As I mentioned before, I was lucky enough to have Bart D. Ehrman himself comment the the Facebook post of my previous post on Judas’s death. To read that post, click here.
Summary of the Previous Debate
The disagreement is whether Acts 1:16-18 contradicts Matthew 27:3-10 on the Death of Judas. The passage in question is here:
“Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. (Acts 1:16-18)
The passage in Greek is this:
Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί ἔδει πληρωθῆναι τὴν γραφὴν ἣν προεῖπεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον διὰ στόματος Δαυὶδ περὶ Ἰούδα τοῦ γενομένου ὁδηγοῦ τοῖς συλλαβοῦσιν Ἰησοῦν ; ὅτι κατηριθμημένος ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης . Οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησεν μέσος καὶ ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ (Acts 1:1:16-18, BibleHub Interlinear)
My argument was that “this man” is more accurately rendered “this.” It refers to both “Judas” and “this share,” but more literally to “the share” in acquiring the field than to Judas.
But let’s give credit where credit is due. If “this” (Οὗτος) refers to “share,” then it must also “fall headlong” (γενόμενος ἐλάκησεν) and “burst open” (ἐκτήσατο) for that to be consistent. We don’t see the share doing that here in Acts.
But wait a minute… That happened!
Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matthew 27:3-10)
Note that BOTH Judas and his share in the ministry (30 pieces of silver) acquired a field, fell headlong and burst open. Therefore, it makes the most sense to keep the Greek word “this” (Οὗτος) ambiguous as the original Greek does. The point of Peter’s speech is to show the really strange parallel between Judas himself and the actual money he threw into the temple (note the sound effects in that clip from the Passion of the Christ).
The “Typo” and Fulfillment of the Prophecy
But wait a minute. Matthew 27:3-10 is a little strange. That quote from Jeremiah is fishy because that citation is NOT in Jeremiah. It’s in Zechariah 11:12-13. Is that a typo in our inerrant Scripture? Bart Ehrman thinks so and notes as much in his book titled Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing The Hidden Contradictions In The Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) at pp 50-51.
But no. Remember in my previous post, where I said that the most-obvious Psalm 2 reference is not quoted in the text of Acts 1, but the less-obvious Psalm 65 and 105 references are quoted in the text? The same thing is happening here! There is a quite obvious Old-Testament reference that would be very evident to the Jewish audience:
Thus says the Lord, “Go, buy a potter’s earthenware flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests, and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you. You shall say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing such disaster upon this place that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind— therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. And in this place I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem, and will cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at. Everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its wounds. And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.’
“Then you shall break the flask in the sight of the men who go with you, and shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: So will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, so that it can never be mended. Men shall bury in Topheth because there will be no place else to bury.
But here’s where it gets really weird. That passage above was written sometime before 586, when Jerusalem was captured and the Temple was destroyed. The oldest copy of this text that we have is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s OBVIOUSLY written before the time of Christ.
But do you see “Men shall bury in Topheth because there will be no place else to bury?” Where is that place? From the passage, we see it is “the valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate. But according to modern archaeology, this gate is the same as “the Dung Gate” that still stands today. Take a look at the following screenshot of modern-day Jerusalem I got from Google Maps:
But note the location of where Jeremiah did this and the Akeldama Monastery in Jerusalem. That Monastery marks the location of the death of Judas, and is currently tended by Greek Orthodox nuns. The marker on the map above indicates the location of that monastery. But The shaded regions indicate the topographical features. Dark means a depression. Light means an elevation. As you can see, outside the Dung/Potsherd Gate is a valley. That is same geographic location as “the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate” mentioned in Jeremiah 18 and 19.
Therefore, the place where Judas both hung himself and where his corpse burst open is exactly the same place that Jeremiah broke the flask in front of the priests and elders of Jerusalem before 586 B.C.
And here’s where it gets really, REALLY weird: The field that was prophesied to “no longer be called Topheth” and instead be called “the Valley of Slaughter” was literally renamed “Akeldama,” that is, “Field of Bloodshed” – Ἁκελδαμάχ, τοῦτ ἔστιν Χωρίον αἵματος. That happened in 33 A.D. Exactly 37 years later, the temple was destroyed, just like it was in Jeremiah’s day. According to Jewish tradition, these two destruction events of the Temple of Jerusalem happened on the same day: Tisha B’Av.
Now, I don’t believe I’ve ever read this anywhere else (so it’s not like Bart Ehrman is stupid). I literally came up with this myself. I’ve even tried googling the fulfillment of Jeremiah 19, and I’m coming up empty. Did I just discovery a fulfilled Old Testament prophecy? Please let me know if I’m wrong.
But regardless, facts are facts, and that is NOT a contradiction. It is a freakishly-specific 600 year old prophecy coming true. Thanks to that monastery, it is STILL true today.
The Debate Between Me and Bart Ehrman
As I said I would, here is the full content of the facebook debate between myself and Bart Ehrman. It took place on my Facebook page over the course of a few days:
Bart D. Ehrman:
It’s embarassing my Greek isn’t better?? OK then!!Caleb Jones:
It’s embarrassing that you cite Acts 1:18 as “this man” according to the English translation of the Greek rather than accurately saying “This” as it actually says in the Greek.That fact is embarrassing because I assume you speak Greek. If not, then I apologize, and I understand mistakes happen.
Bart D. Ehrman:
You evidently don’t read Greek. Is that right? Do you know how demonstrative pronouns work? I’m happy to discuss translation issues with you if you like, but you would have to know the basic rules of grammar for it to help much.Caleb Jones:
Bart D. Ehrman Correct. I don’t speak Greek, but I do know the basic rules of grammar, which helps me pick apart Greek and Latin (Hebrew is much harder for me) when I have parallel passages in front of me. (I’ve become very interested in the inherent limitations of the English language in translating things.) Here’s the Interlinear Text: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/1.htmAnd as I show in this post, when you quote the English “This Man” in Acts 1:18, you miss the fact that it’s just the singular masculine Greek pronoun οὗτος, which means “this.”
Now even Bible translators are misled by this fact, but you’re not saying Bible Translators made an error, you’re saying that the authors of Scripture — Matthew and Luke — made an error. But you’re pointing out an error in the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of their Greek text.
When you go to the Greek (See interlinear above), the last singular masculine noun in the text is not “Judas” but “share.” Therefore, there is a better way to read the text than the way you think is a “contradiction.”
