Potter's Field Contradiction

[JoeMama]

“Then Judas, who had betrayed Jesus, repented himself, and gave his thirty pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders, who used the money to buy the potter's field. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, and bought the potter's field.’” (Matthew 27:3-10)

But, what does the “prophet” really say about this?

In the passage below, an offended worker resents the low wages he was paid: ‘And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter.” So, I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter." (Zechariah 11:13)

Zechariah says that the thirty pieces of silver was thrown to a potter, while Matthew says the priests used the returned silver to buy a potter’s field.

How do believers harmonize these two accounts?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm glad you brought that up. This is part of the 'Judas' death' contradiction, which is multiple, and I might say third place behind the nativities and the resurrections.

We know about the two different method's of death, which the apologists try to wangle together; we know about whether Judas or the Sanhedrin bought the field, which the apologists try to wangle together. But we never heart about the two terrible prophecies. There is no wangling can be done here, but just Not Talk about it.

Luke (Acts 1) blatantly alters the OT passage to suit the situation he is writing and Matthew cobbles together the thirty silver paid to the shepherd of the people who sacked him and paid him off and he threw the silver to the potters' house (which I suspect may mean the clay offering pots in the treasury, but there I may be wrong. And I think something about the Potter's field 'as the Lord directed me', which I may try to track down. The point is that comparing the OT sources with the 'prophecies' as presented is a shocker and (and it ain't the first time I've said this) 2000 years of Bible scholarship has been silent about it.

Psalm 69. 25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

Psalm 109. 8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

As to Matthew Zechariah 11. I give the context as it is clear this is NOTHING whatsoever to do with Judas.10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord. 12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. 14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

Jeremiah 32. 9 And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver.
Jeremiah 18. 2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
Or that is taken as the passage that is the basis of the "Prophecy". Total shambles.

[1213]

....
Zechariah says that the thirty pieces of silver was thrown to a potter, while Matthew says the priests used the returned silver to buy a potter’s field.

How do believers harmonize these two accounts?

Maybe they therw the money for the potter, when they bought the field of the potter?

[TRANSPONDER]

....
Zechariah says that the thirty pieces of silver was thrown to a potter, while Matthew says the priests used the returned silver to buy a potter’s field.

How do believers harmonize these two accounts?

Maybe they therw the money for the potter, when they bought the field of the potter?

Nice try. It looks like we may have to look at the accounts in contrast. Starting with nothing the familiar situation that Mark and John have nothing about Judas'death.

First Acts 1.16 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.

Then Matthew 27. 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.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 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.
Matthew 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

We already have a chronology problem. Matthew looks like as soon as Jesus was taken for trial Peter confronted the priests and tossed the money back at them. But Acts supposes that between the time Judas got money from the Chief priests and the last supper, he's already bought this field. So how could he still have the money to throw back at them? It also clobbers the explanation that Judas buying the field and the Priests buying it were really the same thing; they couldn't be.

Matthew 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Acts 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

So another contradiction. Matthew says this field was called field of Blood because Judas died there, but Acts (surely by Luke) says it was because it was a burial place for strangers. In fact Akeldama is (so I read) the cliff -like south end of the mount of Olives and if strangers were buried in caves there, it is hardly a place Judas wouldn't have wanted to buy nor fallen headlong and burst open (1),

In fact the only thing that the accounts agree on (other than the 'claim' that it relates the death of Judas is this 'Field of Blood'. If one were to follow the evidence (rather than Faith) and see a true story of Jesus faking his miracles to gain support and the whole Holy Week, trial and crucifixion being a messianic attempt that failed, Then with the Temple cleansing being a battle between Jesus 5,000 Galileans and Pilate's 1,000 Auxiliaries, possibly with Jesus and his followers escaping and being traced to Gethsemane where there was a scuffle (watered down by Jesus slapping his followers down for resorting to violence as though they were'robbers' and getting crucified between two...'Robbers' would you believe and for sure on the mount of Olives, too, then this locale at the mount of Olives could well be associated with Judas (who died, defending his master) and called 'field of Blood'; for that reason. Yes, I once half believed that story, though I suspect now that it is more the result of coincidence. But it makes more sense than the story in the Bible, and explains all the problems. That is, if one accepts the problems at all.

