Would the people who heard Matthew's account of what was done with the 30 silver pieces have understood that to be a hypocritical act by the chief priests?
6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
I mean the chief priests had given Judas the 30 silver pieces as the price of delivering up Jesus and then they cannot put the money back in the treasury because it's blood money. I don't doubt that's a bit hypocritical of them but would the listeners of Matthew's time have understood it as hypocritical or simply conforming with the law? Is there some irony there that would have been evident to Matthew's audience?