Bart D. Ehrman:
Caleb. OK, thanks for the exchange. I appreciate it. But if you can’t read the Greek it’s very hard for me to explain in just a brief sentence. The reason Bible translators do not translate it the way you think they should involves an understanding of how demonstrative pronouns work in Greek and how one determines their antecedent. In this case that would involve, in part having an understanding of what κληρος means. Short story: the antecedent is not always simply the closest noun of the same number and gender as the pronoun; it is also the closest one that makes contextual *sense*. The verb is εκτησατο; the subject is the one who engages in that action; and a κληρος does not perform that kind of action. Therefore the antecedent of ουτος is the subject of the previous transitive verb ελαχεν, i.e. Judas. If you did not follow this “it has to make sense rule” then on the same logic you would have to say that the subject of ελαχεν is Jesus, rather than Judas, since it is the closest preceding substantive to it. As you note, this is not a disputed point among translators. Every one of these many, many translators has spend decades of his or her life studying and reading Greek. If you can’t read Greek, you really shouldn’t think you can read it better than they can! Or call them stupid for not seeing what seems obvious to you. They too have noticed that κληρος is masculine singular!!Caleb Jones:
Bart D. Ehrman The rule I’m following is not “closest noun wins.” Not at all. Instead, my rule is (as you stated) that pronouns are matched to the noun that makes the most contextual sense. In fact, that’s the same rule we have in English.What confuses me is why you think the noun that makes the “most contextual sense” is also one that creates a contradiction in scripture. That doesn’t seem to make sense. Why isn’t what actually happened a part of the “context”?
And I do think that οὗτος CAN be translated as “this man” because I think that the whole point of this speech is to show the metaphorical and visual similarity between Judas, the bag of money he threw at the Temple, and the broken pottery vessel of Jeremiah 19 (which happened at the same location, btw.) The speech is about the fulfillment of prophecy. In Jeremiah 19, he prophesies that it will be called “the field of slaughter” which happens to match up with “field of bloodshed.” I’m not calling everyone stupid. (I tried to avoid that word.) Instead, I’m reserving my criticism for you alone.
The criticism I have against your Judas-death-contradiction claim is that you should have an open mind when it comes to what scripture means. I think it’s not very wise to pick ONE interpretation out of at least three that Acts 1:18 could mean (οὗτος means “Judas”, οὗτος means “both Judas and his share”, οὗτος means “his share”) and then use the ONE that doesn’t make sense to you to say “Well, that’s a contradiction!”
I mean. . . Really?
Also, likewise, thank you for the exchange. I more than appreciate it. This is the highlight of my month.
Bart D. Ehrman:
OK, thanks. But really, you shouldn’t argue about how to translate a language with an expert when you don’t actually know the language — or, in particular, comment on how the expert has stupid views about it. I learned Greek when I was 20 and have been studying it for the 44 years since then; I have taught it since I was 29; and I ave published numerous translations of ancient texts in Greek. I’m not saying this to brag, it’s just part of what I’ve done for a living for over four decades. You might not think there is a contradiction in this text, and that’s your right. But you shouldn’t say someone has made an embarrassing mistake about translation when that person actually is an expert in the language and you aren’t even starting studying it. If you want to reconcile the discrepancy, you need to do it on other grounds.Caleb Jones:
Bart D. Ehrman You say that I “shouldn’t argue” with an expert like you when I don’t actually know the language. Well, I know I don’t “know” Greek (I took exactly 1 week of Attic Greek in undergrad, and then quit before I learned how to pronounce diphthooooongs-tho-tho-tho-thongs.). To me, the embarrassing part is that even with such little knowledge and credentials, I seem to have gotten you on this one!I’m a litigation attorney. It’s literally my job to argue with experts who are way more experienced on a topic than I am. If I took your advice about experts, I’d starve.
I also have a blog. While it’s obviously a mistake to critique the English-version of a Greek-language “contradiction,” if I took your advice about not describing it as a click-bait “embarrassing” mistake, then I’d have no readers.
Regardless, you are correct that it is usually bad to call an expert’s choice in a matter “embarrassing” when you are not an expert. I would never do this on a witness stand.
Yet, I’m having this conversation with you right now, in public, expecting and bracing for you to knock me out of the park with some rule about Greek Demonstrative pronouns or ancient handwriting in manuscripts, or who-knows-what that will show that the “embarrassing” mistake is mine, and the “stupid” (a word I never used) person here is me.
Instead, you just cited rules I already know and listed off your credentials. That’s why I think I’m onto something.
I don’t “want” to reconcile the discrepancy, I HAVE reconciled the discrepancy, and I proved you wrong in the process.
I think I beat you, Bart. It stinks, and no hard feelings. I know the feeling in Court, and I hate it. But I really think I beat you here.
Bart D. Ehrman:
The world will become scarier and scarier as people who don’t know what they are talking about insist they are right. Sorry about mentioning my credentials; my point was NOT that I’m an expert and therefore I’m right. It was simply to show that I”m an expert on something that you want to argue with me about even though by your own admission you know almost nothing it (as you say here, in your attempt to learn Greek you never got past how to pronounce dipthongs; for people reading this exchange, who may not know it, that normally happens on day one or two). But even so, I completely agree that because an expert is an expert does NOT mean he is right about something. And so, let”s get to the rubber on the road. Now that you think you have knocked that ball out of my park by showing that I don’t understand the Greek correctly, can you tell us how you interpret the verse, based on your view that the demonstrative pronoun does not in fact refer to the antecedent that it does refer to?Caleb Jones:
Bart D. Ehrman Bart, it’s clear that you’re not reading carefully. I did not say that I knocked the ball out of the park. I said I was expecting YOU to knock ME out of the park (and you haven’t).But I can explain how to interpret the verse:
The way to understand this verse is in its context. As we can see, Peter is trying to tell the significance of Judas’s death. He is connecting it to Old Testament prophecy. I’ve identified one prophecy that connects to the gospels (Psalm 2) and two other Psalms (65, 109) are also directly quoted. Not quoted, but clearly relevant is the prophecy of Jeremiah 19, where the exact-same geographic location was prophesied to be named “the Field of Slaughter” after a piece of pottery is thrown and broken in the exact same manner as Judas’s corpse was broken. It was also renamed the “Field of Bloodshed,” when we’re talking about Greek, as is mentioned in both Matthew and Acts. (We know this is the same location because the Potsherd Gate is the same as the Dung Gate, according to archaeology, and you can just google the location).Therefore, the proper way to interpret the text is to make it just flexible enough to fulfill Peter’s purpose: First, to show the connection of the Old Testament to what just happened to them in that previous month. Second, to be TRUE as opposed to your interpretation, which is to make it FALSE.
