Your response to a question about Acts 1:18 is “silly” and it ignores the meaning of the word houtos.

Posted on May 29, 2026 by Dr. John Oakes wrote in General, Q & A, Supposed Inconsistencies in the Bible.

Editor’s note: Both the question and my response refer back to an earlier Q & A here: earlier question

Question:

Hello Dr. Oakes, in a recent Q&A you address the contradiction in the accounts of the death of Judas, but you and the asker both failed to mention another contradiction in the story, they give two different explanations for the naming of the Field of Blood. Matthew reports that it was so named because the field was purchased with blood money, while Acts reports that it was because that was the field in which his body exploded.
I also find your explanation for who purchased the field to be, frankly, silly. The previous 2 verses are explicitly about Judas, and you believe the second half of 18 is also about Judas, yet you say that first half of 18 is referring to some unnamed man that was never mentioned before or ever mentioned again?
Even if we ignore how illogical that is in terms of narrative, it’s an ungrammatical interpretation. The word you say is referring to another man is the word “this (one)”. The word “this” is only used when the referent has already been made known, and the only person mentioned in the passage is Judas. The passage explicitly introduces Judas as “the (one)”, so it only makes grammatical and logical sense that the later reference to “this (one)” is about Judas, and it precludes the possibility it could be referring to some unknown party.

Answer:

You have a point in your analysis of Acts 1:18. The relevant Greek word is houtos. When used as a pronoun it means, in essence, “his,” as a reference to an already-mentioned person. When it is used as an adverb, however, it means, in essence, “in this way.” I am not sure if the word is being used as a pronoun or as an adverb here, but I am trying to figure out how his body could have burst open if he simply tripped and fell, and I am trying to figure out what conceivable reason Judas would have used the 30 pieces of silver to buy a potter’s field. If we take what Matthew said at his word, then we have a rational explanation, both of why Judas’ body burst open, and why the field was bought. You raise a legitimate issue with the word houtos, but I raise a legitimate issue with the buying of the field and the bursting open of the body. It is over-the-top, in my opinion, to call my explanation “silly,” given that there is at least some ambiguity about whether the word houtos is being used as a pronoun or an adverb, and given the connecting facts that Luke is providing us. If you look at my answer to the question, I mention the possible difficulty (noting, for example, that if you just read Luke, you would reach the conclusion you are reaching). I am not unaware of the issue you raise, and I did not simply ignore it. However, in your response you ignore the other issues I raise regarding why the field would have been purchased, and why the body would have burst open, both of which are reasonably explained by Matthew, and you insist that there is only one possibility for houtos, which I believe is not absolutely certain.

So, would you be willing to consider the other issues I raise, and would you consider that the grammar is not quite as slam-dunk as you imply? Up to you, but this feels like a useful discussion to me.

On a side note, I did some quick research on the word in question. I found this on biblehub https://biblehub.com/greek/3779.htm For what it is worth, it seems to favor the meaning “in this manner” or “thus” for the word houtos. Again, I am very far from a Greek grammar expert, but it seems to me that your insistence that it can only be used as a pronoun seems a bit forced. I will accept that the context of Acts 1:18 favors your interpretation, which explains why some less-literal translations actually mention Judas, but surrounding facts make this meaning less certain. Both of our biases may be in play here!

About the reason for the naming of the field, two things can both be true at the same time. Potential conflict? I suppose, but actual contradiction? I believe not.

John Oakes