This "contradiction" generally appears only in older English translations of the Biblical manuscripts. The accusation arises from translation difficulties and is solved by looking at the context of the event. God knew that Saul would fail in his duty as King of Israel. Nevertheless, God allowed Saul to be king and used him greatly to do His will. Saul was highly effective as leader of Israel, in stirring his people to have courage and take pride in their nation, and in coping with Israel's enemies during times of war. However, God made it clear long before this time (Genesis 49:8-10) that he would establish the kings that would reign over Israel, from the tribe of Judah. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore there was no doubt that Saul or his descendants were not God's permanent choice to sit on the throne of Israel. His successor David, however, was from the tribe of Judah, and his line was to continue. Therefore God, who knows all things, did not 'change his mind' about Saul, for he knew Saul would turn away from Him and that the throne would be given to another. The word in Hebrew that is used to express what God thought and how God felt concerning the turning of Saul from Him is "niham" which is rendered "repent" in the above. However, as is common in languages, it can mean more than one thing. For example, English has only one word for "love." Greek has at least 4 and Hebrew has more. A Hebrew or Greek word for love cannot always simply be translated "love" in English if more of the original meaning is to be retained. This is a problem that translators have. Those who translated the Bible under the order of King James (hence the King James translation, which Shabbir quotes from) translated this word niham 41 times as "repent," out of the 108 occurrences of the different forms of niham in the Hebrew manuscripts. These translators were dependent on far fewer manuscripts than were available to the more recent translators; the latter also having access to far older manuscripts as well as a greater understanding of the Biblical Hebrew words contained within. Therefore, the more recent translators have rendered niham far more accurately into English by conveying more of its Hebrew meaning (such as relent, grieve, console, comfort, change His mind, etc. as the context of the Hebrew text communicates). With that in mind, a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be that God was "grieved" that he had made Saul king. God does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man that he should change his mind. God was grieved that he had made Saul king. God shows in the Bible that He has real emotions. He has compassion on people's pain and listens to people's pleas for help. His anger and wrath are roused when He sees the suffering of people from others' deeds. As a result of Saul's disobedience pain was caused to God and to the people of Israel. But also, God had it in His plan from the beginning that Saul's family, though not being from the tribe of Judah, would not stay on the throne. Therefore when Saul begs the prophet Samuel in verses 24 to 25 to be put right with God and not be dethroned, Samuel replies that God has said it will be this way - He is not going to change His mind. It was spoken that it would be this way hundreds of years before Saul was king. There is no contradiction here. The question was "Does God change his mind?" The answer is, "No." But He does respond to peoples situations and conduct, in compassion and in wrath, and therefore can be grieved when they do evil.

Different plagues:

This apparent contradiction asks how many people died from the plague that occurred in Shittim (which incidentally is misspelt 'Shittin' in Shabbir's pamphlet). Numbers 25:1-9 and 1 Corinthians 10:8 are contrasted. Shabbir is referring to the wrong plague here.

If he had looked at the context of 1 Corinthians 10, he would have noted that Paul was referring to the plague in Exodus 32:28, which takes place at Mt. Sinai and not to that found in Numbers 25, which takes place in Shittim, amongst the Moabites. If there is any doubt refer to verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 10, which quotes almost exactly from Exodus 32:6, "Afterwards they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry."

Now there are those who may say that the number killed in the Exodus 32 account were 3,000 (Exodus 32:28) another seeming contradiction, but one which is easily rectified once you read the rest of the text. The 3,000 killed in verse 28 account for only those killed by men with swords. This is followed by a plague which the Lord brings against those who had sinned against him in verse 35, which says, "And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made." It is to this plague which Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10:8.

The discrepancy as to who killed Goliath (David or Elhanan) was caused by copyist or scribal error, which can be seen clearly.

The text of 2 Samuel 21:19 reads as follows:

"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

As this stands in the Hebrew Masoretic text, this is a certainly a clear contradiction to 1 Samuel and its account of David's slaying of Goliath. However, there is a very simple and apparent reason for this contradiction, as in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 20:5 shows. It describes the episode as follows:

"In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

When the Hebrew for these sentences is examined, the reason for the contradiction becomes quite obvious and the latter 1 Chronicles is seen to be the true and correct reading. This is not simply because we know David killed Goliath, but also because of the language.