Therefore, the singular masculine Greek pronoun οὗτος does not ONLY mean “Judas” and it doesn’t ONLY mean “his share in this ministry.” It means BOTH of them, as both are singular and masculine. That is the point of using the ambiguous demonstrative pronoun οὗτος instead of being specific. It is also a rather poetic choice to use the singular masculine instead of the plural masculine because to use the plural masculine would make the connection literal, while the singular masculine lets the connection be prophetic and a little poetic. That’s how I say it should be interpreted.
So Dr. Bart Ehrman, Ph.D, (expert in Greek for 44 years, author of over 30 books, best-selling NYT author, and professor at UNC, Chapel Hill), I’ve identified what you got wrong. What do you think J. Caleb Jones (a guy who does this in his free time) got wrong?
Feel free to show that I’m an idiot in your next post, and I’ll display it as a correction on my blog.
Bart D. Ehrman
Caleb Jones: Thanks. It’s an interesting interpretation. The question, of course, is always whether the interpretation of words in a particular sentence makes sense of the way the words are used in a sentence — that is, does it actually work grammatically. That returns us to your claim that the demonstrative pronoun does not refer just to Judas but to “his share of the ministry.” You’re saying the pronoun, ουτος, encompasses both antecedents. OK, so, first question: if the demonstrative has has two antecedents, why it is singular (ουτος) instead of plural (oυτοι)? Second question: taking it the way you do, how do you explain the grammar? The pronoun of course is nominative, making it the subject of the transitive verb εκτησατο (a deponent verb).
That means that the substantives you are positing as the antecedents are the ones that are engaged in the action of the verb. For that to be true, the antecedents both need to be capable of engaging in that action. Can you cite anywhere in ancient Greek (you don’t need to restrict yourself to the NT; any examples from any ancient authors will be fine) where κληρος governs a transitive verb such as εκτησατο (i.e. with a direct object)? Where a “share” is said to have purchased or otherwise obtained something? I’ve never heard of such a thing (for fairly obvious reasons) but if you have some examples, it would be worth knowing them. On the other hand, if that grammatical construction never occurs , then you will be saying that, so far as you know, the most natural grammatical construal of this passage is one for which there is no precedent or parallel in any other text. As you probably have discovered κταομαι occurs 7 times in the NT (three in Acts), and in every other instance, it has only a human subject (in this case, it would be Judas). κληρος occurs twelve times (six in Acts), and (unlike what you are proposing here) is never as the subject of a verb. Those patterns of usage, so far as I know, are consistent with what one finds throughout the Greek language; if there are exceptions, that would help us interpret the passage. If you don’t know of any, that would mean that what you are saying is the most *probable* and *sensible* reading is one without any precedent or parallel, even though taking ουτος with just Judas coincides with many thousands of such grammatical constructions that can easily be cited in the NT, Christian literature generally, and the entire literature of the ancient Greek world. I really don’t see how that can be right. But if there is a flaw in my reading of the grammar, I’d be happy to engage your thoughts further.Caleb Jones
Bart D. Ehrman Now THAT’S a good response! (And I’m not being sarcastic) Thank you!As for the singular vs. plural, I agree. This issue is that it’s a choice of poetic language. Of course a plural CAN work, but there is a different quality for the singular.
As you’ve noted, the field was acquired after Judas died. That means that if Judas AND his share in the ministry are EXPLICITLY put together as acquiring the field with the plural oυτοι, then that seems to more explicitly suggest the historical sounding reading which goes to a contradiction. Because yes, both of these actors acquired the field, but the Priests were involved, too. Instead, it is left singular with a vague antecedent to show the strange quality of this prophecy fulfillment.
As to your other questions, those are great academic questions, and I won’t pretend to be able to answer them. But I can point out a few flaws.
It seems to miss the point to ask if there is any other place where a “share” (κληρος) is said to have purchased or obtained something. Instead, I think I need to show how a Greek pronoun (ουτος) is said to obtain something. And that answer is an obviously yes.
And it’s not important to show another example in Greek that a word is used EXACTLY as it is used here in this sentence. It breaks no rules of grammar to have a sentence that is unique. Therefore, I can’t see why it matters that “share” (κληρος) has never been paired with “acquire” (κταομαι). Instead, the only question is “Does this make sense?” The answer is yes. (Also, the direct object is the field itself, of course.)
For instance, “Bart Ehrman is a better dancer than the chupacabra” is probably the first time we’ve ever seen those words together in the English language in text. However, the sentence still makes perfect sense and is true (I hope). We don’t need other examples of you and “chupacabra” in English to find the meaning of this sentence, and we don’t need to argue about the difference between “the” chupacabra and “a” chupacabra (though such an idea is possible). I bet that never in all of English (or Spanish) will you see “chupacabra” connected to “dancing” as it is here. But that doesn’t matter. The sentence makes sense. We don’t need any outside examples. Uniqueness is not a flaw.
And that is a very interesting way to phrase it that “the most probably and sensible reading is one without any precedent or parallel.” But I’ll take it, that’s how I’d frame it if I were on the opposite side of this debate.
But I will frame your side similarly by saying that you believe: “the most probable and sensible reading is one that is an absolute contradiction with the facts among writers who had first-hand-knowledge of the facts.”
Bart D. Ehrman
As to your last point, maybe so. There is a very big question about any writers with first-hand-knowledge of the fact, but that’s a whole other question. Even if the text does contradict those who knew better — well, that sort of thing happens. Thousands of times every day. In our own newspapers! By people who should know better. And as you as a trial lawyer must experience simply as a part of your daily life!Caleb Jones
First, thank you for this very good exchange. I tend to disagree with a lot of what you say, but thank you. (Also, off-subject, but thank you for your good work on inserting at least some sanity into the idea that Jesus of Nazareth never existed).Second, I bet I come across pretty weird in this medium, and I hope my snark is seen in good faith and fun, and not out of disrespect. I know that your background knowledge is waaaaaaaay bigger than mine on Greek and ancient languages (if it wasn’t, I’d never say some of the things I’ve said). But in this circumstance, I think that on these particular subjects which I’ve really looked into (and had your and others’ exploratory work to guide), I can hold my own. Thank you for your participation, and I really mean that.
Third, I acknowledge your point about the whole first-hand-knowledge thing, and you are right that this is a whole other question. I tend to believe that the writers did have first-hand-knowledge for the reasons that Peter J. Williams has described in some of his debates with you. I’m also skeptical of what you call “oral tradition” because it seems that “interviewing a person about what he lived through” falls under your definition of “oral tradition.” That seems off-base, but yes, that’s another topic.
