MCWAY explained it, but maybe this will help you further (from lookinguntojesus.com)
Luke indicates that Judas purchased it, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is not a contradiction, but a difference of perspective. Indeed, the chief priests conducted the transaction for the field, however, it was not with their money. Nor would they have claimed the money. In verse 6, the abominable nature of this money is spoken of. They would not permit it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of in some fashion. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field (nor did they want the money or the field). The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was his field.
There is no contradiction.
Said another way, if Luke (or anyone else) consulted a record or deed to find out who the owner of that field was, that owner would be Judas Iscariot.
Judas did not buy the field. the Priests did.
Judas did not decide to buy the field. The Priest did.
Therefore the priests bought the field not Judas.
I see what you are getting at, but it's a incorrect statement or a contradiction. The field was bought with Judas's money but not with his decision. So to say Judas bought the field is incorrect. It's not a matter of perspective it's a matter of meaning.
If i, for example donated money for the specific purpose to buy a field then it might be said i bought the field even thought someone used my money to buy it, my money was given for that purpose. If i gave money to a chairty and they bought a bike, i did not buy that bike, the charity did.
However, Judas threw the money at the temple and then killed him self. he did not buy the field.
Your point from the charity analogy is well-taken. However, there's one major difference between that analogy and the situation with Judas. The key word is "give (gave, given, etc.)
In your analogy, if you give the money and the charity accepts the money; thus anything purchased with it, at that point, belongs to the charity.
However, as is stated in Matthew's gospel, the priese DID NOT accept Judas' silver, because it was blood money. You can't give someone something, unless that someone accepts it. The field was bought with Judas' money, procured by Judas' treachery of betraying Jesus.
If the priests could have legally and ritualistically taken that money, I'll go out on a limb and say that the last thing to be purchased would be an empty field to bury dead people. They did that, for the aforementioned reasons. It was blood money, paid to a traitor who admitted to shedding innocent blood. The priests could have nothing to do with that. And, that ancient society of Israel was cognizant of that fact. Therefore, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with such) belongs to that traitor, which is why Luke's stating that Judas bought that field is not contradictory to what Matthew stated. Matthew simply gives more details, concerning the issue.
