Post Reply
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
Switch to Forum Live View "Eyewitnesses would have objected if the Gospels were untrue"
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 2:12PM #51
jlb32168
Posts: 13,273

May 7, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Athlyes wrote:

But I think harmonization gets taken too far. Is it more reasonable to think that Judas could have hanged himself, then burst open on the ground, then was run over by a chariot? Or is it more reasonable to see the contradictions for what they are, different streams of a tradition that dont record the exact event, but point to the tradition that Judas died some unpleasent and unnatural death?


My Father-in-law worked for twenty years with a funeral home that sometimes worked alongside the county coroner’s office, which is usually the case in smaller counties.


A corpse can degrade pretty fast in hot weather – sometimes bloating within an hour and a half depending upon what was eaten last.  I don’t find it too hard to believe that he split open after a short period – certainly not w/in minutes but the text doesn’t specify how long he hanged before he burst open.


May 6, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Ed.W wrote:

Jim, you say Matthew precisely rendered the LXX, but we have two different renderings of that.  John rendered the LXX another way to comport with one animal.   (Mark and Luke have one animal with no reference to Zechariah.)   Matthew's citation of Zechariah (with 2 animals):  Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.John's citation of Zechariah (with 1 animal): Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.


One could also conclude that a later Greek copyist, not familiar with Hebrew chiasmus, "corrected" the text incorrectly and that is why it seems that two animals are mentioned.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:04PM #52
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,051

May 7, 2012 -- 2:12PM, jlb32168 wrote:


One could also conclude that a later Greek copyist, not familiar with Hebrew chiasmus, "corrected" the text incorrectly and that is why it seems that two animals are mentioned.




Actually, I once read something about Matthew's use of two as a stylistic device. However, at this moment, I can only recall the examples of riding the two animals and the pericope of the two blind men. I believe there are other examples though what the proposed rationale behind all this was escapes me at the moment.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:12PM #53
costrel
Posts: 6,226

May 7, 2012 -- 2:12PM, jlb32168 wrote:

A corpse can degrade pretty fast in hot weather – sometimes bloating within an hour and a half depending upon what was eaten last.  I don’t find it too hard to believe that he split open after a short period – certainly not w/in minutes but the text doesn’t specify how long he hanged before he burst open.


Which text are you referring to? The Matthew text does not mention that Judas's body split open ("Flinging the money into the temple, he [Judas] departed and went off and hanged himself") while the Acts text only states that Judas fell "headlong" ("He [Judas] bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out"). Acts does not say that he fell because he hanged himself, and the text seems to imply that he burst open because he fell and landed on the ground below, not because his corpse had putrefied after he had died. You seem to be merging the two texts together in a way that does not support a close reading of either text. 


I think we have three different versions of Judas's death. (Likewise, the Matthean Gospel and the Lucan Acts texts contradict each other as to whether Judas kept the blood money or not.) They may all be part of apostolic tradition (or not), but they don't agree, nor, I think, are they meant to agree. In fact, the commentary in the Catholic New American Bible agrees with me. Concerning Judas's death in Acts, the commentary states, "Luke records a popular tradition about the death of Judas that differs from the one in Matthew 27:5, according to which Judas hangs himself. Here, although the text is not certain, Judas is depicted as purchasing a piece of property with the betrayal money and being killed on it in a fall." Likewise, the commentary to the Matthean text states, "The two traditions agree only in the purchase of a field with the money paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus and the name given to the field, the Field of Blood. In Acts Judas himself buys the field and its name comes from his own blood shed in his fatal accident on it."


