You’re reading way more into these verses than can possibly be known from what they say. Acts implies that the field was bought by the Chief Priest after Judas had already hung himself. It is pure conjecture to add everything about the Chief Priest possibly buying the field for Judas and then possibly deeding it to him, etc. If you add enough conjecture, almost any seeming contradictions can be reconciled.
No, I’m not. Have you read them in the original languages? That makes everything clear, I even checked with a professor who has had a PhD in Biblical Studies for twenty tears.You’re reading way more into these verses than can possibly be known from what they say. Acts implies that the field was bought by the Chief Priest after Judas had already hung himself. It is pure conjecture to add everything about the Chief Priest possibly buying the field for Judas and then possibly deeding it to him, etc. If you add enough conjecture, almost any seeming contradictions can be reconciled.
Where does Acts imply that the Chief Priest bought the field after Judas’ death? Acts 1:18 says: “He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.” That sounds like he bought the land prior to his death.You’re reading way more into these verses than can possibly be known from what they say. Acts implies that the field was bought by the Chief Priest after Judas had already hung himself. It is pure conjecture to add everything about the Chief Priest possibly buying the field for Judas and then possibly deeding it to him, etc. If you add enough conjecture, almost any seeming contradictions can be reconciled.
You’re exactly right; there is no contradiction.
I misspoke in saying that Acts implied that the Chief Priest bought the field after Judas had hung himself. It’s Matthew that implies this:Where does Acts imply that the Chief Priest bought the field after Judas’ death? Acts 1:18 says: “He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.” That sounds like he bought the land prior to his death.
However, it seems quite improbable that Judas, himself, bought the land. He threw the money back at the priests. The priests could have purchased the field for any number of reasons. However, they bought it with Judas’ money, so it’s just a matter of semantics to
say the priests bought the field or Judas bought the field. It seems quite clear that the priests bought the field, but with money they had given to Judas. The deeding is just conjecture because the priests would not have wanted a field purchased with “blood money.”
The Douay-Rheims version, which is my favorite bible says: “And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.” Doesn’t say who bought it or when. It just implies it was purchased with Judas’ blood money, however it DOES imply that it was purchased BEFORE Judas’ death, not after.
Judas couldn’t have purchased a field himself. He threw the money back at the priests. However, he could have possessed a field. The priests could have purchased it and given it to Judas because they would not have wanted “blood money.” Therefore, no matter who made the actual transaction, it was made with Judas’ money and Judas was the owner. And the Douay-Rheims does say he hanged himself. I really see no contradictions. It’s true, we don’t know all the details, but contradictory, no.
It’s funny that people quibble over this little seeming contradiction, which is really a lack of detail, yet gladly accept the nativities which can’t be reconciled no matter how one tries.
I don’t see anything in Acts that implies the Chief Priest bought the field AFTER Judas’ death, although that’s possible.
Kate needs to realize that the Bible is not a history book, though it is inerrant in matters of faith and morals.
To me, this passage implies that after he threw down the silver, he immediately left and went and hung himself. This passage also explicitly says that the field was bought by the Chief Priest and his people. We can imagine that Judas was perhaps buried in this field although the passage doesn’t actually say this.
To me it indicates that Judas was the one doing the acquiring while he was still alive. That is still a contradiction. The way that Judas died is also different in the two passages. We can try to reconcile these by saying that he hung himself and then fell headlong, but that is still just conjecture and is an attempt to reconcile contradictory accounts.
You obviously know little about the Sacred Scriptures or the Magisterial authority created by the Christ in establishing His Catholic Church.
It’s hardly a surprise that the individual authors of Scripture wrote what they intended to write. But that does not mean that they couldn’t write something that they believed to be true but about which they were actually mistaken. Nor would that mean that there are no contradictions between authors. The author of the Gospel of Matthew might be correct that it was the Chief Priest who bought the field whereas the author of Acts was simply mistaken in believing that Judas bought the field. So in that case, the author of Acts wrote what he intended, but he was mistaken.
The chief priests may have not known that Judas died.
Weak rope bro!
I agree with what you wrote in this post.
It means precisely that – the writings in Sacred Scripture, “without error, teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures." [CCC #107].:
Hang on a tick, you don’t agree that it’s impossible to see the Scriptures as inspired by God as claimed by Thorolfr, do you?
LOL
I think that this whole question is about the modes of credibility for the resurrection. Here is an article and lecture that tells the story.
Whew! I was like stop stop stop.