Contradiction Between Luke and Matthew on Judas' Field? Part II

In the previous post, I began discussing the apparent contradiction between Luke and Matthew on who purchased Judas' Field of Blood. I made some important preliminary points about parentheses and quotation practices in Luke, and I said I will try to show how the two passages are consistent by modifying the placement of parentheses. I will then argue for a slightly different translation of verse 18.

So, where should we place the parentheses? I'll just give you my answer. But it is a worthwhile exercise for the reader to consider what happens if we consider different placements of parentheses. (Or even whether we should have any!) There are actually many options here, several of them are interesting, and different placements might help explain the consistency of Luke's passage with Matthew's in different ways. But here is how I would do it, and I will explain why:

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (together the crowd numbered about one hundred twenty persons) and said, 16 “Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." 19 (This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’

Not a huge change in placement, but a rather significant change in meaning. It changes the relevant passage about the Field of Blood (verse 18) from being merely Luke's narration to part of Peter's discourse.

Why is that important? In particular, how does this mere matter of placement make verse 18 any less in tension with Matthew 27:7? After all, just because Peter said it, that doesn't make the statement say anything different, right?

Well, no, actually, because as any linguist worth his salt will tell you, the meaning of an utterance is extremely sensitive to the context of utterance in which it occurs, i.e. to the discourse in which it is uttered. For example, the utterance "John is not a bad worker" can convey something completely different depending on whether it is uttered (a) by John's friend, in response to someone unfairly maligning John as a bad worker, or (b) by John's unimpressed supervisor, in response to the question "Isn't John such an amazing worker??"

So what does it do to the meaning of verse 18 when it is moved into Peter's speech? Well, it turns the statement from a mere reporting of a fact by the narrator, Luke, into a partly rhetorical and oratorical device, in an impassioned and prophetic speech given from the mouth of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, as he leads them with the first guidance they have received in an address since the Ascension.


So what is Peter saying here? First, let me provide the passage (verse 18) as it is found in Greek, so that we can identify several important words (for an English interlinear translation, see here):

οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησεν μέσος καὶ ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ

A couple interesting points. First off, Luke uses the word ἐκτήσατο (ektesato), which is a less common and somewhat ambiguous term. It is translated as "purchased," but it usually has a more general meaning of "acquire," "possess," "get," or even "control." For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:4, St. Paul uses it as follows:

1 Thessalonians 4:4 (NRSV)  

3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of you know how to control [or "possess"; κτᾶσθαι, ktasthai] your own body in holiness and honor. (Interlinear here.)

Luke himself uses it earlier in a more generic sense in Luke 21:19 (NRSV): "By your endurance you will gain [κτήσασθε; ktesasthe] your souls." And Matthew himself seems to use it to mean "take": "Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts." (10:9, NRSV). In fact, in most other verses where it appears, the word does not seem to literally mean "buying" or "purchasing."

Importantly, this is different from the word Matthew uses at 27:7 for "purchase," ἠγόρασαν (egorasan), which is far more common in the NT, and unambiguous.

Luke: ἐκτήσατο (ektesato) - occurs only 7 times in the NT, including Acts 1:18. If I am right about Acts 1:18, then arguably in all cases except one or two it does not mean "purchasing."

Matthew: ἠγόρασαν (egorasan; think "agora") - occurs 30 times in the NT, including in Luke, unambiguously referring to purchasing.

What is important is that the word in Luke is much more ambiguous than the one in Matthew, and can more easily sustain several meanings, affecting its usefulness with respect to the rhetorical effect in Peter's speech.

A second important point is that, in addition to the word in Acts being translated as "purchase," Luke uses the word μὲν (men), which can mean "indeed." Many translations, not entirely unreasonably, leave this phrase out. Perhaps this is because they assume it doesn't affect the meaning of the verse, given that the verse is parenthetical and that Luke the narrator is merely reporting facts. However, it also makes sense that Luke includes this phrase if it is part of Peter's oratory. After all, someone giving a speech will commonly use the phrase "Indeed!" for its rhetorical force.

Thus, in the end, I would suggest we instead translate the first part of verse 18 as follows:

"This man indeed acquired a field from the reward of his wickedness!"

Putting all this together, my final reading of the passage, modifying the NRSV, would be this:

In those days Peter stood up among the believers (together the crowd numbered about one hundred twenty persons) and said, "Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus— for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry. Now this man indeed acquired a field from the reward of his wickedness! And falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." (This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’"

The rhetorical force of Peter's statement in this context, and perhaps playing on the double-meanings of the words involved, would be something like this: That Judas got his reward alright - an ignominously-named field! - remembered as the place that was purchased "from the reward of his wickedness," and now infamously associated with Judas forever.* [Also, see end-note.]

