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]

.
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

So how does that alter the context? That the combined story looks like (and that is how we come to conclusions where it does not explain every detail) The priests gave Judas money, Judas bought the field, he then threw the money back at the priests and they bought the field, which was already bought with the money he had thus already spent.

Now I know one can make something up - here, Judas transacted to buy the field with promised money. But he threw the money back at the priests and they fulfilled the transaction, using his money, and used the field to bury strangers in. It can be explained that the money could not go back into the treasury, so it was there when the dealer came and said it should be paid over as per the contract for the field. Nice, eh? That there is no reason the dealer should have known the priests had the money and would simply have shrugged his shoulders and torn up the bill of sale when he heard Judas had hanged himself can be shrugged off as witness error or 'there is probably some explanation', as I can't think of one..

However, the simpler explanation that explains all the facts totally is that two contradictory stories were made up, Plus the methods of death are not the same, and some more explanation has to be done, Plus Mark and John have no death of Judas, which has to be shrugged off, Plus Matthew and Luke have been caught in pretty clear contradictions that also need some adroit fiddling, and can you blame the Bible -critics for going with 'the two stories do contradict and cast doubt on the veracity of the Gospels?

That you want to believe it doesn't make it true, but that the real contradiction works much better makes it the better hypothesis.

[Falling Light 101]

I just ask you to show from the manuscripts where they " manuscripts " say

that Judas himself went and purchased the field.

this is not what the manuscripts are saying

the manuscripts are telling of the cause and effect of Judas's actions - Judas threw the money away and gave it away to the priests.


concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 

Act 1:17  For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 

: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.


nowhere do any manuscripts say that " Judas " himself purchased anything at any time. -

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

the unrighteousness of Judas is what acquired the field

acquired - κτάομαι - ktaomai = to get, that is, acquire (by any means; own): - obtain, possess, provide, purchase.

[TRANSPONDER]

Landowners do not give fields away for unrighteousness, they sell land for money. Judas had to pay money for it. If the money was then spent in acquiring the field, it would not be available to be thrown back at the priests.

If one tried the spin that Judas transacted for the field but Judas threw it back at the priests and the transaction was not completed,why - Judas did not acquire the field and the priests did. The passage, whichever way you spin it was that either Judad bought the field or the priest did and it cannot be both, no matter how you fiddle the translation.

There was no way (without contradicting Matthew) Judas could acquire that field with money thrown back at the priests. Add to that the improbability of Judas having time or inclination to do any such thing when the smart thing to do, as soon as the betrayal was done, was get out of Dodge with his money. Alexandria,for instance.

Add to that the improbability of the disciples knowing anything about it and it looks like, I suggest, and you are free to dismiss it as my opinion - yours is your opinion, too - two writers feeling the need for Judas to pay for his crime (with or without repentance) invented improbable and contradictory stories, just as they did with the Nativities, and I'd suggests the resurrections, too.

[Difflugia]

I just ask you to show from the manuscripts where they " manuscripts " say

that Judas himself went and purchased the field.

this is not what the manuscripts are saying

That is absolutely what the manuscripts are saying. The Greek εκτησατο is the aorist middle voice for the verb κτάομαι, "to acquire." First, the aorist tense of κτάομαι means that the subject performed the active part of the acquisition. In certain other conjugations, it can include a broader sense of possession, but not aorist. Second, in addition to the active and passive voices of English, Greek includes a middle voice. Middle voice generally means that the subject both performs and is the target of the verb. Since the author uses the middle voice of the aorist tense, Judas unambiguously acquired the estate for himself. The tiny sliver of ambiguity that you wish to exploit in English doesn't exist in the author's Greek. It simply cannot mean what you want it to.

With his reward, Judas of Acts acquired an estate for himself. The priests of Matthew had nothing to do with it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. I can look up the Greek but I couldn't work the grammar; that's not what I do, I do the detection work and see what will stand up in a court of law and what wouldn't. Witness testimony like that wouldn't stand one cross -e xamination.

'clean hands' in law, too; to find a pair of witnesses talking contradictory tales means we give even less credence to others, like the method of death. Apologists 'weave together' the two, but is that credible? I know that believers will latch onto anything that sounds like an explanation, but hanging but not falling headlong (remember Matthew is supposed to be written some time after and he was not writing a report on the spot) and even more Luke's falling headlong but no mention of hanging is a contradiction. It sounds dodgy in its' own, but when we know the stories already contradict, the go - to hypothesis is, these stories also contradict.

The prophecies are a mess, too. Anyone who cares to can compare the prophecies with the OT text and expect to see an extreme example of the wrenching out of context that NT Prophecy has to do.
Matthew mentions the Potters' field and field of blood but Luke mentions only the Field of Blood. but calls it Akeldama, which I heard was the southern cliff edge of thew mount of Olives. No mention of a Potters' field. We could speculate for ever, but the Salient fact is, that while 'Potters' Field' is a handy label for all these problems, it carries no weight as a reliable site for Judas' death, even if we knew where it was.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #15]

I've noticed a few things relating to the original languages. First, inerrancy apologetics relies on ambiguity. Since Classical Greek is often less ambiguous than the corresponding English, apologists sometimes, like here, exploit ambiguity that can be found in natural-reading English, but not in Greek. Second, I've noticed that translators have a tendency to harmonize different passages in ways that obscure interesting and even important differences in the texts.

