@eoalyssa - 

Dear friend agnophilo,

I see you are concerned about accuracy regarding the English translation of Acts 1:18. Yet, oddly, you seem to have quoted the NIV which does not mirror the Greek original in this passage quite as consistently as do many other English translations. The NIV (and some inaccurate paraphrase renderings) add the idea that Judas died “there,” in the field.

I have looked up the original Greek text, and this idea of where Judas died is utterly absent in the original language. The fact that the NIV adds in concepts not present in the original Greek is why it is sometimes not permitted to be used in Christian seminary hermeneutics courses.

Those English translations that are considered more faithful to the Greek read as follows:

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)

NASB “(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.” (Acts 1:18)

ASV “(Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” (Acts 1:18)

ESV “(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” (Acts 1:18)

Note: for those Christians who are NIV fans, in general I feel it is a fine and useful translation to read from, but for serious study I would recommend the NASB and, when convenient, also learning Koine Greek.

It is curious that you, agnophilo, state that there are multiple “other accounts” about Judas returning the silver coins, beside Matthew 27:1-9, which are “riddled with contradictions.” Any Bible student will inform you that you are incorrect; there is only one account of Judas taking back the money to the sanctuary or his money buying a field (i.e. Matthew 27:1-9). As we already discussed Acts 1:18 is another reference to that event, but it does not recount the events of that night.

Rather Acts 1:18 uses similes, ironies, and euphemisms to describe Judas’ “wickedness” as the price paid (instead of silver) for “his” field which he never actually owned. It is reminiscent of saying, “Lincoln built his monument in D.C. out of the price of his own worth and integrity.” Lincoln never actually bought or owned the monument, but it was dedicated to him because of what he had done. It would be absurd to imply that the epitaph was intended to tell the literal story of how the monument was financially funded. It was just an epitaph, a poem honoring the man. In like manner, Acts 1:18 is Judas’ sad epitaph, though in this case it is a poem dishonoring the man.

Blessings to you through Christ,

Craig

Dear agnophilo,

You wrote this to me, “Again you just twist these passages. You will never accept that they mean anything other than what you'd like them to mean. If there are two ways to interpret a passage and one is a problem for your faith, you automatically reject it in favor of the other one.”

Yet, I cannot help but chuckle since this describes you so perfectly. Perhaps it is you who are twisting the passages? Will you ever accept that they mean anything other than what you would like them to mean? If there are two ways to interpret a passage and one demonstrates that there is no contradiction in the Scriptures, why do you automatically reject in favor of the other?

Of course accepting or rejecting an interpretation should depend on far more than one’s personal preference or debating stance. Good hermeneutics practices have led me to accept many concepts from the Bible that I would have gladly rejected out of hand as they challenged and changed some of my dearly held beliefs. Yet, that is the purpose of the Scriptures, to challenge and change individuals for the sake of God’s glory.

Blessings to you through Christ,

Craig

Dear cyberbear,

You wrote, “In a nutshell, any apparent contradiction in revealed scripture stems from either the verse being figurative, rather than literal, in meaning, or from the reader's interpretation diverging from the Messenger's intent.”

Assuming this is not sarcasm but a valid attempt to understand the natural use of human language in the Bible, I would love to address your statement. Your explanation is actually very close to one I would agree with, with a few clarifications.

A reason that so often you hear a Christian refer to a hard to understand statement in the Bible as an idiomatic expression is because idiomatic phrases most often give rise to the greatest number of questions.

In other words, if someone were to observe, “Why do IRS tax forms generate more questions of confusion in my office than does the latest episode of CSI?” the answer would be, “Because the tax laws are intrinsically more difficult to understand than is a television show.” Idioms, euphemisms, and the imagery of poetry will always be among the hardest language to understand and will always raise more questions of interpretation than do other phrases.

There is nothing wrong with asking why something is so oddly worded, especially if it is an idiom. What would a 1st Century Jew think you meant when you said that “The IRS drives me up the wall”? That particular phrase would naturally raise more questions than the statement, “The tax code is difficult to understand.”

It is faulty methodology to automatically assume the toughest language to understand in the Bible is always the spawn of an error or a contradiction. That kind of improper reasoning is why so many of these frivolous challenges make it onto alleged “lists of biblical contradictions.” It is also why so many of the answers are, “It is an idiom,” because they are so often just that.

Rarely do we think to read the biblical languages from the eyes of a 1st Century Jew. In our rich and opulent Western society we see the expression, “In my Father’s house are many dwellings” and assume there are many royal palaces in the Father’s house. A 1st Century Jew in Palestine would immediately and properly assume it meant there were many single-room apartments in the Father’s house.