Acts 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Matthew 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; 10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

I have already shown what a cagmag this effort to create a 'prophecy' out of bits of misused OT is.

(1) though some have proposed a scenario of Judas hanging himself over the cliff, the rope breaking and a drop to smash him open.

[TRANSPONDER]

Time for errata.I meant Judas confronted the priests,not Peter. Sometimes , despite reading through I miss errors, misstypos, etc.

[1213]

....Matthew looks like....

Maybe it looks like that to you. "Looks like" is not the same as "it is so". I think Gospels should be understood as witness testimonies that don't have all information. They are part of a bigger picture and they can be fitted together without contradictions, if understood correctly.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #6]

Ok .I cannot be definite, I can only say that Matthew 27.2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
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,

Looks like Judas did that as soon after Jesus went to trial, then he threw the money back at the priests. In fact it is obvious; it is just not clear how long after. It makes no difference to the basic contradictions:

(a) Judas bought the field himself, which can only have been between when he sold Jesus out to the Sadducees and when he threw the money back at them, so the money was already spent (1). So the priests cannot have bought a field for themselves or on behalf of Judas, as the apologetic sometimes has it.

(b) Judas hanged himself or he fell and burst open. And we know the excuse there.

The time of throwing the money back to the priests is after the arrest so that is what it is, not what it looks like. The doubt is really when the priests would have been back in the Temple for Judas to do that, and it is more dubious the longer he had to wait to do it. I can suggest myself that it could have been when Jesus was being flogged and they had time to pop into the temple to change into their street clothes, so that is possible, but that Judas supposedly having the money after he'd spent it, according to Acts, is what it is, not what it 'looks like'.

Your point or quibble is really too evasive, too blinkered (ignoring comprehension and context) too nit -picky and too irrelevant to do you, your apologetic or your Bible and faith much credit. You are doing a great job for us atheists.

(1) though I could create an elaborate and far - fetched explanation, but I'll leave that to the Bible apologists.

[Falling Light 101]

.


It let's go back to the original message in the manuscripts.

Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / indeed - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness - και and - πρηνης headlong - γενομενος when he was - ελακησεν burst asunder - μεσος in the midst - και and - εξεχυθη poured out - παντα all - τα his - σπλαγχνα bowels - αυτου  himself

:18
This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness and headlong he was burst asunder in the midst and poured out all his bowels himself.

it is not saying in the original mesaage that Judas himself had gone and personally purchased the field.
do we look to a translation to explain a book that seem to contradict - or should we go to the original message

[TRANSPONDER]

.


It let's go back to the original message in the manuscripts.

Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / indeed - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness - και and - πρηνης headlong - γενομενος when he was - ελακησεν burst asunder - μεσος in the midst - και and - εξεχυθη poured out - παντα all - τα his - σπλαγχνα bowels - αυτου  himself

:18
This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness and headlong he was burst asunder in the midst and poured out all his bowels himself.

it is not saying in the original mesaage that Judas himself had gone and personally purchased the field.
do we look to a translation to explain a book that seem to contradict - or should we go to the original message

As I said in another post just now, the question is whether the priests buying a field for their own purposes with the money he threw back at them can be said (By Peter a month or more later) to be Judas buying it with his reward (or getting someone to do it for him). It does not credibly read like the priests bought it for their purposes - not his - with their money, no longer his. It is a strained interpretation to have Peter say ' this man (Judas) bought that field with his reward', when he means 'the priests bought that field with Judas' money'.

There's also the point that if Peter meant the priests bought that field, how did he know it was with Judas' money? The priests wouldn't have been casually telling everyone 'Oh, it isn't actually our money, that Judas threw the money we paid him to betray his master back in our faces'. I don't see how Peter could have known that it was Judas' money just a month plus later if all he actually knew was the priests bought it as Matthew says and as you try to argue. It's a strained interpretation to try to make two different stories mean the same.

And of course - courtroom 'clean hands': one dubious witness story means other dubious stories get less of a pass.

[Falling Light 101]

.
at least we know that the original message of the Manuscripts are different from the Trinitarian Translation.

different enough that the reader can understand that this truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness

what acquired the field ?

:16  Judas working as a guide to them that took Jesus.  - - and Judas being numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 

this truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness