Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by incoserv
Often, the apparent inconsistencies in the biblical narrative are readily resolved when one realizes that the same story is often told by
different people. As is always the case, different witnesses will have varying perspectives.
When different people tell the same story with contradictory accounts there is a problem.
If you ask two people what kind of vehicle I drive, one might say, "He has a red automobile." The other might say, "He drives a Dodge Dakota."
Now, are these two people telling the same story with inconsistencies? No, they are both right, though they each tell only part of the story; the part
that most impressed them, individually.
By listening to both of their stories and putting them together, we know that I drive a red Dodge Dakota. No inconsistencies there. Different
perspectives, different impressions, different parts of the same story that, together, make up a whole.
How is that a problem?
There is a contradiction not just with how he died, but also with regard to the 30 silver pieces.
In one account, Judas throws the silver back at the priests and went and hung himself.
In the other account, Judas used the same silver.... "wages of iniquity" to buy the field where he "fell headlong" and was found with his bowels open.
Either he threw the silver and went and hung himself.
Chapter 27 of Matthew says:
And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces
of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them
the potter's field as a burial place for strangers.
The biblical narrative clearly states that the chief priests
took the money and purchased the potter's field. The account in Acts says, "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." The
field was purchased with Judas' money. This is why the chief priests refused to return the money to the temple treasury: it was "blood money."
Effectively, his money bought the field, and he died in the same field that his own blood money had purchased. Though he may not have made the
transaction, the money was his. He was directly responsible for the acquisition of it.
As I read through the biblical narrative, I see instances where the content is so condensed that details that do not bear on the core of the story are
left out, or perhaps the reader is assumed to have knowledge about events that, at the time of writing were, perhaps, common amongst readers. I think
this is an instance of that very "problem."
Its not a "straightforward fact" as you say. And nowhere in the "death by falling" account does it say there was a rope or hanging involved. You are
simply asserting that without any biblical backing.
Neither does it say that there wasn't a rope or hanging involved. One may safely assume either way. However, Occam's razor asserts that among
competing hypotheses that attempt to solve a problem, the simplest is most often the correct one. My hypotheses is, by far, the simplest.
Say a man accidentally cuts himself while working in his wood shop, the cut severs an artery, and he bleeds to death. One person might say that he
died from an accident sustained while doing carpentry work. The other might say that he died from loss of blood. Does the second explanation
contradict the first? Can we say that "there is a problem" because the two accounts do not seem, on the surface, to agree?
We could spend our energy arguing about whether the first witness is wrong or the second witness is wrong, or if there is "a problem" with the
stories, since their accounts don't seem to agree. Or we could think logically about the two stories and come to the conclusion that he must have died
from a loss of blood caused by an accident sustained in the course of doing carpentry work.
There are no inconsistencies.It just means that we have a bigger picture than if just one person's perspective were shared. If you choose to see it
otherwise, that is your privilege, but there is no contradiction here. It is most common for different people to have different perspectives on the
same event. Ask any two or three people to describe any event to you, and you may hear different perspectives. Can you tell me that that is untrue,
and that everyone's description of every event is always exactly the same?
edit on 24-1-2013 by incoserv because: typos