We read that the 1st Century church had weekly love feasts during the Eucharist. In our contemporary mind’s eye we see this long table spread lavishly with food. We fail to realize that every person brought their own carry-in dinner to this “feast“; the rich brought much, but the poor often brought nothing and went hungry. The poor were often slaves, had no kitchen in their one-room efficiency apartments, and could neither prepare their own food nor could afford to purchase “fast food” on the way to the “feast.” They literally depended on the rich to share with them. When the rich quickly ate everything they brought themselves, the poor would show up and go hungry all night. We must really learn to read the Bible through 1st Century understandings.

We wrongly expect the four gospels to be written like and read like 21st Century news magazine articles, where every detail, no matter how arcane, is chronicled. But the gospels were written the way 1st Century writers crafted the Greek biographies of the day. Only important details were included. The biography was written not to tell all that a person had done, but to explain why the person was important enough to write about at all. Much of everything else was considered as too superfluous to include.

When something “does not make sense” in the New Testament, we should not immediately think, “Here is a contradiction,” but rather, “What do I not understand about 1st Century Greek that would make this read so oddly to me today?”

Blessings in Christ,

Craig

@deniseinindy - 

@cyberbear - 

@craigwbooth - 

@craigwbooth - 

@craigwbooth - 

Dear agnophilo,

You wrote, “So he [Judas] purchased a bit of land with his infamy before he died?”

No, the text says that it was his wickedness that purchased both the land and his fate for him.

“I'm sorry, but that is a huge stretch. You are just refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that the sensible interpretation is true.”

Agnophilo, it is at this point I think you may be a tad insincere in your protestations. You said you knew the Bible well enough, so you know that 40% of it is pure poetry (chock full of similes, symbolic language, euphemisms, metaphors). Hebrew writers were more linguistically rich than are modern English authors. Why do you insist that Acts 1:18a has to be literal narrative instead of an epitaph? What linguistic markers are there in Acts 1:18a that leads you to think it is more intended as literal narrative than a poetic epitaph against the man?

Agnophilo, you also wrote, “I don't even think you looked at the contradictions I posted in the other blog.”

I have read everything you posted. If there is yet something specific you want me to address, just tell me.

Blessings through Christ,

Craig

@craigwbooth - 

@craigwbooth - 

Dear agnophilo,

It is true, I do embrace the poetry, symbolism, and metaphors that comprise so much of Scripture. To reject such language, interpreting every word in its "literal" meaning, is to miss what the original author was attempting to communicate.

Regarding Acts 1:18, there are numerous ways to read it and several linguistic issues to overcome if you want to demand it is a contradictory history narrative of Judas’ death (and field purchase) that competes with and denies Matthew 27:7.

“Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” (Acts 1:18-19)

Issues to Consider

1) If Acts 1:18a is literal and not metaphorical, where is the reference to silver coins? I am unaware of a Roman currency called “wickedness” which was used to pay for Judas’ field. Is part of 1:18a metaphorical? Which parts? How do you know?

2) If two friends go out for pizza, and one says, “Here is the money for the pizza, you order it while I go to the restroom,” then later as they finish the pizza the friend who was given the money says, “Here, you deserve the last piece because you bought the pizza,” is he being inaccurate? Whose pizza was it really, the one who provided the money or the one who did the physical act of purchasing? Is it wrong to say Judas bought the field because he provided the money even though it was the temple officials that made the transaction?

3) What made Judas fall? Why does not the account in Luke, if it intends to dispute the previously published account in Matthew, say why Judas fell? Note: In the Greek language an alternative translation of that phrase can read: “and swollen up he having become, he burst apart in his middle, and were poured out all the bowels of him” instead of saying he “fell and burst open.” Does that challenge the “contradiction” theory and bolster it as a complementary account?

4) Is the reference to a field in verse 19 a reference to: a) the field purchased with Judas’ money, or, b) the field in which he died, or, c) to both, or, d) the fields are the same field? How do you actually know? Does the text literally say?

5) Why would Luke, the author of Acts, glibly contradict Matthew 27 when he had that text in front of him already (Acts being a book written later than Matthew)? Was Luke stupid and did not know he was contradicting Matthew and destroying the Christian faith and the Christian gospel? Was Luke of such higher integrity than Matthew that he HAD to write the truth? And if Luke only wrote the truth because of his higher integrity, than why do you not believe everything else he writes about Jesus as also being true history?

6) Is there no possibility that Matthew 27 and Acts 1 are entirely complementary, and were designed to be complementary by Luke? If it is possible to read Matthew 27 and Acts 1 as complementary and not contradictory, then which reading is likely more in line with what Luke had intended to communicate all along?

In Christ,

Craig