logical, given the circumstances and 1st-century Judaism.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
The explanation is that you have two separate accounts and we dont know which one is accurate. Its only a problem if you believe in biblical errancy like fundamentalist do today
The greek word for headlong as is described in Acts 1:18 needs to be taken into account. Bart seems to think that the word headlong in the greek means headfirst. That would not be the accurate description of the word headlong in the Bible.. The word actually means leaning forward. or in a prone position. That is exactly what it says. Not only that but both accounts in different places in scripture are not contradictions because they do NOT exclude one another. Just because you don;t have details about how it all happened does not mean it is a contradiction. And anyone arguing that semantics in this case doesn't matter probably wouldn't say the same thing in a legitimate CSI case in an attempt to find TRUTH of how something happened. The greek does not necessarily imply headfirst. Modern dictionaries say the word headlong means headfirst but the greek text does hold weight in this matter. No contradiction, no problem.
Not at all. The word does indeed mean headfirst. Check out the Defender's discussion on Bart's channel on biblical contradictions. Not a single Christian mentions the idea that headlong means leaning forward-- and they're all biblical scholars with training in Greek.
If I were god, and claimed to be all knowing, then I would foresee how people would debate this in the future and I would make it clear how the dude should die.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
@@svenshanah Oh this is so funny. The god who created the universe could not give us a better description of what "hanged" actually means.
Judas’ story is a big one to deny. The lesson of Judas is to not betray Jesus and seek forgiveness. This guy is denying the lot, tread carefully guys please don’t deny Christ
Bart challenges Peter to reconcile the two accounts. Peter suggests that perhaps he hung himself, the rope later snapped, and then, depending on the terrain, hit his head on the ground. Bart declares the story is implausible. Bart then goes on to suggest some story about a gas explosion wiping out a debate. Bart apparently thinks this story is plausible.
The entire point of the gas explosion is that it is implausible. Just because the story includes accurate locations doesn't mean it happened.
@@jasper2621 neither that is did not happen... Right Godless and Souless person???
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
@@svenshanah The word used for hanged is apēnxato. This does not indicate falling on one's sword to kill themselves. This means "To choke, strangle; mid: I strangle or hang myself. From apo and agcho; to strangle oneself off." This absolutely is the hang that they're talking about. If this is a well known explanation, then there's lots of people spreading BS.
@@sub7se7en You're wrong, out of context, emotionally distraught, and devoid of formal education.
Be blessed.
This is a prime example of the communication game, the fact that he died an untimely death and the died was purchased with the $ is the subject, not headlong, intestines, hanging…tripping over a dollar picking up a dime!
Judas' rope snapped and he fell down the side of a cliff head first as his body was turned up side down bouncing off the cliff edge or face. Simple enough.
@Danilo Pie the chief priests
@Danilo Pie:
Lol... Judas bought the field metaphorically with his soul...?
I’m f*€king around role playing here...
After you said "Simple enough", I went to my Bible search tab and put, "Judas' rope snapped and he fell down the side of a cliff head first as his body was turned up side down bouncing off the cliff edge or face.". Nothing came up. I tried "rope snapped", "bouncing off the cliff", and etc, but nothing worked. Please help.
Who saw the body fall? No one obviously. The body was found with guts spilled everywhere which is what happens to decomposing bodies. It's a description of how the body was found on the ground.
geoffoster82 where does it say, “it’s a description of what happened after”?
Has anyone considered that Judas merely attempted suicide by hanging and survived? Presumably it would not have been possible to buy the field at the passover which is when the crucifixion took place and so must have been later on. So Judas could have bought the field after Jesus' resurrection and after reclaiming the money from the priests. Incidently Acts doesn't say he died either, just that he went to "his own place."
Akeldama is A hilly and rough area. If the rope breaks after a day or two in the sun, it's more than reasonable that Judas body took a header. Splash! To casual passersby it would have indeed looked like an explosion.
Bart is drawing conclusions sola scriptura style, and that is a flawed way of looking at things.
Isn’t it a flawed way of looking at things to assume conclusions that are not indicated in the text?
The answer is yes, this is a contradiction. One describes a hanging the other falling down.
From scripture alone yes it is a contradiction. One cannot add or subtract from the bible. So anything else than a contradiction is adding and when we add we are leaning on our own understanding.
