Purchase of the potter’s field to bury Judas.

Why does Matthew state that the chief priests bought the field, whereas in the Acts account, Judas is said to have purchased the field?

Matthew 27:6,7 “And the chief priests took the silver pieces, . . . and they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field to bury strangers in.”

Acts 1:18 “Now this man {Judas} purchased a field with the reward of iniquity . . . ”

On the face of it this sounds confusing. But there are several possible solutions.

The first is that two different purchases are involved. The word for “field” in Matthew’s account is “argros”, 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). Additionally 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. “This man purchased a field” might be elliptical for the more lengthy explanation that the money Judas had obtained from the betrayal of the Master was used to purchase a field, although the actual transaction was effected by the chief priests. In everyday speech ellipses of this kind are used. The emphasis in Acts lies in the fact that the field purchased by Judas’ money was obtained by the reward of iniquity. [cf Ron Abel, Wrested Scriptures]

An alternative, where the two fields are the same is proposed by Harry Whittaker [Studies in the Gospels, ch 219, p745]

Later on, when the excitement of that Passover had died down somewhat, the chief priests took counsel what should be done with the thirty pieces of silver. This money had probably been diverted from the temple treasury, for if it had come out of their own purses they would have had few scruples about pocketing it again. But now it would not be lawful to put this tarnished silver into the treasury. The conscience which they evinced was doubtless genuine, for human nature is capable of strange quirks. These men thought nothing of a gross distortion of justice in order to rid themselves of a troublesome adversary, yet over details such as this (and also their refusal to enter Pilate’s judgement hall on Passover Day, and also having a corpse on a cross on the ensuing sabbath John 18: 28 and 19: 31) they could hardly be too punctilious. Yet there was no sign of conscience when they called the money ‘the price of blood’. Amongst themselves they spoke without any dissimulation, but instead with a crude brutal frankness.

So, it was some time later, after the suicide of Judas, when the potter’s field again came into the real estate market at a give-away price, that they decided to buy it with the carefully hoarded thirty pieces of silver—a useful piece of land “to bury strangers in”.

This burying place, bought (in effect) by Jesus, thus provided a place where strangers-Gentiles!—might sleep and rise again in God’s Holy City. How different from the use to which Judas had put it! “Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” The Gentiles who died in Jerusalem would mostly be those believing in the God of Israel. In the course of the next forty years these must have included a big proportion of Gentile Christians. And they sleep in ground bought by the death of Jesus and which by rights belongs to him. It was only princes of the house of Judah who were buried inside the walls of Jerusalem (so 2 Chr. 24:16 seems to imply).