Who bought the field of blood?

[Stravinsk]

As a Deist and follower of Trivium method of thinking, one of the steps is to rule out clear contradictions in order to determine truth. As a former believer that the whole Bible is the Word of God, without error and completely inspired, I often had to bridge gaps via a little creative thinking to things that clearly contradicted one another to make them jive in my mind. The alternative is cognitive dissonance where eventually one must choose or focus on one story or the other.

However, although I'm convinced certain things do, in fact, contradict - I'm willing to hear out an answer from someone who can give a reasonable and rational explanation for it.

Judas and the 30 pieces of silver.

According to Acts 1:15-19 Judas bought the field with the payment for his betrayal of Messiah.

According to Matthew 27:1-6 Judas returns the money to the chief priests and elders and the chief priests buy the field.

Neither of these statements can be true at the same time. The only thing that is common between them is that a field is bought with the blood money. But who buys the field? Someone is lying. Is it Matthew or Luke (author of Acts)?

 

[Lamb]

One says Judas bought the field the other says that the Jews bought the field...but don't you see they bought it in his name, which means he bought the field?

 

[psalms 91]

Exactly, they could not accept themoney for the temple so it was still Judas's money

 

[Stravinsk]

One says Judas bought the field the other says that the Jews bought the field...but don't you see they bought it in his name, which means he bought the field?

The text does not say they bought the field in Judas's name, only that it was blood money that couldn't be put into the treasury, so they decided to buy a field to bury foreigners in it.

It doesn't matter that the money once belonged to Judas as a payment for betrayal of Messiah. According to Matthew - he gave the money back. He admitted he sinned. It was at that point no longer his, and he left no instructions on what to be done with it. So it cannot be inferred that it was done in his name because he gave no such instructions.

Further, it wasn't as if Judas was alone in the plot to betray Messiah. The chief priests and elders were the ones planning all along on how to do it. They were the ones that paid to get it done. If anything, the field really belongs in their name.

They bought the field. Judas did not. Luke's account in Acts contains either an error or an outright lie.

 

[psalms 91]

The text does not say they bought the field in Judas's name, only that it was blood money that couldn't be put into the treasury, so they decided to buy a field to bury foreigners in it.

It doesn't matter that the money once belonged to Judas as a payment for betrayal of Messiah. According to Matthew - he gave the money back. He admitted he sinned. It was at that point no longer his, and he left no instructions on what to be done with it. So it cannot be inferred that it was done in his name because he gave no such instructions.

Further, it wasn't as if Judas was alone in the plot to betray Messiah. The chief priests and elders were the ones planning all along on how to do it. They were the ones that paid to get it done. If anything, the field really belongs in their name.

They bought the field. Judas did not. Luke's account in Acts contains either an error or an outright lie.

Or else you are not digging deep enough in other scripture

 

[Romanos]

Interesting thread, looking to see how the discussion goes.

 

[Josiah]

Once again, I think the opening poster is being uber-technical. But..... since that is being insisted.... see http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/d02contradictions/matthew27v6-7acts1v18.html and http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/1-18.htm for starters.

My PERSONAL "take" on this is simple: Both reports are literally (and in every tiny detail) correct: Judas was responsible for the purchase of the field; it was the 30 pieces of silver that supplied the money, his "throwing it back" makes him the source (the field would not have been purchased otherwise). Now, yes, it's possible to read that Judas DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY purchased the field (and if we had no other information, that would be reasonable) but it seems actually the Jewish leaders technically made the purchase. Let's say I give Tom here my Starbucks gift card to make a purchase, he goes to the Starbucks and purchases coffees. It could be said that I purchased the coffees, it could be said that Tom did. IMO, by looking at these two accounts, even in the uber-technical way the opening poster desired, there's no contradiction at all: the Jewish leaders made the transaction, with Judas' money. But as we look at the above links and beyond, there are other textual (and very reasonable) possibilities too.



- Josiah



.

 

[Brighten04]

Hath God said...?

 

[TurtleHare]

As a Deist and follower of Trivium method of thinking, one of the steps is to rule out clear contradictions in order to determine truth. As a former believer that the whole Bible is the Word of God, without error and completely inspired, I often had to bridge gaps via a little creative thinking to things that clearly contradicted one another to make them jive in my mind. The alternative is cognitive dissonance where eventually one must choose or focus on one story or the other.