Fourth, I acknowledge that being a lawyer gives me a perspective here. Every day, my job is to take random situations and figure out what is ACTUALLY happening. It’s surprisingly difficult, even when people are telling you the truth. Even when I ask direct questions, the people’s words are limited by what they think is already known. They don’t give ALL details, and only give the details that are significant to the point they wish to make. Sometimes, they don’t know things, and therefore, they don’t share it. These are the problems of finding the truth that I have with MY CLIENTS. I’m not even talking about people who lie.
That’s the approach I’m taking with scripture. Just like my clients, I assume the writers know the story better than I do. If there’s something I don’t understand, I assume that I don’t understand before I assume they’re wrong or lying. As soon as I find out that they’re lying, I try to make them not-my-client.
Next, what you say about people writing writing things in contradiction to the facts is certainly true, except I also believe that the Author behind all of the things I read in scripture is ultimately God. I know I can’t “prove” that, but I’ve seen enough supporting evidence to know that it’s true. This means that unclear details are not oversights due to a lack of knowledge (even if they may have been the result of the particular writer’s lack of knowledge). That’s why I think I take a very different perspective on these things.
Finally, I think we’ve done a good job in this discussion, because now I don’t know if there are any additional “FACTS” that we could share to be persuasive to each other. About my particular question above, maybe, but about the general “truth” of scripture, I’m not so sure.
Instead, the outcome of our beliefs depends on our assumptions, like who/what is/isn’t trustworthy. At a certain level, reason and logic meet their end, and even Euclid had to merely “assume” certain postulates to be “PURELY” rational in his geometry. I think you and I have gotten to the end of the rational discussion. We’ve merely got competing postulates.
Hello, Caleb. Someone I know 🙂 referred me to your blog here. I wrote her back a long email but thought I’d just go ahead and respond here.
1. I don’t think anyone who really knows Greek would disagree with Dr. Ehrman’s argument that “This man” is the proper interpretation / translation in Acts 1. Sorry.
2. I also don’t think you’ve newly discovered a prophetic fulfillment that no one has seen before. I could say “sorry” again but actually that should be reassuring to you. 🙂 Completely new discoveries in Scripture have this remarkable tendency to be completely wrong. This one is neither completely new nor completely wrong.
Let’s talk about Matthew 27. If Matthew was trying to quote Zechariah accurately he did a pretty lousy job of it, and he did know his Zechariah. Matthew also did not use “fulfilled” in the way we often think of it, as “matching a prediction.” It’s filling the fullness of something. Thus, “out of Egypt have I called my Son” was NOT a prediction of Jesus. But Matthew is correct that Jesus coming out of Egypt is still the completion, the filling up, of the statement. We often speak of “types”, and when Matthew refers that passage in Hosea to Jesus he’s telling us there’s a typological fulfillment here.
Matthew does this kind of thing from time to time. For him, a typological fulfillment is just as good as a prediction fulfillment. So, is 27:9, the potter’s field, one of those? Well, the fact that he’s not quoted Zechariah at all precisely might make us think that, especially since there is a passage in Jeremiah that deals with a potter and the area near the potter’s house. And the very fact that Jeremiah is specifically told to go to that particular place is reminiscent of Isaiah being told to go to a particular place in Isaiah 7, the significance of which became clear later in Isaiah, when the emissaries of Sennacherib ended up on the very same spot.
And Jeremiah is not just told to go there in chapter 18 to illustrate the right of the maker, it’s also in chapter 19 for a prophecy about that valley. So the place is important, a potter is specifically brought to mind in both chapters in Isaiah, and now here in Matthew we have a potter’s field, and Matthew names Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. Is that really an accident or a mistake? And are you the only one who ever noticed? I fear not.
The Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 27 lists six possible interpretations of this fulfillment, the sixth being as follows:
“St. Matthew has made a cento of passages derived from Jer 18:2, etc.; Jer 19:1, Jer 19:2; Jer 32:8-14, combined with the prediction in Zechariah, and attributed the passage thus formed to the most celebrated prophet. Plainly the evangelist has not confined himself to the actual words of his author or authors, but has written a Targum thereon, being divinely guided to see in the present transaction a fulfilment of an obscure announcement and prefiguration in olden days.”
Their conclusion, in reference to this sixth explanation:
“There are many other solutions proposed, with which we need not concern ourselves; the one last stated is reasonable, and may be adopted safely by those simple Christians who believe that the writers of the Bible were supernaturally preserved from errors, not only in doctrine and precept and fact, but also in chronology, grammar, geography, citation, etc.”
In other words, they believe this is the answer – that Matthew 27:9 is explaining a fulfilment of these passages in Jeremiah AND the passage in Zechariah. As one of those “simple Christians” who believe in Scriptural inerrancy, I think they’ve arrived at the most likely explanation. I suspect, Caleb, that in leaving Zechariah out of it and making this all about Jeremiah, you are likely wrong again. 😊 Sorry. I don’t think you can read Mt 27:9 without seeing that Matthew wants to draw your attention to Zechariah. I also don’t think you can read it without seeing that he wants to draw your attention to Jeremiah 18-19 (not so sure I’d included Jer 32 like the Pulpit commentary does).
Matthew isn’t saying to his Jewish readers, “Look, this was predicted in Jeremiah and it came true!” He’s saying, “Look, the story of Jesus Christ is woven in all kinds of threads through the Old Testament Scriptures.” He doesn’t have to say, “Go, look at Jeremiah 18-19.” They knew where that field was. He doesn’t have to say, “And then go look at Zechariah,” he’s made quite sure they will.
That leaves only one question, really. How can he say it was spoken by Jeremiah if part of it was Zechariah? Three explanations, any of which work for me. Since he’s targuming and not footnoting a scholarly paper, he cites the most prominent prophet of the two. Or, he cites Jeremiah because Jeremiah was the first and longest of the Book of the Prophets in the Hebrew OT, and as such Jeremiah is representative of the whole book. Or, Jeremiah actually said the words in question, it was passed down by tradition, and Zechariah adapted them for his purposes.
None of these constitute an “error” or “contradiction”, any more than me saying it’s 3 miles from our house to the church is an “error.” It’s casual language, if either of the first two explanations is the real one. If the third is the real one, it just means that there’s a completely possible historical explanation that we can’t prove or disprove. The existence of even one such possible explanation means that Dr Ehrman hasn’t proved a contradiction.