When the scribe was duplicating the earlier manuscript, it must have been blurred or damaged at this particular verse in 2 Samuel. The result was that he made two or three mistakes (see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 179):

The sign of the direct object in 1 Chronicals was '-t which comes just before "Lahmi" in the sentence order. The scribe mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got BJt hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it. He misread the word for "brother" ('-h , the h having a dot underneath it) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Therefore he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" instead of "brother" of Goliath, as in 1 Chronicles. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his family name (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, ben ya'arey 'ore-gim, "the son of the forest of weavers", a most improbable name for anyone's father). In Chronicles the ore-gim ("weavers") comes straight after men\r ("a beam of") - thus making perfectly good sense. To conclude: the 2 Samuel passage is an entirely traceable error on the part of the copyist in the original wording, which has been preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5. David killed Goliath.

This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of. An excellent example of human copying error resulting from the degeneration of papyrus.

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David's reign, and David was looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self- admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab's warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).

What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1 Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.

Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in soul-searching testings and trials:

In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God's purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God. Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan's purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level. Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from his messianic mission.
In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.
Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan's motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan's success was limited and transient; while in the end God's purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially.

(Archer 1982:186-188)

Regarding 800,000 vs 1,100,000:

(Category: misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author's intent)

There are a number of ways to understand not only this problem but the next challenge as well, since they both refer to the same passages and to the same census.

It is possible that the differences between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census (which will be discussed later), or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, particularly for Judah.

The more likely answer, however, is that one census includes categories of men that the other excludes. It is quite conceivable that the 1 Chronicles 21:5 figure included all the available men of fighting age, whether battle-seasoned or not, whereas the 2 Samuel 24:9 account is speaking only of those who were ready for battle. Joab's report in 2 Samuel 24 uses the word 'is hayil, which is translated as "mighty men", or battle-seasoned troops, and refers to them numbering 800,000 veterans. It is reasonable that there were an additional 300,000 men of military age kept in the reserves, but not yet involved in field combat. The two groups would therefore make up the 1,100,000 men in the 1 Chronicles 21 account which does not employ the Hebrew term 'is hayil to describe them.

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189-190)

Regarding 500,000 vs 470,000:

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe of Benjamin, nor that of Levi's either, due to the fact that David came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it states that David did not include those twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the census the number was not recorded in King David's Chronicle.

The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah, either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent.

Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub- total figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin).

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent, or copyist error)

"The Hebrew verb rendered "contained" and "held" is different from that translated "received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons.

Another solution follows a theme mentioned earlier, that the number in Hebrew lettering for 2000 has been confounded by the scribe with a similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000.

It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate on 25th February 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted this "contradiction" and added to it saying that if the bath had a diameter of 10 cubits it cannot possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits as the text says (since 'pi' dictates that it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 diameter).

Shabbir made the humorous comment "Find me a bath like that and I will get baptized in it!" But Shabbir did not read the text properly or was just going for a cheap, displaced laugh. Why? Because the text says that it was about 8cm thick and had a rim shaped like a lily. Therefore it depends on where you measure from. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or outside for the vessel would all give a different diameter; and depending on whether you measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower point, you would get a different circumference.

In other words, Shabbir may well be getting baptized if someone can be bothered to make a replica!

(Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)"

Answering the former will require backing up and taking a broader look at our texts. The Kings writer of course recorded history for all of the Jews (both Israel and Judah) while the Chronicles writer only recorded for Judah other than when Israel came in the picture. Naturally this gave Chronicles more space to record things, and it does report more about Asa's reign (3 chapters vs 1) than Kings does.

Contradiction is alleged here for obvious reasons, but I think it hardly needs pointing out that Josiah's reign didn't last just ten minutes. The latter verse obviously reflects conditions at the end of Jehoshaphat's reign, for of course we may be sure, knowing human psychology as we do, that some were quite inclined to put the high places back whenever they thought they could get away with it!

Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. And his activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones. And I Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo! the Watchers called me -- Enoch the scribe and said to me: 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives : "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth: And ye shall have no peace nor forgiveness of sin: and inasmuch as they delight themselves in their children, The murder of their beloved ones shall they see, and over the destruction of their children shall they lament, and shall make supplication unto eternity, but mercy and peace shall ye not attain."

Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers.