However, although I'm convinced certain things do, in fact, contradict - I'm willing to hear out an answer from someone who can give a reasonable and rational explanation for it.

Judas and the 30 pieces of silver.

According to Acts 1:15-19 Judas bought the field with the payment for his betrayal of Messiah.

According to Matthew 27:1-6 Judas returns the money to the chief priests and elders and the chief priests buy the field.

Neither of these statements can be true at the same time. The only thing that is common between them is that a field is bought with the blood money. But who buys the field? Someone is lying. Is it Matthew or Luke (author of Acts)?

No one is lying but it all depends on how we read the verses and apply them because as it's been pointed out the field was bought with Judases money so of course it's going to be attributed to him. That's not a contradiction and I am curious as to how that prevents you from being Christian?

 

[Stravinsk]

No one is lying but it all depends on how we read the verses and apply them because as it's been pointed out the field was bought with Judases money so of course it's going to be attributed to him. That's not a contradiction and I am curious as to how that prevents you from being Christian?

Once I exchange my money for something, or give it away or throw it away, it is no longer mine.

If that money that was once mine I accepted to do something evil, then the person who paid me to do it is just as guilty as I am for accepting it.

The fact of the two passages is this:

Someone, either Judas or the chief priests, bought the field.
According to Matthew, Judas gave back the money so he couldn't have bought the field with it. Also according to Matthew, the chief priests, not Judas, bought the field.

The two passages contradict, and there is no getting around it.

As far as holding title of "Christian" - I explained this in my intro. I don't bother with it because of some of the beliefs that most people who do claim this title include in it. I accept Matthew and John as being the best representations of Messiah available, along with Revelation, and I look at the rest of the (New Testament) with considerably less esteem. I also do not accept Saul/Paul as "apostle to the Gentiles".

"Deist" is a very broad label that is only religious in a sense that one who claims it believes in a Creator and that this is evident by Creation. There are Deists who do not accept the inspiration of any part of the Bible at all - I am not of that position, however.

 

[TurtleHare]

Once I exchange my money for something, or give it away or throw it away, it is no longer mine.

If that money that was once mine I accepted to do something evil, then the person who paid me to do it is just as guilty as I am for accepting it.

The fact of the two passages is this:

Someone, either Judas or the chief priests, bought the field.
According to Matthew, Judas gave back the money so he couldn't have bought the field with it. Also according to Matthew, the chief priests, not Judas, bought the field.

The two passages contradict, and there is no getting around it.

As far as holding title of "Christian" - I explained this in my intro. I don't bother with it because of some of the beliefs that most people who do claim this title include in it. I accept Matthew and John as being the best representations of Messiah available, along with Revelation, and I look at the rest of the (New Testament) with considerably less esteem. I also do not accept Saul/Paul as "apostle to the Gentiles".

"Deist" is a very broad label that is only religious in a sense that one who claims it believes in a Creator and that this is evident by Creation. There are Deists who do not accept the inspiration of any part of the Bible at all - I am not of that position, however.

Do you believe that Christ died for you and that you are forgiven of your sins?

 

[Stravinsk]

Do you believe that Christ died for you and that you are forgiven of your sins?

Yes to the first, and to the second - according to His teaching and according to His prayer - I am forgiven to the extent I have dropped my grudges and forgiven others who have wronged me.

 

[Full O Beans]

In the same vein, did Pilate actually scourge Jesus, then?

John 19:1
So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him.

We have to be reasonable, and know that the chief priests, as recorded, bought the potter's field for use as a burial ground. they did it with the money they gave to Judas and that he returned to them. It was in Judas' name that they bought it, to keep their hands clean.

 

[psalms 91]

In the same vein, did Pilate actually scourge Jesus, then?

John 19:1
So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him.

We have to be reasonable, and know that the chief priests, as recorded, bought the potter's field for use as a burial ground. they did it with the money they gave to Judas and that he returned to them. It was in Judas' name that they bought it, to keep their hands clean.