(As posters can probably guess, I'm not in support of Gospel harmonies like Tatian's Diatessaron, attempts to harmonize the different death stories of Judas, or harmonies that attempt to turn Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, the adulterous woman, the woman who wiped Jesus's feet with her hair, and the woman with the alabaster jar into one woman. These stories are legendary and even mythological, and like legends and myths tend to be, they have different strands and traditions that contradict each other.) 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:31PM #54
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,051

May 7, 2012 -- 3:12PM, costrel wrote:


(As posters can probably guess, I'm not in support of Gospel harmonies like Tatian's Diatessaron, attempts to harmonize the different death stories of Judas, or harmonies that attempt to turn Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, the adulterous woman, the woman who wiped Jesus's feet with her hair, and the woman with the alabaster jar into one woman. These stories are legendary and even mythological, and like legends and myths tend to be, they have different strands and traditions that contradict each other.) 




Would you however grant that the name of the anointing woman in Matthew has possibly been redacted? I understand the hesitancy to harmonize, but it seems that she would have had a name at some point in the tradition as 'we' are suppose to memorialize her act.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:33PM #55
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

May 7, 2012 -- 3:04PM, tfvespasianus wrote:


May 7, 2012 -- 2:12PM, jlb32168 wrote:


One could also conclude that a later Greek copyist, not familiar with Hebrew chiasmus, "corrected" the text incorrectly and that is why it seems that two animals are mentioned.




Actually, I once read something about Matthew's use of two as a stylistic device. However, at this moment, I can only recall the examples of riding the two animals and the pericope of the two blind men. I believe there are other examples though what the proposed rationale behind all this was escapes me at the moment.



The inexplained doublets in Matthew include


the blind men in Bathsaida  Mk. 8:22 vs. Mat. 9:27


the Gadarene demoniacs Mk. 5:1 vs. Mat. 8;28


the blind man while entering Jeusalem who calls him "son of david" Mk. 10:46 vs. Mat. 20:30


 


The doubled animal does not fall in the same category.  Here we have a straight copy of the Greek text.


 


Incidentally, there is no reason to assume that John used the Septuagint rather than the original Hebrew test.  After all in 12:40 he quoted the Isaiah 7:10 statement from the Hebrew, not from the Greek text.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:48PM #56
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,051

May 7, 2012 -- 3:33PM, JimRigas wrote:


May 7, 2012 -- 3:04PM, tfvespasianus wrote:


May 7, 2012 -- 2:12PM, jlb32168 wrote:


One could also conclude that a later Greek copyist, not familiar with Hebrew chiasmus, "corrected" the text incorrectly and that is why it seems that two animals are mentioned.




Actually, I once read something about Matthew's use of two as a stylistic device. However, at this moment, I can only recall the examples of riding the two animals and the pericope of the two blind men. I believe there are other examples though what the proposed rationale behind all this was escapes me at the moment.



The inexplained doublets in Matthew include

the blind men in Bathsaida  Mk. 8:22 vs. Mat. 9:27


the Gadarene demoniacs Mk. 5:1 vs. Mat. 8;28


the blind man while entering Jeusalem who calls him "son of david" Mk. 10:46 vs. Mat. 20:30


 


The doubled animal does not fall in the same category.  Here we have a straight copy of the Greek text.


 


Incidentally, there is no reason to assume that John used the Septuagint rather than the original Hebrew test.  After all in 12:40 he quoted the Isaiah 7:10 statement from the Hebrew, not from the Greek text.


 


 


I think the gist of the critique was that the evangelist was not that dense as to understand the text so rigidly, but made the conscious choice to take the opportunity to make one into two as he had done in some other stories. Thus, a stylistic pattern is shown. I understand that the others seem inexplicable and in the case of the animals we do have an impetus, but it nonetheless fits a inferred preference.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:49PM #57
Ed.W
Posts: 9,434

May 7, 2012 -- 2:12PM, jlb32168 wrote:


 One could also conclude that a later Greek copyist, not familiar with Hebrew chiasmus, "corrected" the text incorrectly and that is why it seems that two animals are mentioned.




There's no tellin'.  Of course, many will claim it's proof that Jesus was forced to fit prophesy and for all we know his legs were broken and his skull crushed.


For all we know there were two animals and when it said "Jesus sat upon them", that the "them" refers to the cloaks that the scripture tells were placed on the animal.


"And laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them."  You really can't tell what "them" refers to.





Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook