Quote[/b] ]THE TWO PURCHASES.
For there were two. One by "the chief priests", recorded in Matthew 27:6; and the other by Judas Iscariot, recorded in Acts 1:18. The proofs are as follows:
The purchase of Judas was made some time before that of the chief priests; for there would have been no time to arrange and carry this out between the betrayal and the condemnation.
The purchase of the chief priests was made after Judas had returned the money.
I'm sorry, but where is the proof of this? Just because there are two views stated here doesn't mean that both of them happened. This is simply an assumption with nothing to back it up.
What the chief priests bought was "a field" (Greek agros).
What Judas had acquired (see 3, below) was what in English we call "Place" (Greek chorion = a farm, or small property).
The two are quite distinct, and the difference is preserved both in the Greek text and in the Syriac version. (See note 1 below).
Please note that this could very well be a simple translation error. After all, how many words are there ot describe "love" and "hate". Again, this is a presumption.
The verbs also are different. In Matthew 27:7 the verbs is agorazo = to buy in the open market (from agora = a market-place); while, in Acts 1:18, the verb is ktaomai = to acquire possession of (see Luke 18:12; 21:19. Acts 22:28), and is rendered "provide" in Matthew 10:9. Its noun, ktema = a possession (occurs Matthew 19:22. Mark 10:22. Acts 2:45; 5:1).
Keep this in mind, "The chief priests did not want to put the money paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because blood money was used to purchase the field it was called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1.
How and when Judas had become possessed of this "place" we are not told in so many words; but we are left in no doubt, from the plain statement in John 12:6 that "he was a thief, and had the bag". The "place" was bought with this stolen money, "the reward (or wages) of iniquity". This is a Hebrew idiom (like our English "money ill-got"), used for money obtained unrighteousness (Appendix 128. VII. 1; compare Numbers 22:7. 2Peter 2:15).This stolen money is wrongly assumed to be the same as the "thirty pieces of silver"
Interesting take, but "the reward (or wages) of iniquity could just as easily represent the "thirty pieces of silver". This defense might mean a little more if John actually talked about the death of Judas, but he does not. This is the inherant problem with the Gospels, they all contradict each other, so it's very difficult to try and corroborate them.
The two places had different names. The "field" purchased by the chief priests was originally known as "the potter's field", but was afterward called "agros haimatos" = the field of blood; that is to say, a field bought with the price of blood ("blood" being part by Figure of Speech Metonymy (of the Subject), Appendix 6, for murder, or blood-guiltiness).
The "possession" which Judas had acquired bore an Aramaic name, "Hakal dema' " (see Appendix 94 (III.) 3), which is transliterated Akeldama, or according to some Akeldamach, or Hacheldamach = "place (Greek chorion) of blood": a similar meaning but from a different reason: videlicet, Judas's suicide. It is thus shown that there is no discrepancy between Matthew 27:6 - 8 and Acts 1: 18, 19.
I've looked at three different apologetic sources and each one seems to come up with a different answer, so obviously, it's not as clear cut as one would like. The conclusion that you are trying to portray is Acts describes a completely different event in the life of Judas, and is therefore not a contradiction. Now that's a stretch.
