1. Chicagoans are braggarts.
2. Chicago politicians talk a lot.
3. Chicago has especially gusty weather.
4. Cincinnati had the name first (which is true), and Chicago stole it out of civic rivalry. Cincinnati had the name because of _its_ gusty weather.
5. The Editor of the New York Sun used the term as an insult to Chicago when Chicago beat out New York for the 1893 World’s Fair (perhaps a variant of #1).

Now, is it true that one of these reasons are correct and all the rest are incorrect? That’s what I find far-fetched. What seems obvious to me is that different speakers have different reasons for calling it the Windy City.

It is no doubt true that at most one of these reasons was the _first_ reason given for calling Chicago the Windy City. But that’s really neither here nor there. New Yorkers that lived back in the 1890s probably called it the Windy City for reason #5. I’ve lived in Chicago and I called it the Windy City because its…windy. Others probably have or have had other reasons for using that title to name the city.

Luke may well call the potter’s field “the field of blood” because of Judas’ well-known bloody end there. Matthew may call it the field of blood because of it’s having been purchased with the reward of Judas’ bloody treachery. That’s not a contradiction or even odd. Luke has his reason Matthew has his reason…and that’s all.

Or is the claim that what is far-fetched is the coincidence that the same field that Judas died in was the very field that the priests happened to purchase with the blood money? Inerrantists would probably call that _Providence_ rather than coincidence.

There’s more mileage in the idea that Acts agrees with Matthew that the field was named for the manner of its purchase, but that isn’t the simplest reading of the text.

On the simplest reading of the text, Acts does conflict with Matthew, so this does look like an error to me, even if it isn’t one that can be proven beyond all doubt.