It would be an error for Dr. Ehrman to do what Matthew has done because he lives in a different world. In his world, you footnote things, you explain things, you make sure people can check your sources, etc. It is therefore somewhat understandable for him to say, “Hey, Matthew’s WRONG here!” But it’s short-sighted, too. It’s like an astronomer objecting to a child saying that the sun is going down. In his world, it doesn’t, the earth rotates. But that astronomer would be wrong to say that the child is wrong. The child isn’t being technical. Nor was Matthew. We shouldn’t demand precision beyond the precisional intent of the author.
Anyway, that’s all long-winded. But, I think are mistaken on the Greek in Acts, wrong if arguing that Matthew 27:9 refers to Jeremiah and not to Zechariah (it refers to both), and definitively in error if you thinks you are the first person to ever notice the connection between Matthew 27:9 and Jeremiah 18-19. Other than that, you’re right on a lot of things! 😊 Including, if he hasn’t quite nailed it in the way he’s stated it, that Peter is speaking poetically / targuming in Acts 1.
You might also be wrong about the bursting of Judas’ body. We don’t know. He could have hung himself, the rope broke, he fell on a sharp rock, and he died that way. Or it could be as you described. It doesn’t matter, there’s no reason to assume a contradiction.
Bart Ehrman is being a wooden-headed literalist in saying that Peter is wrong in saying that Judas purchased the field. We know who purchased the field, but Peter is speaking poetically because they purchased it with Judas’ money. If I give money to a charitable institution and they go and buy a property with it, and then they say I purchased it for them, no one would say that’s a contradiction. Judas threw the money at them, they used it to purchase the field.
And in the poetic justice that often happens when God is sovereign, Judas happened to choose the same place to hang himself that they chose to buy for a burial place, and the same place mentioned in Jeremiah. It was called the field of blood for two reasons, one related to Judas, one related to the money. There’s no contradiction nor is there any coincidence, there is a sovereign God weaving together a fascinating tapestry of prophecies and events.
Matthew ties together parts of it in Matthew 27 and some people, instead of recognising that he’s tying things together, see it as a contradiction or error. The same thing happens when Peter ties together other parts of it in Acts. There’s an intriguing poetic justice in the location and manner of Judas’ death — in the field purchased with his own ill-gotten gains. It’s not an error by Peter to point it out and everyone to whom he was speaking knew what he meant. It’s a pity an intelligent man like Dr. Ehrman can’t see that, but lack of faith can cause one to miss things.
Sorry for the length of this, I’m sure I could have boiled it down a little more but I’m very busy these days. May the Lord bless your study of His Word.
I agree on the stuff about “fullfilled” and all, but I have another question:
Why is it wrong to think that “this” Οὗτος refers ONLY to “this man Judas” and not also “this share in the ministry that I just mentioned”? I think I’m quite correct in showing that the Greek does not say “this man” but instead just uses the singular masculine demonstrative pronoun “this” leaving the antecedent ambiguous.
Just from looking at all biblical translations, I realize that most of Christianity reads it as “this man.” And yes, as a lawyer familiar with probate law, I’m not at all worried that this is a contradiction. But I’m also not convinced that “this man” is ALL that Οὗτος means.
It is my position that Οὗτος is meant to refer to both Judas AND the share in the ministry simultaneously. The singular is used to preserve how strange it is that Judas and the silver that Judas threw in the temple (and the earthenware flask in Jeremiah) ALL did the same thing.
Hello, Caleb. I trust the Lord is blessing you today with at least some opportunity to fellowship with other believers.
Regarding your interpretation of ουτος:
1. You said this to Dr Ehrman: “But I will frame your side similarly by saying that you believe: ‘the most probable and sensible reading is one that is an absolute contradiction with the facts among writers who had first-hand-knowledge of the facts.'” I believe I’ve demonstrated that the reading “this man” is not an absolute contradiction with the facts, and thus we can discard that problem for it.
2. Your view is not really consistent with Peter’s personality or other writings. “Creative ambiguity” really wasn’t his thing, was it? I’m pretty sure Paul uses it at times. John seems to love expressing things that can have more than one meaning, both of which are true, as a way to draw our attention to both truths. No examples of that in Peter’s writings come to mind, nor does it fit what we’re told of him. Peter was an out-front, straight ahead, it is what it is, kind of guy. He and John must have driven each other crazy at times! 🙂
3. Some commentators actually think verses 18-19 are an explanatory insertion by Luke for his readers, but that doesn’t help much. Luke doesn’t do a lot of ambiguity, either, and it wouldn’t fit much to do it in such a brief insertion, if that’s what we have here.
4. As a general rule, when the Scriptures use ambiguity it’s pretty obvious that it is happening. If it were obvious here, other people besides you might have noticed it.
5. I have no use for Dr Ehrman’s view that there’s a contradiction here, but all of his points on the Greek are sound.
6. Additional to what he’s said on the Greek, he mentioned that κταομαι is a deponent. Often (if not always), verbs are deponents because there is a sense of the middle voice (reflexivity) in the meaning itself, and that’s what we have here. The verb suggests not just “buying” but taking possession, obtaining for one’s self. That is why it always, as Dr Ehrman suggests, has a personal subject. Impersonal / inanimate objects do not pay for and take possession of things. Your idea fits more with the idea of an exchange, but the verb in question implies personal action / interaction (possession). The noun form means “possession.” It’s hard to see how a “part” or “lot” or even “inheritance” (or however we want to translate it) can “take possession” of a field.
7. I believe both translation and interpretation need to be theologically-informed. So, my theology tells me that God gave us His Word because He intended to reveal truth. It also tells me that He intended that truth to be revealed also to those who are not (shall we say) towers of intellect. Our Western societies may exalt human intellect but God does not — we’re all fools next to Him. Those theological principles lead to many general “rules” of interpretation. One of those is, if the plain sense makes good sense, it’s probably right. Contra Dr Ehrman, the plain sense of this passage (that it should be translated “this man”) makes good sense. It contradicts nothing. There’s no reason to deviate from that understanding of it.
8. Another principle based on theology is that all believers have and are taught by the Holy Spirit. While that is obviously no guarantee that all believers will get everything right, that makes it very, very difficult to believe that a new interpretation/translation of a text is correct. Dr Ehrman argues that all the experts can’t be wrong. I’d suggest that a lot of experts are wrong a lot of the time, but I can’t really accept that all believers through time have been wrong. You aren’t on an island re: Matthew 27/Jeremiah, but I think you are in seeing κληρος as the antecedent of ουτος. I don’t believe I John 2:27 is compatible with us making a brand new discovery of an accurate interpretation or translation that everyone else has always missed. It concerns me mildly if I’m out of step with the experts, and concerns me greatly when I’m out of step with all historical interpretation. Especially when scholars like A.T. Robertson, C.H. Lenski, etc, don’t even give it enough notice to mention it and refute it. Thousands and perhaps millions of commentators / teachers / pastors have noticed the differences between Acts 1 and Matthew 27 and see no contradiction and no need to translate ουτος as anything other than “this man.” If you are right, where has the Holy Spirit been all these years?