That, at least, is one reading that strikes me as plausible given the placement of the verse into Peter's speech and the new translation. Though I should note there are other ways of reading it, all of which would be consistent with the priests' having been the ones who actually bought the field with Judas' money.

What are the positive reasons for our placing the parentheses this way, and for this translation?

1. As regards the parentheses, as I've already mentioned, Luke's including the word "indeed" makes sense if it is a rhetorical device in Peter's speech. That would place verse 18 within Peter's speech.
2. Furthermore, the prophetic fulfillment of the Psalms in Peter's speech, which the NRSV translators ascribe to Peter, makes much more sense if Peter himself had just previously mentioned Judas' death. This is because Peter quotes two different Psalms. He first quotes a version of Psalms 69: "Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it." The Psalm is well-known as one of the major imprecatory Psalms, and it asks God to punish those who persecuted his Holy One. It is also well-known as a prophecy referring to Christ's passion. Here is part of the Psalm, as translated from the Septuagint:
   
   Psalms 69:22-3 (translation from Septuagint)
   22 They gave [me] also gall for my food, and made me drink vinegar for my thirst. 23 Let their table before them be for a snare, and for a recompense, and for a stumbling-block. 24 Let their eyes be darkened that they should not see; and bow down their back continually. 25 Pour out thy wrath upon them, and let the fury of thine anger take hold on them. 26 Let their habitation be made desolate; and let there be no inhabitant in their tents: 27 Because they persecuted him whom thou hast smitten; and they have added to the grief of my wounds. 28 Add iniquity to their iniquity; and let them not come into thy righteousness. 29 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and let them not be written with the righteous.
   
   Clearly, the reason this Psalm is fulfilled in Judas is because Judas was punished for his persecution of the Christ. But if we insert the parentheses as the NRSV originally does, then Peter's speech reads as follows:
   
   "... for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry. For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’"
   
   That is rather awkward. And more importantly, it is not even clear how the first Psalm (69) is fulfilled by what Peter has just said. On the other hand, with our revised translation and placement of parentheses, Peter's speech makes much more sense:
   
   "...for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry. Now this man indeed acquired a field from the reward of his wickedness! And falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’"
   
   This seems to me a strong independent reason for placing verse 18 within Peter's speech.
3. As regards the translation, one reason for it is that it would make Luke more easily cohere with Matthew! Note that you don't have to believe antecedently in inerrancy to think this is a good consequence of our interpretation.
4. More importantly, as I have argued above, given that 1 and 2 show verse 18 to be part of Peter's speech, the word "indeed" should be understood as having a more prominent role instead of simply being dropped in translation. And it also is reasonable to assume that Peter is taking advantage of the ambiguities present in the already less-common word "ἐκτήσατο." Hence we, too, should translate it with the same ambiguity, perhaps by "acquired" or "got."

Now perhaps the reader has some objections to my position. The first might go something like this:

Objection: "Look Alfredo, this is just plain counter-intuitive! Most translations include the parentheses where they do, and that's because it makes intuitive sense."

Reply: "Counter-intuitive you say? Only because your intuitions and those of English Bible readers have been trained by translators' parenthetical propaganda!" 😉

Incidentally, just by looking at the Bibles I have on-hand or can easily access, I discovered that at least the following translations include the parentheses in the common (I say wrong!) way:

• RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV

All guilty! As it happens, these are precisely the modern translations that are read by most Protestants! - lay or scholarly, conservative or liberal. They also are read by very many Catholics, particularly the RSV and (more among scholars) the NRSV. (Though it seems the NRSV will soon be read by more lay Catholics, as it is the chosen translation for the new Word on Fire Bible.) Indeed, I myself prefer several of these translations most of the time. No wonder so many have been misled, and read the verse with a parenthetical bias!

On the other hand, the following translations do not include any parentheses, one way or another:

• KJV and Douay-Rheims

Not guilty! More grist for the mill for KJV-onlyists and some Catholics I suppose! Unfortunately for the KJV, however, it seems to be one of the earliest perpetrators of the "purchase" mistranslation. On the other hand, after writing this post I learned that the Douay-Rheims gloriously translates Acts 1:18 as follows:

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.

Pretty close! Now imagine if for hundreds of years we had only read the verse this way. Would people be so immediately convinced there is a contradiction between Matthew and Luke?

All of this once again confirming my respect for the Latin version tradition. Of course, most of the credit goes to the Vulgata Clementina I suppose (though the English translators certainly get some props for decisively opting for formal equivalence):

Et hic quidem possédit agrum de mercéde iniquitátis, et suspénsus crépuit médius : et diffúsa sunt ómnia víscera ejus.

Beautiful!