The two examples of numerical discrepancy here have to do with a decade in the number given. Ahaziah is said to have been 22 in 2 Kings 8:26; while in 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42. Fortunately there is enough additional information in the Biblical text to show that the correct number is 22. Earlier in 2 Kings 8:17 the author mentions that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was 32 when he became King, and he died eight years later, at the age of 40. Therefore Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his father's death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change Jewish or Christian beliefs in the least. In such a case, another portion of scripture often corrects the mistake (2 Kings 8:26 in this instance). We must also remember that the scribes who were responsible for the copies were meticulously honest in handling Biblical texts. They delivered them as they received them, without changing even obvious mistakes, which are few indeed.

(Refer to the next question for a more in-depth presentation on how scribes could misconstrue numbers within manuscripts)

(Archer 1982:206 and Light of Life II 1992:201)

Once again there is enough information in the context of these two passages to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental leadership. However, there are certain commentators who contend that this can be entirely possible. They maintain that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father's death.

A more likely scenario, however, is that this is yet another case of scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of writing numbers in Hebrew. The earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more detail below) was followed by a system whereby alphabetical letters were used for numbers. A further system was introduced whereby the spelling out of the numbers in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we have a large file of documents in papyrus from these three sources to which we can refer.

As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of horizontal hooks (please forgive the deficiencies of my computer; it is not the scholar Dr. Archer is).

If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being carried out was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been smudged.

In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.

Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon itself, records the number of prisoners as 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972.

Similarly in number 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count.

(Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215, 222, 230; Nehls pg.17-18; Light of Life II 1992:204- 205)

Zedekiah: Father's brother or brother (2 Chr. 36:10)? Solomon Tulbure thinks the relation stated is to Nebuchadnezzar, but he's not reading the English grammar properly. The relation is to Jehoiachin (24:15). But what is the relation, exactly? 2 Chr. says 'ach; 2 Kings says dowd 'ach. The word "brother" has a wide connotation referring to any male relative. 2 Kings is simply more specific.

As with #28, two different Shealtiels necessitates two different Zerubbabels, so it is no problem that their sons had different names. It should not surprise us that there was a Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel in both Mary's and Joseph's ancestry. Matthew tells us that Joseph's father was named Jacob. Of course, the Bible records another Joseph son of Jacob, who rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt (Genesis 37-47). We see no need to suggest that these two men are one and the same, so we should have no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.

The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no problem: there are several Marys mentioned in the Gospels, because it was a common name. The same may be true here. This Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in Matthew 1:12,13. A comparison of Matthew and 1 Chronicles gives the following possible family tree:

The Lord refers there to the ceremonial precepts; which are said not to be good, because they did not confer grace unto the remission of sins, although by fulfilling these precepts man confessed himself a sinner. Hence it is said pointedly, "and judgments in which they shall not live"; i.e. whereby they are unable to obtain life; and so the text goes on: "And I polluted them," i.e. showed them to be polluted, "in their own gifts, when they offered all that opened the womb, for their offenses."

A partial answer lies in the fact that in narrative (27, 2-8) and quotation (27,9-10) passages from Jer exercise their influence as well. Jer 18,2-3, where a potter is mentioned but no purchase of a field, is often adduced, as well as Jer 32,6-9, where the purchase of a field is dealt with but no potter occurs. A reference to Jer 19 may be more to the point: in front of the elders and priests, Jeremiah has to shatter an earthen potter's vessel, as a symbol of the disasters which will strike Judah and Jerusalem because of their idolatry, and because "they filled this place with blood of innocents" (Jer 19,4). The prophet has to do this on the place that is called Tophet but will be called "Valley of Slaughter", and will be one large burial-place. The points of contact between this passage and Matt 27,3-10 are obvious.

Menken [Menk.RJ, 10-11]

This apparent contradiction asks: 'Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?' Mark 1:12-13 says he went to the wilderness for forty days. But John 'appears' to have Jesus the next day at Bethany, the second day at Galilee and the third at Cana (John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11), unless you go back and read the entire text starting from John 1:19. The explanation about the baptism of Jesus in John's Gospel is given by John the Baptist himself. It was "John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was" (vs. 19). It is he who is referring to the event of the baptism in the past. If there is any doubt look at the past tense used by John when he sees Jesus coming towards him in verses 29-30 and 32. While watching Jesus he relates to those who were listening the event of the baptism and its significance. There is no reason to believe that the baptism was actually taking place at the time John was speaking, and therefore no reason to imply that this passage contradicts that of Mark's Gospel.