Harmonizing translators have here obscured some interesting details about the Field of Blood. Matthew's Potter's Field and Field of Blood both use the word ἀγρός for "field." Acts uses the word χωρίον, which doesn't exactly mean "field" (it's more like "place" or "property"). Even if we think that Luke didn't have access to Matthew's Gospel, that still means that either Luke's and Matthew's Greek versions of the tradition were different or one of them changed it. Why?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #15]

I've noticed a few things relating to the original languages. First, inerrancy apologetics relies on ambiguity. Since Classical Greek is often less ambiguous than the corresponding English, apologists sometimes, like here, exploit ambiguity that can be found in natural-reading English, but not in Greek. Second, I've noticed that translators have a tendency to harmonize different passages in ways that obscure interesting and even important differences in the texts.

Harmonizing translators have here obscured some interesting details about the Field of Blood. Matthew's Potter's Field and Field of Blood both use the word ἀγρός for "field." Acts uses the word χωρίον, which doesn't exactly mean "field" (it's more like "place" or "property"). Even if we think that Luke didn't have access to Matthew's Gospel, that still means that either Luke's and Matthew's Greek versions of the tradition were different or one of them changed it. Why?

Thank you. Yes the meaning of 'pro' (in 'when' or before Quirinus was governor) thus facilitating the 2nd census apologetic was contested by Greek - speakers who said the grammar did not admit of it meaning 'before'. But before I put forward my suggestion of why the field of blood (or place of Blood, as 'Field' is used to describe a battle ground, so long at it is on the ground) can you clarify what the difference is? Potters' field appears only in Matthew and 'Akeldama' only in Luke. The curious thing you imply is - if Luke never saw Matthew ( but did see and use an early version of the synoptic gospel) and because of the difference it can't be a common source ("Q" document), why do both mention this field of Blood? Tradition? A place pointed out by the 2nd c tour guides in Jerusalem pointing out Genuine Gospel sites before offering to introduce you to their sister? It suggests that, later on, Matthew and Luke came across a claim, and because of the differences, it had to be basic: 'Judas died at a place of blood'. Just as the nativities share only a common basic - 'Jesus, though a Nazorean, had to be born in Bethlehem'.

I look forward to your comments.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to 1213 in post #6]

Hello 1213
You suggest to TRANSPONDER that, his opinion lacks definition. You said this earlier

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

You can offer, a maybe idea but you correct a 'looks like' one.

The first question is a question regarding a possible, Biblical inconsistency (and there are many). Perhaps leave this autopsy to the scholars and the sceptics.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #6]

Hello 1213
You suggest to TRANSPONDER that, his opinion lacks definition. You said this earlier

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

You can offer, a maybe idea but you correct a 'looks like' one.

The first question is a question regarding a possible, Biblical inconsistency (and there are many). Perhaps leave this autopsy to the scholars and the sceptics.

No. The OT quote is about throwing the 30 silver to the potter, was it?In the house of the Lord (which reminds me of the Temple treasure in fact) but the Gospels talk opf throwing the money back to the priests not the potter, either in the house of the Lord or the field when they'd inspected it for suitability and they are hardly likely to throw the money at him, but hand it over in a little bag or something.

In short, doesn't even Look Like in trying wangle one's way out of a pretty striking appearance of contradiction. And if any of our Bible apologists chums leave the discussion to we skeptics, unbelievers and hellbound satanspawn, we will carry on providing our line to anyone prepared to listen. Perhaps a few of those scholars whom, I may say, appear to have missed a few tricks. Quite a few.

[Difflugia]

But before I put forward my suggestion of why the field of blood (or place of Blood, as 'Field' is used to describe a battle ground, so long at it is on the ground) can you clarify what the difference is? Potters' field appears only in Matthew and 'Akeldama' only in Luke.

That's what's weird to me. Akeldama in Acts seems to be more consistent with "Field of Blood," but that's where Luke seems to make a point of using a word other than "Field." I have a few guesses:

• The original tradition matches Acts, but Matthew wants a Field of Blood to match the Potter's Field.
• The name in Greek depends on whether the tradition is about remorse (Matthew's suicide in an abandoned field) or divine punishment (Acts' ironic death while enjoying a purchased estate).
• The account in Acts, short as it is, isn't original and is a later interpolation.

The curious thing you imply is - if Luke never saw Matthew ( but did see and use an early version of the synoptic gospel) and because of the difference it can't be a common source ("Q" document), why do both mention this field of Blood? Tradition? A place pointed out by the 2nd c tour guides in Jerusalem pointing out Genuine Gospel sites before offering to introduce you to their sister? It suggests that, later on, Matthew and Luke came across a claim, and because of the differences, it had to be basic: 'Judas died at a place of blood'. Just as the nativities share only a common basic - 'Jesus, though a Nazorean, had to be born in Bethlehem'.

Exactly. My point is that there are a number of things like this that tend to be obscured, more-or-less intentionally, in translation.