Now, the only translation I checked that correctly puts verse 18 in quotation marks was (can you believe it?) the Catholic NABRE!

• NABRE "And you, O NABRE, are not the least among the English translations!"

To my great surprise, they not only avoided the misplacement of parentheses (as the KJV and D-R also do), but even correctly placed the verse in quotations. In fact, the NABRE considers all of the verses of Acts 1:16-22 to be part of Peter's speech. Not bad guys! I have to admit I've gained a little more respect for the NABRE New Testament. (Although, like most others, they still mistakenly translate the Greek word "ektesato" as "purchase." But you can't really blame them for that - they've not yet read my post!) I just hope they don't mess the parentheses up when they re-translate the New Testament in 2025!

In seriousness though, it is notable that at least one major, scholarly translation agrees with me on including verse 18 in Peter's speech. And so it is worth asking the question: What if instead of, say, the NRSV, the also-highly-respected NABRE had become the most prominent translation used among scholars and laymen? Would people really have such strong intuitions about the placement of parentheses?

It seems to me then that this isn't a serious complaint. There's another objection though.

Objection: "Come on Alfredo, look how long this took you! You had to go through all these hoops just to conclude that we should slightly re-translate one little verse and move a couple parentheses around. Clearly you are performing mental acrobatics."

Reply: "Nope, that is just called biblical interpretation. It involves looking closely at a text and reasoning thoroughly about its meaning in context. If you think what I just did is bad, look up another field called 'textual criticism'. I expect you will be positively scandalized when you see how scholars expend hundreds of pages arguing over single words or phrases. But I should tell you that most scholars consider this a legitimate form of inquiry."

And besides, when all is said and done, the central point I have made here can actually be put quite simply: Verse 18 should be included in Peter's speech. By not including it in Peter's speech, editors have often been misled into mistranslating the verse. Looking more closely at the verse in context, including its vocabulary, it should instead be translated as having Peter say: "This man indeed acquired a field from the reward of his wickedness!" And that, I would argue, is less evidently inconsistent with Matthew 27:7's claim that it was the priests who bought the field with Judas' silver.

Before concluding, I would like to note one potentially significant implication of this result. Aside from the fact that it shows Luke and Matthew to be consistent, it also knocks out an important argument against the Farrer Hypothesis about the synoptic problem. According to this hypothesis (defended by some scholars, like Mark Goodacre), Mark wrote first, then Matthew based on Mark, and then Luke based on both. This theory would allow us to dispense with Q, since obviously there is no longer a need to posit a special, historically-unattested document to explain the agreements between Matthew and Luke.

One objection is that if this were so, Luke would have reconciled his material with Matthew better, and one prominent example is the supposed contradiction between the two on Judas' death. Indeed, no less a scholar than Fr. Raymond Brown makes this argument, in his Introduction to the New Testament:

"Where Luke and Matt have almost contradictory accounts, why did Luke not make some effort to reconcile the difficulty? For example ... Luke's account of the death of Judas in Acts 1:18-19 is scarcely reconcilable with Matt 27:3-10."

But if Acts 1:18 is ascribed by Luke to Peter, and Peter is only reminding the crowd that Judas, as God's punishment, did indeed "get a field" as his reward - a field infamously associated with him, his blood money, and his ignominious death - then it is not the case that the verse in Acts is "scarcely reconcilable" with Matthew. And I would emphasize to the reader that, if what I have argued is correct, verse 18 would not even have seemed to Luke to be in conflict with Matthew's account, and it only seems so to us because of a small number of failures of translation and punctuation.

[*] An additional hypothesis, which I haven't provided evidence for so far, is that perhaps it was well-known that Judas wanted the money in the first place in order to buy himself a field or piece of land. In that case, it would be especially ironic that the chief priests purchased a field with the returned silver, and that this place now called the "Field of Blood" came infamously to be associated with Judas (either because of the association with his blood-money, or perhaps because he himself died on it). If that were the case, then my translation of Peter's words in 1:18 would make even more sense, and would have the force of "Judas indeed got his field with that money!"

As it happens, there is some plausibility to this hypothesis, since in Matthew 26:15 it was Judas who first asked the priests how much they would be willing to pay him. Evidently, the amount of silver Judas acquired was the right amount for getting a field. (Matt. 27:7) The fact that Judas spontaneously went to the priests on his own (all the synoptics repeat this), himself apparently suggesting the option of a monetary arrangement (Matt. suggests this; and besides, what else would he have been hoping to ask the priests for when he got there?), presumably proposing this idea with some sort of "price"-range in mind, and accepting their price - equivalent to the price of a field - suggests that Judas may have been interested in getting himself some property from all this. Admittedly, however, this is conjectural, and it is not essential to my argument.