Matthew XXVII 5-8. Acts I iS-ip.
AND HANGED HIMSELF. TAIN ED A FIELD WITH AND THE CHIEF PRIESTS THE REWARD OF HIS TOOK THE PIECES OF INIQUITY | AND FALLING SILVER, AND SAID, " IT IS HEADLONG, HE BURST- NOT LAWFUL TO PUT ASUNDER IN THE MIDST, THEM INTO THE TREASURY, AND ALL HIS BOWELS SINCE IT IS THE PRICE OF GUSHED OUT. AND IT BE-
368 Chronology of Early Church Histo?y. Chap. XVI.
FIELD OF BLOOD, UNTO BLOOD. THIS DAY.
There can be no hesitation in accepting the vivid and detailed description which Matthew gives of this incident. But, if so, the account given in Acts cannot be accepted as having any claim to trustworthiness in any point of discrepancy. The character of this account is marked, and its origin obvious. It is a growth of popular fancy and tradition, which preserved the main facts, viz., the connection between the name, Field of Blood, and the price paid to the betrayer. But it is characteristic of popular tradition, while it preserves some central fact, to overlay it with fanciful accretions, which often conceal completely the historical kernel. In this case, we have the tale arrested at an early point in its growth, when its elements are still separable. The name Field of Blood had to be explained suitably to the remembered fact that it was bought with the betrayer's reward ; but its meaning was mistaken. Popular fancy always craves for justice ; it connected the name with the betrayer's punishment, took the Blood, which formed one element of the name, as the betrayer's blood, and evolved a myth which united fact and retributory justice in a moral apologue.
It is a remarkable thing that popular tradition should so soon distort a tale so simple and so impressive. But oriental tradition never clings to fact with anything like
Sec. 2. Trustworthiness of the Narrative, I- V. 369
the same tenacity as Greek tradition ; and we know how much even the latter distorts and covers over the facts that it preserves. The oriental mind has little or nothing of the proper historical tone. It remembers facts, not for their own value, but for the lesson they can convey. It substitutes the moral apologue for history in the strict sense of the term, craving for the former, and possessing little regard for the latter. It acts with great rapidity, transforming the memory of the past within the lapse of a few years ; and probably those who know the East best will find least difficulty in believing that the story which Luke here gives might have been told him, when the Field of Blood was pointed out to him at Jerusalem in 57 A.D.
But in this rapid transformation of fact in Eastern popular tradition lies the best safeguard of the historical student against it. He rarely needs to doubt, as he often must in Greece, whether any narrative is history or mere popular tradition. Greek tradition often has such a natural appear- ance that it is hard to say where fact ends and fancy begins. But oriental tradition is so free in its creation, so unfettered by any thought of suitability in the accessories, that it is marked off from history by a broad and deep gap. By history we mean narrative founded on documents that are nearly contemporary with the actual facts, or on the accounts of eye-witnesses, not implying that " history " must be absolutely true. To give a true account even of a single incident that one has actually participated in is not within the power of all, for it needs education, skill in selec- tion, and an eye to distinguish the relative importance of different points. To give a true account of a long series of incidents is, of course, much more difficult No history is
absolutely true ; all give accounts that are more or less
24
370 Chronology of Early Church History. Chap. XVI.