Hope that helps! Blessings to you!
1. If Jon Gleason can’t see where a translation of κταομαι as “this man” in Acts 1 presents an obvious contradiction with Matthew 27:7, then I question not just his understanding of Greek but also English: Either Judas bought the field (Acts) or the Chief Priests bought the field (Matthew). In which instance is the Holy Spirit wrong?
2. His insistence that Peter – a man’s whose writings are filled with metaphor and duality (lambs, shepherds, stones) – never used ambiguity because it doesn’t fit his post-modern Freudian psychoanalytic profile (he’s just not “that kid of guy”), is lame.
3. Same for Luke.
4. Is Gleason proposing that ambiguity must be obvious? And, if so, obvious to WHOM? If there were no mysteries within scripture (or any work of Art), why would people continue to study it?
5. If the correct translation of κταομαι in Acts 1 is “this man,” Ehrman has a solid point. That’s why Judas and the Potter’s Field is considered a strong contradiction by non-Christians – and even some Christians.
6. If κταομαι (DPro-NMS) must always express “reflexivity,” then Gleason needs to show how κταομαι (DPro-NMS) is reflexive in Matthew 7:12.
7. A translation of “this man” directly contradicts Mathew 27:7 (see #1 above). Ergo, the translation as “this man” is not “plain sense” nor “good sense,” it’s nonsense.
8. If “all believers are taught by the Holy Spirit,” then why would John tell us to “try the spirits” (1 John 4), why would Demas have forsaken Paul (2 Timothy 4:10), and who were the “certain men” in Jude 4? The Bible is filled with examples of all manner of men who were simply wrong. Regarding the discovery of new truths: In the history of our planet, how many men studied the stars prior to Copernicus? I wonder if it “concerned him greatly” that he was out of step with all those others…
Caleb, I think you’re correct about the duality of κταομαι in Acts 1:18 and I enjoyed reading your exchange with Bart. Thanks!
Edit for correction/clarity:
1. If Jon Gleason can’t see where a translation of Οὗτος as “this man” in Acts 1 presents an obvious contradiction with Matthew 27:7, then I question not just his understanding of Greek but also English: Either Judas bought the field (Acts) or the Chief Priests bought the field (Matthew). In which instance is the Holy Spirit wrong?
2. His insistence that Peter – a man’s whose writings are filled with metaphor and duality (lambs, shepherds, stones) – never used ambiguity because it doesn’t fit his post-modern Freudian psychoanalytic profile (he’s just not “that kid of guy”), is lame.
3. Same for Luke.
4. Is Gleason proposing that ambiguity must be obvious? And, if so, obvious to WHOM? If there were no mysteries within scripture (or any work of Art), why would people continue to study it?
5. If the correct translation of Οὗτος in Acts 1 is “this man,” Ehrman has a solid point. That’s why Judas and the Potter’s Field is considered a strong contradiction by non-Christians – and even some Christians.
6. The “reflexivity” of κταομαι would remain if Οὗτος were translated “this man” or if translated “this” (as in Matthew 7:12).
7. A translation of “this man” directly contradicts Matthew 27:7 (see above #1). Ergo, the translation as “this man” is not “plain sense” nor “good sense,” it is nonsense.
8. If “all believers are taught by the Holy Spirit,” then why would John tell us to “try the spirits” (1 John 4), why would Demas have forsaken Paul (2 Timothy 4:10), and who were the “certain men” warned of in Jude 4? The Bible is filled with examples of all manner of men who were simply wrong. Regarding the discovery of new truths: In the history of our planet, how many men studied the stars prior to Copernicus? I wonder if it “concerned him greatly” that he was out of step with all those others…
Caleb, I think you’re correct about the duality of Acts 1:18 and I enjoyed reading your exchange with Bart. Thanks!
I love reading breakdowns and word studies of the Bible, but I had to let go of some of it in order to remain faithful. I don’t think the Bible is meant to be debated, as in most debates, there are two OPPOSING sides. That in itself is somewhat contradictory to the spirit of the Bible.
It also doesn’t make sense that God would make a book that’s only truly understood by the elites who have taken the time to analyze…and STILL debate about it. But I like these arguments and find them interesting. People are going to try and point out any hint of a contradiction to invalidate it, and that’s just a cheap tactic from the devil. Can’t argue with the Bible? Make the language confusing, so they debate rather than follow it.
That’s the trap.
In general, I think I agree. I don’t think you need some special access to understand the Bible. In fact, if a new understanding causes you to drop what you knew previously, I’d be very cautious about accepting it.
When I think about different ways to translate things, unless it is CLEARLY wrong, I get quite nervous. The way I like a new understanding based on a “word study” is that it doesn’t CANCEL anything that I knew before. Instead, I use it to understand things more fully than I did before. For example, nothing is changed about the original story I read as a child here. Instead, I see my knowledge as expanded, not changed, and I think that’s a good thing.
The beauty of God’s book is that it is NOT only understood by the elites. In fact, what’s strange is that more education has no relationship to understanding and belief. The beautiful part about the Bible is that it can be known by both the simple and the wise. It has its power even if it is known in part.
Holden Harris If you don’t believe there are two opposing sides, or forces, at work in the world – Good & Evil – then you haven’t been paying attention to scripture. 1 John 4 commands Christians to “try the spirits” to see which are of God. As Caleb knows well, in any trial, in any debate, there are two sides to be tested. Given that most encounter the Word through a translation, anyone who has “let go of word studies” has probably missed a lot of important info. The Devil’s “trap” is NOT debating Truth.
Edited for clarity/correction:
1. If Jon Gleason can’t see where a translation of Οὗτος as “this man” in Acts 1 presents an obvious contradiction with Matthew 27:7, then I question not just his understanding of Greek but also English: Either Judas bought the field (Acts) or the Chief Priests bought the field (Matthew). In which instance is the Holy Spirit wrong?
2. His insistence that Peter – a man’s whose writings are filled with metaphor and duality (lambs, shepherds, stones) – never used ambiguity because it doesn’t fit his post-modern Freudian psychoanalytic profile (he’s just not “that kid of guy”), is lame.
3. Same for Luke.
4. Is Gleason proposing that ambiguity must be obvious? And, if so, obvious to WHOM? If there were no mysteries within scripture (or any work of Art), why would people continue to study it?
