Post Edited (Starkman) : 4/6/2005 4:59:25 PM (GMT-5)

Scott:  First, I've always thought that the image inerrantists offer, of a hung body (whether still living or now dead) either hanging (and decaying) long enough (despite being in public view all that while), and/or falling far enough (as if hanging from a tree on the edge of a cliff - did you ever see the Tom Hanks move "Castaway", so as to burst open upon impact, is rather a stretch of the imagination.

Jeff:  Or if he fell on a sharp rock.

Scott:  I wonder if there is any reliable record of a similar event ever happening.

Jeff:  I doubt it.  But why would Luke (or Matthew) just make stuff up?  What did it add to their accounts that makes sense from their point of view?  Might the violence of the death have been providential for effect on the inhabitants of Jerusalem?  After all, there were supposedly other providential occurrences associated with the events of those few days.

Scott:  Matthew says merely that Judas hung himself. More significantly, Luke says that Judas fell "headlong" (NIV) - the clear impression is of a man stumbling and falling from a fairly high place.

Jeff:  Perhaps by mere association.  But I'm constantly mis-inferring what people at work expect me to read in to their comments.  We all have different intellects and experiences that account for why we associate as we do.  No two people are alike.  If Judas tried hanging himself and fell, he would have fallen headlong, regardless.  The horrible manner of the death may be detailed for emphasis to show how it befitted Judas' "iniquity." 

Scott: Surely no writer who knew the "full account" would have described it merely as a hanging (as in Matthew's case), and such a writer certainly would not have described it as similar to a man's stumbling (as in Luke's case).

Jeff:  But you assume that the purpose of his account for Theopilus is to describe a "full account."  I have no reason to believe that.  For all I know, he was merely pointing out those facts pertinent to the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Scott:  Regarding how it was bought: Matthew clearly states that Judas threw his blood money away, and the priests collected it and bought the field. But Luke clearly states that Judas bought the field himself with that money. I know it's sometimes offered by inerrantists that Luke has merely "eliminated the middleman" from the story and attributed the field's purchase ultimately to Judas, but, again, that's not what he says. Again, one wonders: if that is what Luke had wanted to say, would he not have avoided giving the inevitable mistaken impression that Judas himself bought it?

Jeff:  Again, this has to do with associations and inferences.  The point of the account seems to be about how those events led to the fulfillment of the prophecy.  In THAT sense, he "obtained" a field which no one would  "inhabit."

Scott: And conversely, if Luke in fact had wanted to say that Judas himself bought the field, could he have put it any more unambiguously than he did?

Jeff:  I would say yes.  There are greek words in Vines for "purchasing" that are more narrowly related to commerce.  The word used for Judas is more generic and, hence, conducive to the mere linking of events to prophecy.  Verse 18, says (in greek), "This man, indeed, THEREFORE got a field..."   The "therefore" seems to refer to Lukes claim (in v.16) that "this scripture must needs have been fulfilled."  Thus, the "getting" of the field is linked to the way it relates to the fulfillment of the prophecy. 

Scott:  Regarding how the field was named: Matthew clearly attributes the name, "Field of Blood", to the fact that it was purchased with the blood payment given Judas. The immediately-prior verse ends with the priests concluding it was blood money; the next verses say that therefore they bought the field and so therefore ("for this reason", NRSV, not for some unmentioned reason) it was known as the "Field of Blood". Matthew gives no indication that he considers Judas' death to have occurred there, or the manner of his death to have influenced the name. But Luke clearly attributes the name to the gory results of Judas' fall: immediately after relating Judas' bursting open, Luke says that therefore it was known as the "Field of Blood".

Jeff:  It's not so clear to me that Luke links the name of the field, thus.  The word "blood" is not used in v.18.  But Luke DOES say, in v. 18, that Judas got the field "with the reward of iniquity."  That might refer to the blood-money idea.  Thus, v. 19 could be referring to that idea, also.  Plus, we don't know how much Luke knew about Theophilus' knowledge.  Luke may have been "filling" in missing pieces to what he believed Theophilus already knew to link the relevant events to the prophecy.

Scott:  When Jesus came, he adhered to the standards, customs and conventions of his time (whether self-consciously or otherwise is a matter for another debate) - why not the scripture which is word of God but not, after all, The Word himself?

What's good enough for The Word is surely good enough for the word.

Jeff:  Hey, bro, I'm just adhering to the conventions I accustomed to, also.  Is that good enough for me?  JUST KIDDING!  But really, what would be the point of making up stuff about Judas' death?  How did it help their accounts according to the conventions of the time?  For the manner of his death was not even related to the specifics of any prophecy, was it?

Scott:  PS. By the way, I liked what "Viator" just posted above.

Jeff:  Me, too.  That's why I need clarification.