What likely happen is two people (not Matt or John) wrote two different accounts unaware of themselves and someone how someone found these two version and kept both.
That or god purposely implanted flash narratives to see who believes what. Kind of like when someone gives different information to different people. And if they hear one of the versions told they could pinpoint which of the people is the mole.
In one gospel it says Jesus met with the 12 AFTER the resurrection. So I thought there was only 11 deciples at that point.
Regarding the ideas about the dead of Judas, I am amazed about the missing link in the opinions, because we can find here one of the greatest apparent contradictions of the bible.
John 20:24 says: now Thomas one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
1 Corinthians 15:5 says: …and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
This was the situation before Matthias was chosen. That can mean only one thing: Judas was with the twelve. How can this happen if Judas had hanged himself. The answer is simple: Judas didn’t hang himself.
When Paul writes about the appearance of Jesus, he writes about the situation before the Ascension, so before the replacement of Judas by Matthias that happened after the Ascension. And then there were twelve. It's not the question that Judas is replaced, but that he didn't hang himself or bursted open.
Judas 'went to his own place.' It takes another long story to discuss what is meant by 'Judas turned aside and went to his own place' but apparently he was still alive!
The phrase …hanged himself is nowhere in the text. The famous Dutch Statenvertaling (a 17th century translation like the King James) reads: …verworgde zichzelf. The word zichzelf is written in italics which means that it is added by the translators. As far as I know, ap agchoo means literally something as his throat is been pinched off, or closed, or has been strangled, but not: strangled himself. The google translator gives: anxious.
This mistranslation explains the confusion about the other place in Acts. There is a lot to say about this. That his bowels gushed out is a Hebrew way of saying (see David Flussers Jesus), it means a deep sort of affection. The same word splagchna is been used at several places in the New Testament: 1 John 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:12, 7:15; Col. 2:12 etc.
A Dutch theologian, Frank de Graaff wrote a lot about this in Jezus de Verborgene (Jesus the Hidden One). He translates ap agchoo as benauwd, wich means anxious or worried. De Graaff proposes the following translation in Acts: he has acquired a field with the reward of iniquity and fallen over in the midst (of the field) he screamed (elakèsen) with great affection. He (not a gnostic but a normal scholar) explains the misunderstanding about Judas, because the early church understands that he is Juda (the Jew) and depicted him as the bad betrayer. The horrible contribution of Papias is telling about the anti-judaistic feelings in that time.
Another weird thing is the translation ‘ Judas betrayed ...’ in the Gospels. The Greek ‘paradidoomi’ means: to hand over. Notice the last sentence in the Gospel of Judas: He received some money and handed him over to them.
peter k. yes, and the more I study line upon line establishing his word by 2 or 3 witnesses I’ve found man6 many more errors that are extremely revealing. But hey, didn’t the lord say at the very end the spirit of truth would be poured out and Daniels sealed book opened? I find something awesome everyday I never saw before. For example Romans 1:3-4 changes everything. Especially the last sentence in verse 4. Also John 17:3, I Tim. 2:5, I Cor..8:6, I tim. 2:5, and Mark 12:29 from Jesus directly when describing the father. Learning Greek and Hebrew grammar has revealed a lot of things that have been mistranslated or just down right wrong. The TRUE messiah is beginning to make a lot more logical sense. Thanks for your comment. I’m going to copy and save it to my file. :)
@@RoseSharon7777 as I wrote in another comment, I believe that apparent contradictions point to a deeper layer of meaning, in particular in the case of Judas Iscariot.
I thank you so much.
Have you ever heard of Matthias? He's your answer.
(I also believe it's Paul's epistle, not a Gospel, that states that)
@@bromponie7330 Mathias wasnt selected until later.
🙏🙏PRAISE THE LORD ALL🙏🙏
Yes, all together now: Hail Lord Satan!
@@WarlonWinterheart Really? Grow up.
@@LostSpaceGuy Oh sorry. I guess you are right. Having imaginary friends is pretty childish.
@@WarlonWinterheart Haha. Now that comment will age very badly🤡
@@LostSpaceGuy You mean like when Jesus said he'd return within the disciples’ lifetime?
How can somebody debate if they can’t answer these kind of questions?