5. If the correct translation of Οὗτος in Acts 1 is “this man,” Ehrman has a solid point. That’s why Judas and the Potter’s Field is considered a strong contradiction by non-Christians – and even some Christians.
6. The “reflexivity” of κταομαι would remain if Οὗτος were translated “this man” or if translated “this” (as in Matthew 7:12).
7. A translation of Οὗτος as “this man” directly contradicts Matthew 27:7 (see #1 above). Ergo the translation as “this man” is not “plain sense” nor “good sense,” it is nonsense.
8. If “all believers are taught by the Holy Spirit,” then why would John tell us to “try the spirits” (1 John 4), why would Demas have forsaken Paul (2 Timothy 4:10), and who were the “certain men” warned of in Jude 4? The Bible is filled with examples of all manner of men who were simply wrong. Lots of them. Regarding the discovery of new truths: In the history of our planet, how many men studied the stars prior to Copernicus? I wonder if it “concerned him greatly” that he was out of step with all those others…
Caleb, I think you’re correct about the duality in Acts 1:18 and I enjoyed reading your exchange with Bart. Thanks!
Dear Hugo,
There’s much I could say in response to your comments but I think there’s something more important here than answering everything point by point. I’ve been a Christian for over 56 years. I’ve read the Bible more than 100 times. I have both a B.A. and M.A. in Bible. I’ve studied both NT Greek and Hebrew. I’ve pastored for over 25 years while supporting my family with other work, most of those in a church the Lord used me to start. I didn’t do it in America but in a place that was very hardened to the Gospel. I’ve raised six children who are all active in their churches in various ministry roles. All six of my grandchildren are being brought up to learn of the Lord. I’ve been threatened with a pellet gun to my head on the front step of our church building, been assaulted just down the street, and had my car vandalized repeatedly. I’ve been bitten by dogs and threatened with violence while distributing church leaflets. My wife and I are living out our faith and testifying of God’s goodness to believers and unbelievers alike even as she’s living through a terminal diagnosis.
None of that proves I’m right on this question. But it does suggest that perhaps you might show a little more respect in how you disagree on the Internet — you never know whom you might be addressing.
On to just a few specifics.
1. I said this: “Another principle based on theology is that all believers have and are taught by the Holy Spirit. While that is obviously no guarantee that all believers will get everything right, that makes it very, very difficult to believe that a new interpretation/translation of a text is correct.” You refute it by saying that believers get things wrong and the Bible proves it. Since I said there’s “no guarantee that all believers will get everything right,” you’ve obviously missed the point of what I was saying. If you wish to understand it before responding to it further, and have any questions, I’m glad to answer them. If you wish to respond without understanding, I’d refer you to Proverbs 18:13, the danger of bearing false witness, and Matthew 7:12, to which you referred in another context.
2. I explained how and in which way the translation “this man” is not a contradiction. You’ve not answered what I said but simply asserted that it is a contradiction. I don’t see how that assertion brings us forward, if we’re searching for truth together. Surely if you don’t agree with my explanation you should say why it is flawed, rather than just asserting that it is wrong. Otherwise it’s just an opinion vs a reasoned argument, and opinions have no weight in discussing Scripture.
3. Among other Scriptures, I John 2:27 and I Corinthians 2:9-13 clearly teach that we are taught by the Spirit. They do not teach that we all perfectly receive what we are taught. To deny the teaching of the Spirit is heretical. And the Spirit’s teaching does make “new truths” problematic. The Spirit really never ever taught this to anyone before? Then probably the Spirit isn’t teaching it now. This has been the Biblical view for 20 centuries and I, for one, am not discarding it.
4. Your reference to Matthew 7:12 shows that you completely missed the point I was making about reflexivity (there is none in Matthew 7:12). Again, if you have questions about it I am glad to answer them.
5. Since God chose to use different personalities and writing styles to bring us His work, I choose to assume that the message He brought through the different individuals was particularly suited to those personalities and writing styles. Thus, I choose to assume that the interpretation that best fits with the human speaker’s personality and style is probably the best one. That’s not “post-modern Freudian psychoanalytic profile.” It’s saying, “God has revealed to us some things about this person. Let’s consider that.”
There’s more I could say but I guess you’ll have to demonstrate you want to actually consider what I say before I’ll take any more time on it.
Do any of the individual points I’ve made, on their own, prove that Caleb’s view on this is wrong? Perhaps not. But it all adds up to a pretty compelling case, in my view. You are free to ignore all that and accept Caleb’s view. You are free to say, “Maybe he’s got a point and Caleb’s view has problems but I don’t accept his explanation, either.” You are free to do whatever you want — you’ll answer to God, not me or Caleb or anyone else for how you respond to all this.
But if you have any questions about anything I’ve said to help you understand the points I’m making, I’m glad to answer them.
Dear Jon,
I intend no personal disrespect. However, as interesting as your life story may be, none of the degrees or pellet gun threats is in any way relevant to the validity of your arguments here. Logic is very much a “put up or shut up” sport; and, in this arena, respect is earned.
1. I understand your point clearly. My point is that your logic is flawed. You use the “principle based on theology that all believers have and are taught by the Holy Spirit” to conclude “THAT (an antecedent) makes it very, very difficult to believe that a new interpretation/translation of a text is correct.” Like Ehrman’s oafish and equally specious, “All Experts agree,” this is simply a clumsy numbers argument: “Because a lot of people believe(d) this, it’s probably true.” Meanwhile, scripture repeatedly warns that most people are – and throughout history have been – wrong (Matthew 7:13). Even your “no guarantees” clause recognizes your weak deduction here. My Copernicus example aptly unmasks this logic fail. History is filled with countless others.
2. I pointed out EXACTLY why it is a contradiction in my #1 – “Either Judas bought the field (Acts) or the Chief Priests bought the field (Matthew), and again in #5 – “That’s why Judas and the Potter’s Field is considered a strong contradiction…” There are literally hundreds of books/websites detailing this point of contention.
3. Again, see #1 above. If you admit that we do not necessarily “perfectly receive” what the Spirit teaches, then you concede that previous “imperfect” assumptions could be wrong. This is simple deductive reasoning. I’m surprised that a person of your age and experience struggles with this.
