There's this:
3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
And, of course, there's this:
16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Feel free to reconcile these two accounts. In particular, explain what eventually happened to the thirty pieces of silver. Be internally consistent. Show your work. Do not read between the lines or make shit up.
10 comments:
Okay ... I didn't go to Sunday school even when I was a Catholic schoolgirl (no prurient comments from the peanut gallery).
If you're going to start asking us to reconcile contradictory biblical accounts, we're gonna be here for awhile, CC. I'm just sayin'.
I didn't go to Sunday school even when I was a Catholic schoolgirl
Did Catholic students ever go the Sunday school? Only the Protestants went to them where I grew up.
I don't have to reconcile the inconsistencies, because I don't have to take any of that literally. It's all allegorical.
...yeah, that's the ticket. Allegorical...
Yep, Ti-Guy. I don't ever recall there ever being a Catholic Sunday School either.
Just potlucks and bean suppers from the Ladies Auxiliary.
In particular, explain what eventually happened to the thirty pieces of silver.
Oh yeah, sorry. Forgot that request.
Judas put it on the grey nag to win in the 7th at Aqueduct.
Well, I was never a schoolgirl, but I was raised Catholic and we had a sunday school.
You have sympathy, Randall.
errrr.. you have my sympathy, Randall.
Christians wrote about this as early as St. Jerome in the 4th century AD and Jews for centuries longer than that. It's nothing new nor damning for believers.
Most mainline Christians would shrug and agree they are irreconcilable, as are many other details in the Bible. They could give you some other details like Jesus' genealogies being different, whether there was a Sermon on the Mount or on the Plain, conflicting details around the crucifixion and resurrection narrative or others.
More conservative mainline Christians might take the position that just as witnesses to a traffic accident will often give contradictory testimonies to what happened, you'll find this between the authors of the Gospels. Yet, the fact that there are contradictions in testimony doesn't mean the traffic accident itself didn't take place.
And more liberal mainline Christians would say that the stories are mythic in nature: non-literal stories used to communicate valid truths. Ancient cultures didn't care about getting the factual details correct as much as ours do nor believed a story was suspect if the accounts vary. Judging Biblical stories by our culture's bias about truth by factual/historical accuracy and consistency reveals ignorance about how other cultures express themselves and inadvertent cultural arrogance on our part, not that the stories themselves are untruthful. Take your pick.
Most mainline Christians like myself think both fundamentalist Christians and many atheists read the Bible with exactly the same cultural bias. But the Bible isn't written like a history book we read in high school and shouldn't be read as one.
Post a Comment