Finally, there are ceremonial laws. Instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, for example, are definitely in this, as are sacrificial laws. What else belongs in here? Most likely the dietary laws belong here, as their purpose was to make the Jews "different" and to serve as a testimony to their difference in the most intimate ancient setting, that of meal fellowship.

Transmission error. added 6/29/06 -- This may have happened, inasmuch as Jerome noted that a Hebrew version of Matthew in his day read differently: "In the Gospel the Nazareans use, we find 'son of Johoiada' instead of 'son of Barachia.'" It could have been an error created by the transition from Matthew's Hebrew/Aramaic original to Greek.

1. Who bought the field?

We should first point out that Acts 1:18-19 is part of Peter's speech; it is not as the NIV has it a comment by Luke, even if an example of a comment by him in the midst of a saying can be found elsewhere, because Peter in 1:20 presupposes 1:18-19 having been said. Therefore, what Peter is saying has to be allowed to have Jewish expressions.

Did Judas buy the field himself according to Peter? One detail that has been overlooked, at least from what I have read, is that everyone in Jerusalem heard about Judas' death! So the field was bought in Jerusalem, which corroborates the testimony that this was done at or after the Passover on which Our Lord was crucified; Judas probably did not live in Jerusalem as a lot of the ministry of Christ occured in Galilee. In addition, the Gospel of the ebionites as quoted from Epiphanius' Haeres. XXX 13, says this:

And He came into Capernaum and entered into the house of Simon, surnamed Peter, and He opened His mouth and said, 'As I walked by the sea of Tiberias, I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon Zelotes, and Judas Isariot;

The sea of Tiberias was also known as the sea of Galilee, and was in Galilee. The ebionites' gospel probably comes from the second century, but is nevertheless an early tradition, and it is unlikely that Judas was from Jerusalem, taken as an apostle during one of the visits there, so why would he buy a field there? True Peter is speaking in Jerusalem, but in my opinion the fact that the text says in Jerusalem rather than Judea means something (for example, in Acts 9:32-43, even though Peter heals in Joppa and raises Dorcas from the dead in nearby Lydda, this becomes known in Joppa, 9:42).

The next problem with thinking that Judas bought the field is regarding the death in Acts: falling headlong and bursting forth. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to ask the question how Judas fell from a cliff that happened to burst his guts out onto the field that happened to be the one he got (assuming that the author of Acts does not presuppose a hanging, and none is intended as the skeptics will have us). Even if you can have your guts burst from falling off a cliff, it happens to be his field; did he buy the field near a cliff so he could off himself? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Did he accidentally fall while walking on a high road that happened to be next to his cliff? It's possible, but there are too many if's.

What makes most sense is that "falling headlong" is a corruption of "swelling headlong," headlong possibly meaning being flat on the ground. More into that in number 2. It is therefore much more likely that Peter is using typical Jewish metaphors in saying that Judas bought a field, whereas it was likely the priests (no reason to disagree with Matthew such as saying he gave the money to someone else and that person bought it).

2. How did Judas die?

Did Judas hang himself or did he "fall headlong." As mentioned just above, I disagree with the death of Judas in Acts 1 originally having said "fall." I think a swollen body that burst after some time is more likely for two reasons:

-First, JP Holding quotes a non-Christian author that the Greek for dying headlong "prenes genomenos" is very close to dying swollen "presthes genomenos". (I haven't been able to find "presthes" but the next point can still stand on its own)

-Second, there is a tradition about the death of Judas from Papias quoted by Theophylact (I don't really know the date, and the name of his work is supposed to be �cumenius; see: this ):

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

Even if this doesn't go to Papias (if it did then the case would be very solid), it begs the question why someone would produce such a tradition that went against a death by "falling headlong and bursting out guts."(being more swollen than a chariot is likely an embellishment as is the passing through him of one)

JP Holding also says that this reading is found in later Syriac, Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts, but questions its authenticity; suffice to say, the Greek would have become corrupted much easier and such are our earliest manuscripts so the fact that these other languages have this is not at all weightless in this case.

It is therefore very possible that Judas hung himself on a tree somewhere in that field and after the body swelled a lot, the rope broke, and his body burst all over the field, and this is not impossible seeing how he had to be above the ground by some distance to hang himself in the first place. He may have even burst not because of the fall but because the gases couldn't be held by his body. Swelling due to a different type of death? There was an ancient Greek, Heraclitus, who ate only grass and herbs that caught dropsy and died swollen, but that would be ad hoc. Even if any death would produce swelling, there is no reason to deny that Judas could have hung himself, become swollen and have guts burst out making that field famous. If anyone thinks that Acts should have mentioned Judas' death by hanging, I can only wonder why, since it is not a detailed story but a condensed review, and its only purpose was to explain the name Field of Blood which Peter in Acts 1:20 connects with.