Yes

 

[Rens]

Once again, I think the opening poster is being uber-technical. But..... since that is being insisted.... see http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/d02contradictions/matthew27v6-7acts1v18.html and http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/1-18.htm for starters.

My PERSONAL "take" on this is simple: Both reports are literally (and in every tiny detail) correct: Judas was responsible for the purchase of the field; it was the 30 pieces of silver that supplied the money, his "throwing it back" makes him the source (the field would not have been purchased otherwise). Now, yes, it's possible to read that Judas DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY purchased the field (and if we had no other information, that would be reasonable) but it seems actually the Jewish leaders technically made the purchase. Let's say I give Tom here my Starbucks gift card to make a purchase, he goes to the Starbucks and purchases coffees. It could be said that I purchased the coffees, it could be said that Tom did. IMO, by looking at these two accounts, even in the uber-technical way the opening poster desired, there's no contradiction at all: the Jewish leaders made the transaction, with Judas' money. But as we look at the above links and beyond, there are other textual (and very reasonable) possibilities too.



- Josiah



.

Interesting.

If the Bible is a divinely inspired record, why does Matthew state that the chief priests bought the field, whereas in the Acts account, Judas is said to have purchased the field?

Two different purchases are involved. The word for "field" in Matthew's account is "argros",1*which is the usual word for field in the New Testament.The chief priests purchased this field with the 30 pieces of silver. Judas purchased a different field a "little space of place", (Greek: chorion).2*The money for this purchase need not have come from the 30 pieces of silver, but from money Judas had stolen from the bag. (John 12:6). The account merely states that the field was purchased "with the reward of iniquity" without specifying where the money came from.

 

[Stravinsk]

In the same vein, did Pilate actually scourge Jesus, then?

John 19:1
So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him.

We have to be reasonable, and know that the chief priests, as recorded, bought the potter's field for use as a burial ground. they did it with the money they gave to Judas and that he returned to them. It was in Judas' name that they bought it, to keep their hands clean.

It doesn't say they bought it in his name. It says they bought it. It doesn't say that they bought it on Judas's behalf, or have the title of the land in the name of Judas, or anything of that nature - it says that the chief priests bought the land.

According to Acts though - the chief priests have nothing to do with directly buying the land. In Acts, Judas buys the land himself, "falls headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out". The author of Acts does not seem aware that Judas repented of his sin and returned the money. That's a pretty important detail, because it can't be twisted around to mean they did it in Juda's spirit of betrayal or something. Judas repented and returned the money according to Matthew. Instead in Acts he's using the ill gotten gain for his own purposes - to buy land - and then everyone in Jerusalem hears that he dies in a most unusual manner.

Not even the method of death matches. Hung himself (in Matthew's version) vs "falls headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out" in Acts. Apparently Judas exploded from inside, if Luke is to be believed.

 

[Full O Beans]

It doesn't say they bought it in his name. It says they bought it. It doesn't say that they bought it on Judas's behalf, or have the title of the land in the name of Judas, or anything of that nature - it says that the chief priests bought the land.

According to Acts though - the chief priests have nothing to do with directly buying the land. In Acts, Judas buys the land himself, "falls headlong, and all his intestines spilled out". The author of Acts does not seem aware that Judas repented of his sin and returned the money. That's a pretty important detail, because it can't be twisted around to mean they did it in Juda's spirit of betrayal or something. Judas repented and returned the money according to Matthew. Instead in Acts he's using the ill gotten gain for his own purposes - to buy land - and then everyone in Jerusalem hears that he dies in a most unusual manner.

Not even the method of death matches. Hung himself (in Matthew's version) vs "falling headlong, and all his intestines spilled out" in Acts.

Judas didn't repent. He felt guilt. His story is the opposite to Peter's and his betrayal of Jesus.

The bible does not contradict. The land was bought by the chief priests with Judas' money. They wouldn't want their names on the deed. As for Judas' death, he hung himself and his body fell.

 

[psalms 91]

Judas didn't repent. He felt guilt. His story is the opposite to Peter's and his betrayal of Jesus.

The bible does not contradict. The land was bought by the chief priests with Judas' money. They wouldn't want their names on the deed. As for Judas' death, he hung himself and his body fell.

Sounds about right to me