4. “There is none in Matthew 7:12” is exactly my point. As stated in my previous #6, you are translating Οὗτος as the implied personal pronoun, “this (man),” but Matthew 7 proves that Oὗτος is NOT always a personal antecedent. If Οὗτος is translated as non-personal “this (action/event),” as in Matthew 7:12, and not as, “this (man),” the grammar is still correct and there is no personal reflexivity in Acts 1. You seem to be assuming xταομαι is personally reflexive specifically because Οὗτος has been translated “this man” rather than allowing the antecedent pronoun to inform the meaning/voice of the verb. (If you have other proof of personal reflexivity in the grammar, beyond “a sense,” please identify.) Furthermore, a non-personal Οὗτος clears up the apparent contradiction between Acts & Matthew regarding Judas and the Potter’s Field.
5. Regardless of the writer, every book in the Bible contains ambiguity. To insist that a writer was not speaking metaphorically or utilizing an inspired, poetic ambiguity simply because he wasn’t “that kind of guy” or such style doesn’t jive with our 2000-year post facto evaluation of his “personality” is not only unwise, it’s arrogant. Sure, we should consider all available clues in our investigation, but we should also recognize our obvious observational limitations regarding psychoanalysis of authors who preceded us by two millennia.
Your points have been well-considered. Your case is not compelling because your fundamental logic is flawed. Again, if you (or Ehrman) have any other grammatical evidence of personal reflexivity in Acts 1, please produce. As for the existence of my freedoms and future Judgment, I assure you, I need no reminder.
Ok, Hugo. Repeated straw man arguments are disrespectful but perhaps they are inadvertent. However, your assertion that this is merely a realm of “logic” is not one I’d accept. Spiritual truth is spiritually discerned, and a spiritual approach to Scripture is to consider that those with a lifetime of spiritual service for the Lord might have something to say, and to consider carefully what they say. “Consider carefully,” of course, does not mean “accept unquestioningly” but it does mean one should listen enough to understand before arguing. That you have repeatedly misstated what I’ve said shows you haven’t done that even if you think you have.
Nevertheless, logic is also from the Lord and I will engage with you on those terms. For someone who wants to use logic, you have engaged in multiple logical fallacies.
1. You implicitly suggested that I used an appeal to authority (“none of the degrees or pellet gun threats is in any way relevant to the validity of your arguments here”). I did not make any such appeal, as anyone can see by looking at what I said. Straw man fallacy.
2. You stated: “this is simply a clumsy numbers argument: ‘Because a lot of people believe(d) this, it’s probably true.'” Another straw man, I never asserted any such thing. Perhaps this is inadvertent because you’ve created a false dichotomy (another fallacy). There is a massive difference between (your version) asserting that a lot of people believe this, so it’s probably true and (my version) asserting that if >no one< has ever believed it before, it's probably not true. There's a huge middle ground between "something is probably true because a lot of people believe it" and "it doesn't matter if no one has ever believed it before, it still is probably true." It's entirely possible to reject both of those statements. You argue against the former to effectively assert the latter, but it's a false dichotomy, which then led you to restate my argument in terms I did not use — thus, a straw man.
3. Your Copernicus illustration is a red herring fallacy. It's true but not relevant to my point. God never promised to teach us astronomy (or geography, or medicine, or a host of other things), so new and beneficial discoveries in other areas are expected as part of our responsibility to subdue and replenish the earth and exercise dominion over it. Good for Copernicus! But God certainly did promise to teach all believers Scriptural truth, so it's extremely doubtful that someone would discover that absolutely everyone else has been wrong for two millennia on what Scripture says. New discoveries in science do not imply there should be new discoveries in Scriptural truth, unless one doesn't believe God's promises to teach His children. The difference is in God's promise, which blows the analogy away. As I said, a red herring.
4. "There are literally hundreds of books/websites detailing this point of contention." Bandwagon fallacy. Also stunningly inconsistent with your view that all believers for all time might have been wrong — but you think hundreds of books by skeptics is evidence that it really is a contradiction? When it comes to Scripture, believers are more often right than unbelievers, amazingly enough.
5. "…but Matthew 7 proves that Oὗτος is NOT always a personal antecedent." Straw man. I never argued it always has a personal antecedent. I argued that it has a personal antecedent in the grammatical construction in Acts 1, not that it always does.
6. "You seem to be assuming xταομαι is personally reflexive specifically because Οὗτος has been translated “this man” rather than allowing the antecedent pronoun to inform the meaning/voice of the verb." I never said that (another straw man, though at least this time you said "seem"). The voice of the verb in Greek is always determined by the form of the verb, NOT determined or informed by the subject. Your implication that the antecedent pronoun (I assume you meant subject) informs the voice of the verb is simply ignorant of Greek. This is sometimes called the personal incredulity fallacy. You don't know enough about Greek to understand the argument, so you've rejected it (personal incredulity), and compounded that by engaging in a straw man argument. Not a good look.
Here's my argument in a nutshell:
1. There's no contradiction between the two passages when Οὗτος is translated "this man" because:
A. The verbs in Acts and Matthew are different and have a different force and voice (middle deponent vs active).
B. In Matthew the priests are only agents, not purchasing for themselves. The money was not theirs under any logical construction.
C. The priests thought the money belonged to the temple and they were agents of the temple, but Peter tells us differently. The money was still legally / morally Judas' possession, his wages of evil (and thus something he couldn't shed so easily), and so the purchase was his.
D. Judas' money purchased for him the poetic justice he deserved, according to Peter (even if he wasn't the active agent in the purchase — but Peter never said he was).
2. κταομαι tells us the translation should be "this man" because:
A. It is a middle voice deponent and so is active force with an implicit reflexivity, with this particular verb expressing acquiring/taking possession for one's self. Reflexivity is used with personal subjects, not impersonal.
B. It simply doesn't make logical sense for it to have an impersonal subject because an impersonal subject can't take possession for itself.
C. This verb never has an impersonal subject (like "this") anywhere else in Scripture, which buttresses points A&B. You may look up every case of this verb if you wish to confirm for yourself.
3. The translation "this" is theologically suspect because:
A. No believers, to my knowledge, have ever come to this conclusion before.
B. None of the ancient translations, to my knowledge, translated it that way.
C. Scripture is spiritually discerned, believers are taught by the Spirit, and the likelihood that the Spirit is teaching Caleb something that He never taught any believers before is virtually nil.
D. This is not ironclad (and thus I used the term "suspect" rather than impossible) only because we have incomplete knowledge of what other believers have believed. It is theoretically possible that millions of believers have agreed with Caleb and none of us know about them. If that were true it would remove the theological difficulty with his suggestion (though not the grammatical difficulties).
If you have honest questions, I'd be glad to answer them. If you engage in any more straw man mischaracterizations, I won't respond to you again. I really am very busy and only willing to help someone who wants help.