3. When was the field bought?

In my opinion neither can be said to give a chronology, but Matthew seems to imply Judas killed himself before the field was bought. Acts doesn't really have a strict demand that Judas die on the field after it was bought; there it is merely a recounting, not a story such as Matthew and so it is not at all impossible that the reason in Acts 1 the buying of the field occurs before Judas' death is to not disrupt the flow.

4. Why was it called the Field of Blood?

I'm pretty sure this is the most pressing question; either this or the one after it. Matthew clearly says that the field was called Field of Blood because it was bought with blood money, and Acts clearly says that it was called so because of the bursting of guts by Judas. There is no avoiding this, but the answer is simple: both are true. The way that both explanations are true is that while Acts describes the actual reason that people called it the Field of Blood, Matthew gives us the divine: Matthew is not telling us that the people started calling it the Field of Blood because the people found out that it was bought with blood money; how would anyone know this? On the contrary, Matthew is telling us that the reason that ultimately the field was called the Field of Blood is because it was bought with such money, and thus God assigned to it this name through Judas' death on it. Proof from this is the ending of the quotation by Matthew: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me." (NIV) Certainly God didn't directly tell the priests to go and buy this field, but it was ordained to be so; in the same way it was ordained that the field be called Field of Blood because of the type of money that bought it (and how deserving, seeing this money is the blood money of none other than Christ Himself).

5. How did Judas happen to die on that field?

JP Holding asks this as well, and answers, "Once Judas blew his spare tire in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery." This is not unreasonable. Of course, if the field was to be named Field of Blood due to God's decision, it might not be a coincidence at all; perhaps Judas saw the right tree on that field, later being purchased unknowingly or not by the priests from the potter. The only thing that would be left is to answer the charge that Matthew's silence on the location of Judas' death and the reason of buying a field somehow being due to it being a potter's field as well as to be a burial ground for foreigners. But these can be explained in light of Matthew's wanting to connect it with the prophecy he quotes, thus nothing contradicts the two accounts being accurate.

Also, some points raised by skeptics:

-Acts copied Judas' death from 2 Maccabees 9 which is about Antiochus Epiphanes IV. Firstly, Antiochus Epiphanes does not die there, and repents, and it is outlined that it is a punishment by God. The fall is a dismemberment, not a gushing out of bowels which is likely not the type of death Judas died in the original Acts 1.

-Judas' death in Acts is Luke fictionalizing it from the "new skins parable" (Luke 5:37). The reasoning is that Judas did not follow the "new law" that Jesus established and was under the "old." First, the note of Judas' death is brief and unemphasized, and there is nothing in the text that can be said it points to connecting this death with the new wineskins parable. Second, if Acts says anything it is that the old was impossible to successfully follow rather than the new (Acts 15:10). Third, the word for burst in Luke 5:37 is not the same as Acts 1:18. If what is meant is that Judas was like the Temple priests and was against Jesus, then one still has to explain why Judas would buy a field in Jerusalem, where he probably didn't live, and further has to discredit that Judas was remorseful in Matthew 27; something that is almost sympathetic to a betrayer and that would hardly be included if not true. If it is said that this was invented to have Judas hang himself, perhaps a humiliation, it has to be explained why there is so little emphasis on his death; it is brushed off and the focus seems to be on the fulfillment of the prophecy by the buying of the field (all that would have been needed would be for Judas to want a greater reward and end up being arrested for some fictitious charge and thus losing his money to them). But in any case, the death of Judas in Acts being created by Luke out of the wineskins parable has no support except the fictitious "new vs old law" being represented by the wineskins and the obvious bursting.

when retelling his story in Chapter 22 (and 26), is incorrect when he says that his companions didn't hear the voice (and perhaps on other matters of difference), and Luke is merely quoting him. Does this mean that Paul was lying or unreliable? No, it means that he was misinformed at the time of his speeches in Chapters 22/26. We cannot simply assume that Paul had the correct information, and the possibility exists, for example, that his companions did not tell him that they had heard the voice. Indeed, they may have DENIED hearing it, both to Paul and in his presence, for fear of the implications of what they had heard.