I used “perfect and logical” because that’s phrasing you used. Although your harmonization maybe true, it’s anything but “perfect and logical”.

“If you’re only argument is probability, then you’re not on much of an argument. Just because something is probable doesn’t mean it’s true- that would generally work for scientific reasoning, where things are determined by repeatable events to give a high probability, but less so in history which is full of non- or un-repeatable events. If a historical event occurs that is both rare and improbable, it still occurs.”

Is it possible that there was a technologically advanced civilization on an island called Atlantis that sunk into sea? Yes. Is it probable? No.

We can certainly judge history (like anything else) on probability. When I’m talking about probability in the Judas accounts, I’m referring specifically to the probability of your harmonization vs. the probability of a contradiction. To me, it’s more probable that we have two accounts that contradict. To you, it’s more probable that they are not in contradiction. Why should you argue against using probability unless you are acknowledging that your harmonization is less probable?! I don’t think you do, so you have no need to attack the normal, every day method of reasoning that we all use.

As for the Greek word prenes, I found this interesting post elsewhere:

“Hallo Pablo,

and please forgive me any mistakes since I’m not a native speaker.
I recently came across your blog and found it really interesting,
especially the discussion about the death of Judas.

According to my opinion, when it comes to this matter, we should always bear the following in mind:

a. Being a native Greek speaker who is strongly involved in the ancient language, I consider it as highly unlikely – if not impossible – that «prenes» ever had either the meaning or the connotation of swealling up!
The word – which is still being used with the same meaning
in modern Greek – does NOT come from the verb «pimpremi» neither from any other word which could be connected to the greek root «pra» or the indoeuropean «*bher»(to boil forth, swell); it comes from the preposition «pro» (in front of) and «*anos / *enos» (face)
and means «with the face towards the ground, face-down, PRONE»,
so NOT (necessarily) «headlong, headfirst». The latter meaning is rather being described by the adverb «prenedon» which is of course also abstracted from
«prenes».

b. «Prenes genomenos» means «he came to fall with the face towards the ground», not «he swoll up» neither he «fell headfirst»

c. Taking all this into consideration, it ’s becoming
clear that it is certainly NOT impossible that the hanging down
body of Judas went after – NOT during! – the free fall into
the prone position. After hitting the ground with his feet, his torso could have easily bent towards the ground and crashed onto a sharp rock’s edge that split open his stomach. Of course, things could have also happened
another way: You see, «prenes genomenos» does not exclude
the possibility that Judas may have just … stumbled and fallen!
If that sharp rock or some forgotten agricultural tool just by accident happened to be in the wrong place, Judas would have died the same horrible death as he supposedly did!

d. As already mentioned, the participle «prenes genomenos» does not connotate a fall from hight,
which, by the way, another verb does: «katapipto» (to fall down, crash). It occurs for example in
Aristophanes’ Birds, 840, refering to a fall from a ladder, in Clouds, 1273, for a fall from a donkey, in the Iliad, 12 (M),386, for a fall from a high tower or
in 1(A), 593, describing a free fall from … heaven’s hights!

e. The claim that Matthew’s description of Judas’ death is
not exhaustive cannot be supported with facts. You see, the aorist «apenxato» describes beyond question the definite, absolute, irreversible ending by hanging.
Had the Evangelist written «ekremasato» (hanged himself or tied himself in a hanging position with a suicidal
purpose), then we would’nt be talking of a certain outcome: Judas might have survived! But as already said, the greek aorist is more than specific: It describes
the death by hanging, and NOT the act of hanging. The objection that in 2 Samuel 17:23 the very same aorist is followed by the phrase
«and died», which must mean that
«apenxato» does not suggest a successful hanging, but simply means «hung himself», is reasonable but it must be rejected. You see, the phrase
«and died» is NOT a clarifying addition. It is simply a pleonastic expression just like the pleonastic wording in Judges, 13:2, where we read that Manoah’s wife «was barren, and bare not»!
Not clear enough? No problem: In the very next passage the angel casts all doubts about the meaning of «barren» aside by repeating it: «Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not»!

f. If as many Christian apologetes claim, Judas actually
did hang himself from a tree on the edge of a ledge or hill or cliff, why on earth did’n he simply hurl himself off that ledge or cliff or hill instead of undergoing all that trouble?

Personally, though, I don’t
really believe that Judas actually ever hanged himself neither that he fell onto a sharp rock’s edge that split open his stomach! In fact I am strongly tempted to assume that both versions were nothing more than the attempt to adjust the «evangelical facts» to
Wisdom 4:19 which says that God shall cast the ungodly down headlong and Sirach 10:9 («because while he liveth he [LXX: ”I“, that is God] casteth away his bowels»).

