A
anhphan
Guest
I feel confused when I read about it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Different traditions arise sometimes. I’m inclined to see the Lukian version found in Acts to be more historical, and Papias attest to this.
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
He hanged himself from a tree that was in a field. His body was left there long enough for it to decay, and his insides burst open in the field. It later became known as the ‘Field of Blood’.
When Matthew says the temple Elders bought the field and Acts says Judas bought it, it’s easy to see both as correct. If Joe and Mary both see me hand my wife $10 to buy milk and bread, then Joe goes and reports “Spyridon bought milk and bread with his $10” and Mary goes and says “Spyridons wife bought milk and bread with his money”, are not both of these still accurate? One places emphasis on me, another places emphasia on my wife. But both are factually accurate.
It’s actually very easy to synthesize the passages in Matthew and Acts. Modern critical scholars are too quick to see contradictions or errors where there aren’t necessarily any issues. Instead of the traditional practice of seeking a synthesis of the apparently conflicting passages, they’re satisfied simply pointing out the surface-level contradiction, leaving it at that, and letting people draw their conclusions individually.
When Matthew says the temple Elders bought the field and Acts says Judas bought it, it’s easy to see both as correct. If Joe and Mary both see me hand my wife $10 to buy milk and bread, then Joe goes and reports “Spyridon bought milk and bread with his $10” and Mary goes and says “Spyridons wife bought milk and bread with his money”, are not both of these still accurate? One places emphasis on me, another places emphasia on my wife. But both are factually accurate.
It’s actually very easy to synthesize the passages in Matthew and Acts. Modern critical scholars are too quick to see contradictions or errors where there aren’t necessarily any issues. Instead of the traditional practice of seeking a synthesis of the apparently conflicting passages, they’re satisfied simply pointing out the surface-level contradiction, leaving it at that, and letting people draw their conclusions individually.
Last edited:
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
That’s also a possibility. However, I do think we have to weigh each account separately, and I think the Lukian version holds up better standing alone. Scholars have noted that Matthew’s account may have just been a sort of Midrashic-like construct to fit his narrative.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.