Actually, I argue in the OP that the stories of Judas' death in Matthew and Acts should not differ in major details.
Those would be the details which you claim should be identical, no?
Of course, two different people will differ in their accounts of any event, but what is troubling if they differ in details they should not have differed about.
Why do you feel Matthew's details should not differ from Luke's?
I see those kinds of differing details in the two stories.
That's unlikely to be a coincidence. You appear to be implying that Judas is an invented figure.
When the personage responsible for betraying Jesus is given a name which sounds exactly like "Jewish assassin" what other conclusion makes more sense? Just a coincidence?
If Judas is a fictional character, then of course the rope-breaking story is not historical,
Not necessarily. However, I'm inclined to agree that the purpose of the story is more in line with each author's particular focus which isn't history at all.
and apologists are wrong to use it to explain away the discrepancies in the two accounts of the death of Judas.
Amplifying certain aspects of a story is not equivalent to a discrepancy. One author points out that Judas hangs himself. End of story. The other author points out that all of Jerusalem was aware of what happened which is an interesting claim given that suicides back then were not uncommon.
The first author simply points out that Judas died. The second author points out that there were extenuating circumstances that the first author didn't see as relevant to his narrative. When one author chooses to leave out details that detract or distract from his focus, this does not create a discrepancy in those who are not suffering from ADD.
We're asked to do the same here on this forum. We don't post whole paragraphs from someone else's post if we're not addressing those points. By your logic, this creates discrepancies because we're not addressing or reposting whole paragraphs of information which you may find integral to the discussion.
Well, I know that many people interpret what I write in ways I never intended.
Perhaps you could infer that this could be the case with these authors as well?
For example, you assumed I said that two stories must be identical to be accurate accounts of an event, but I never said nor implied that.
You claimed that the major details need to be identical. The problem is that one man's major details are another's superfluous irrelevance.
Authors sometimes do write what others write; it's called plagiarism. Mathew and Luke wrote much of what Mark wrote, for example.
This isn't the case with liturgical narratives. In other words, they're not writing books. They're taking what has become an oral tradition, and committing it to writing, and just like any thing that emerges in diverging areas, there are going to be differences in how they develop. Some people find some aspects more important than others. None of these people were selling books. Therefore, there is no plagiarism taking place.
I'm not sure how an "inspired" writing will necessarily stand the test of time.
Most often it is when it is recognized as inspired. The more people who recognize it as inspired, the more likely it is to be handed down from one generation to another.
Then please offer a plausible explanation for how a hanged man ends up falling head first and is disemboweled upon impact. Did he roll when falling? If you read the OP, I already explained
Correction: claimed.
that such a fall would result in Judas's head striking the ground which is not likely to disembowel him.
There are no details on exactly where he hanged himself. However, we do know the general landscape is quite rugged, jagged and undulating. There are cliffs. There are dead trees, dead tree stumps, etc. which are all quite conducive to tearing up a body. There are any number of explanations that could account for someone being disemboweled. To then claim that it couldn't have happened doesn't explain anything.
There is a somewhat notorious example of one of the Arquette brothers being impaled upon a tree stump while vacationing at a lake. Most people don't know about it, but it doesn't then follow that it didn't happen, nor does claiming it couldn't have happened make any sense whatsoever.
Now you've left me confused: Do you believe the broken-rope story is plausible or not?
Quite plausible, perhaps even something that has happened on numerous occasions. I personally don't ascribe to one theory over another. There any number of possible ways in which disembowelment could have occurred. It isn't difficult to imagine a despondent man tossing a rope over a limb, tying it to another limb, and then jumping out over a precipice only to have one of those branches snap causing his body to fly off in any number of directions eventually landing upon jagged rocks, tree stumps etc.
Perhaps, some children came upon his corpse, and decided to swing it around to amuse themselves and in the process decided to see how far they could send it. Perhaps, he had help from people who didn't care for his temper tantrum in the temple.
You've defended the historicity of the story only to imply that Judas was a fictional character.
I'm not defending the historicity of the story. I have maintained that that these are not primarily historical narratives, but liturgical narratives. This doesn't mean that some aspects couldn't be based upon historical events. My point is that it doesn't matter if it is based upon historical events. What matters is the author's intentions and purpose in writing them down.
If Judas's name is merely word play, then I don't see how he existed to hang and disembowel himself.
Or betray Christ either. This should be enough for most people to then return to these narratives to explore why they were actually composed in the first place. Those who do might then learn that when Jesus says "the truth will set you free" he isn't suggesting that one should base their faith upon history or historical narratives.
History is essentially in the eye of the beholder whereas the kingdom of God does not come about by observation at all.