# posted by Blogger KOSTAS : Friday, October 26, 2007 4:00:00 AM”

That comment and original blog post can be found here:

http://thequestionsession.blogspot.com/2006/04/how-did-judas-die.html

The bit about “swelling up” dates back at least to Papias, who used the term πρησθείς (from Epic πρήθειν, to swell out by blowing, Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the GNT). Metzger et al argue, however, that πρηνὴς would be the harder reading and most likely original, though having Papias’ witnesses is very strong as well. Louw and Nida’s Semantic Domains says:
“It is also possible that in Ac 1:18 πρηνής could have the meaning of ‘swollen’ or ‘distended,’ a meaning which is linguistically possible, but not widely witnessed to.”

As for the Field of Blood, I agree with you- it depends on what the antecedent is for “this” or “it” in verse 19 (“Bowels gushing out” or Judas’s Death in general). A case could be made for his death in general, which would give the allegorical reading a bit more oomph, but I think a normal reading of the passage would link it to the act of the bowels gushing out since it is the closest noun phrase to the to the neuter verbal noun γνωστὸν – “known” or to put it in better English “it became known.”

The Greek isn’t very clear about the head-first bit. The word used is “prEnEs”, which my lexicon (BDAG) says can mean “forward”, “prostrate”, “head first” or “headlong”. In any case, those who say that Judas hanged himself and then fell and burst open tend to argue that “prEnEs” should actually be translated “swollen”, thus removing “head first” from the text completely. For both these reasons, I don’t think the fact that people who hang themselves fall feet first should count against the harmonisation.

“[The name] would not be a commentary on what happened after he died, but the fact that he died.” [Bryan]

Okay, I can accept this as a possibility. Another possibility would be that the field got it’s name because it was bought with the reward of iniquity. The simplest reading, though, is certainly that the field was called the Field of Blood because there was blood all over it. Getting rid of the blood, as the allegorical reading does, gets rid of this simple reading, which counts against it to at least some degree.

You’re right, I don’t think the allegorical understanding is right- at least it certainly isn’t the main layer of meaning, but I think their answer would be something like “the name itself refers to the fact that that is where he died.” Blood is somewhat of an idiomatic term in the ANE. For example, the word for murder in Hebrew is damim which, if taken literally, means “bloods” (pl) from Dam (blood). So, then, it would not be a commentary on what happened after he died, but the fact that he died.

I don’t have to assume a high tree or a cliff- there’s any number of reasons the two events could have happened. The most-likely in my mind is that Judas was just left hanging- he wasn’t inside the city so he didn’t need to be taken down for Sabbath, and since he was cursed (Deut 21), and was a suicide, no one would want to go near him either. On top of this, if anyone would try and take him down, he would be ceremonially unclean and have to go through the purifying process- why would anyone want to do that to themselves between the Passover and Festival of Booths (Pentecost)?

So, he was probably left to hang, and over time the bloating of his body plus the weakening of the rope under constant weight and exposure caused the fall. And I’m not sure what you would know about the breakdown and deterioration of bodies, but it wouldn’t take much to split a bloated body.

If you’re only argument is probability, then you’re not on much of an argument. Just because something is probable doesn’t mean it’s true- that would generally work for scientific reasoning, where things are determined by repeatable events to give a high probability, but less so in history which is full of non- or un-repeatable events. If a historical event occurs that is both rare and improbable, it still occurs.

You say that contradictions happen all over the Bible- yet for as many times as I’ve read through it, I haven’t seen many outside of numbers which are pretty easily explained away by anyone but the most jaded skeptic. And as long as you’re argument is just “well this probably didn’t happen” the theist still has rational warrant to believe that it did.

More importantly, I wouldn’t expect the author of Matthew to mention anything after the hanging, but I’d certainly expect the author of Acts to mention it–after all–that’s why Judas died! Who cares what happened to his body after death or DAYS after his death (as you note would be necessary to bloat the body)?

I don’t agree that two verses must render each other impossible to be in contradiction. After all, one could invent any “possible” harmonization and it couldn’t be disproven 100%. What matters is the probability. Is it more probable that the Acts account concerns itself with the aftermath of the hanging, or is it more probable that it records a completely different non-hanging death?

The problem with inerrancy for me is that we must give the Bible the benefit of the doubt or assume an unstated possibility practically every time. That’s more than rational for apparent contradictions here and there. But it happens all over the entire Bible, time and time again! At what point do you stop and ask yourself, “Is this what an inerrant text looks like?”

And skeptics aren’t nit-picking, either. They are taking the enormously spectacular claim of inerrancy seriously.

Questions about translation aside, the “Luke is speaking allegorically” solution seems to suffer from a serious problem: If it’s Judas’s emotions that poured out rather than his bowels, then that doesn’t explain why the field came to be called the Field of Blood.

You never seriously entertained that option though, so that won’t bother you a whit.