Who bought the potter's field?
Matthew identifies the priests as the buyers of the field after Judas returns the silver and dies. Acts attributes the acquisition to Judas. The conflict concerns who acquired the field.
Assessment needs review
This article has changed since its assessment. Its previous classification and importance are withheld until the updated argument is reviewed.
The priests buy the field after Judas returns the money
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Acts attributes acquisition to Judas and connects his fate to the name
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Understanding the contradiction
Matthew 27:5-7 says Judas throws the silver into the temple, leaves, and hangs himself. The priests then take counsel and buy the potter's field with that money. Acts 1:18 instead says Judas acquired a field with the reward of wrongdoing. Read as descriptions of who undertook the acquisition, they assign it to different agents.
The proposed reconciliation treats Acts as attributing to Judas a purchase made by others with his money. Indirect attribution can explain the wording, but Matthew's Judas has rejected the payment and is already dead when the priests choose to buy the field. Neither passage states that they act for him. This is a dispute over direct versus indirect agency, so it is classified as interpretive rather than an explicit denial of every possible involvement by both parties.
The reason for the field's name and the physical events involving Judas's body are separate details. Multiple reasons for a name can coexist, and a hanging can be followed by a fall. Neither detail independently proves the disagreement about the buyer.