This is just arguing which way the ferris wheel is turning. Ehrman is convinced it's spinning clockwise and can't see another any other perspective.
@Ebiegberi Adonkie cool story bro
a clear contradiction. full stop.
Exactly..
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
Bart Ehrman makes the erroneous claim that certain passages of The Bible are "irreconcilable", using the death account of Judas as one example.
Saying, among other things, that it doesn't make sense for a man who hanged himself to fall head first or to have his intestines burst out of his abdomen.
🙄 For one... The Jews were very much committed to the law of Moses, especially on the Passover... As it's written in Leviticus one could never be in the same vicinity of a dead body, and in some circumstances not even touch so much as the shadow of a dead body.
So, clearly, nobody would've dared go near the body of Judas as he was hanging from the tree where he hung himself. Now, being from rural areas all my life, it doesn't take long for a body to not only begin to develop rigamortis but to become fly bloated.
Which brings me to point number two... After a day or two or more in the elements, the rope would've broken (or the branch) and the body would've fell head first and upon impact with the ground the belly would've burst open.
So, clearly, this is reconcilable. It's no great leap for anyone to see how it would've played out, so either Ehrman is lying purposely or he has absolutely ZERO ability to invision anything he reads.
Furthermore, Ehrman wants to knit pick certain details concerning the Potter's Field where Judas died saying that the accounts of Matthew & Luke (Acts) differ and therefore are also irreconcilable.
However, this is not a difference that contradicts in my view because although Matthew says that the Pharisees bought the field with the 30 pieces of silver that Judas gave back, and Luke in Acts says that Judas bought the field--- I view it as a "figure of speech" because it was Judas' criminal act that provided the money to buy the field in the first place so therefore Judas bought the field, even if the Pharisees were the ones that made the purchase because after all the one who committed the sin is the one who is ultimately at blame.
Jesus bless you all 😊
Also, before I forget, it's ironic how when Ehrman is challenged he'll say that anything can be reconciled but when he's challenging others he'll say that it's all irreconcilable. In short, Ehrman uses "rabbit hole" logic where everything works to his favor every single time, and where he's untouchable and always right & everyone else is always wrong.
My goodness..are these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
I can't see how these two accounts are reconcilable, but how important is it to Christian belief what happened to Judas.
You Christian guys are great in reading the Gospels. Please have a Bible dictionary or a Bible interpreter next to you or go to the web. Please check what I have said. Judas was the disciple whom Jesus loved the most and Jesus honored him at the Last Supper. Are you shocked? The Jews wanted to kill Jesus, Judas and Lazarus. Judas was caught by the Jews when Jesus sent him out on an assignment. Judas was impaled and his intestines came out. The Galilean disciples(10) hated Judas. Please check the NIV Research/Study Bible or the Interpreters Bible. What happened to Lazarus is a mystery. Judas' body was taken away by Mary Magdalene and given a secret burial. When I went to the Holy Land I asked where was Judas buried. No one had an answer. Most of the places are not genuine in the Holy Land . It is meant only for the tourism industry.
It challenges the doctrine of inerrancy.
@@donaldfernandes7798 NO. Yahu'canon/"John" was the disciple Yahushua loved. The text even states it.
My goodness..all these alleged learned men and they're ALL this far off?
"Hanged", in Biblical days was not a rope around the neck, it was the same way Saul did it in battle, as well as many other instances - "hanged" means to lay, or "hang", on your sword. THIS is why Judas's guts poured out.
My goodness, this was shocking. I fully expected to hear this well known explanation. Wow.🤯
He went to hang himself but didn't
Judas died some horrible death. That is the true story. The Field of Blood seems to be a part of the true story but we can't use these accounts to reconcile how. Clearly, the authors had two different sources and they differ. Mattew´s account has been taken as the most plausible one and I am of that opinion too. This is splitting hairs over something very insignificant. If Bart is a scholar that is more a bible thumper than an intellectual he will eventually get on everybody's nerves.
@Gisli Ingvarsson
I disagree that they differ, but agree with your general point.
The holy spirit inspired multiple accounts separately
Yea also inspired contradiction between the authors
Bible says headlong and not head first.
Maybe he was hanging upside down 🙃
How/why would he hang himself upside down?
TheIsmaelIsaac
I know one thing. God knew what went down