Featured Matthew 27:9-10 cites Jeremiah.

Interesting, I don't recall hearing that explanation before. Probably the most common explanation I have heard is the one quoted below (from the Pulpit Commentary).

I don't find the Pulpit Commentary explanation especially satisfactory, and have personally been satisfied with the fact that Matthew said Jeremiah spoke it (as opposed to writing it). This is too simplistic for most folks (since Matthew uses "spoken by the prophet" in reference to things that are also written), but I don't mind simple things.

I notice Matthew quotes Zechariah at least two other times (21:4–5; 26:31), but does not associate the name of a specific prophet with those.

 

in the "original" Gospel that Matthew actually wrote, it would have read "Ζαχαρίου", instead of "Ἰερεμίου", which is the reading of some manuscripts and early Versions of the NT. "Ζαχαρίου" was the reading known as early as Origen, who lived in the 3rd century, and known also to the other great scholar, Jerome, and his friend Augustine. The reading "Ἰερεμίου" is obviously a "copyist error", like that found in Mark 1:2-3, where now versions read, "ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ", "Isaiah the Prophet", though there are two OT Prophecies here, one by Isaiah, and the other by Malachi. The KJV rightly reads "ἐν τοῖς προφήταις", "in the Prophets", which has very strong textual evidence. The former reading is an obvious "copyist error".

 

again, this could well be due to "copyist error", as there is some early evidence for Matthew 21:4, reading "Ζαχαρίου προφήτου] Mmg 42 ita itc ith copbo(ms) Hilary", which the Old Latin Version, which dates from the 2nd century, and made from Greek manuscripts, actually reads, "Zechariah the Prophet". In 26:31 Matthew does not mention the name of the Prophet Zechariah, but this is no problem, as in Matthew 2:5, we read, "And they said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet", and Jesus Himself says in Matthew 4:4, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", where He does not name where these words are from.

 

37818, why would it "sound plausible" when *not one* printed Greek NT of any type (critical text, TR, majority text) has ever accepted the "Zechariah" reading — one that was obviously created by a very few scribes in an attempt to alleviate the perceived difficulty?

 

No "plausible", but fact! Firstly, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of the Original Autographs to have ANY mistakes in them, as they were given by God the Holy Spirit, Who is PERFECT. What is at stake here, is the very Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy, of the Word of God!

There are some people who are "hung-up" of the textual evidence that is found in Greek manuscripts, as if these COPIES are equally Inspired by the Holy Spirit! There are places in the New Testament, where there are quotations from the Old Testament, that do not mention the name of the OT Prophet, or Book by name.

We only have two options for the quotation in Matthew 27:7, where most versions read "Ἰερεμίου". Firstly, we accept the reading that dates from around the 2nd century in the Diatessaron of Titian, which is a Harmony of the Gospels, and made from the Greek New Testament at this time, where he has it, "Therein was fulfilled the saying in the prophet which said, I took thirty pieces of money". There is no name of any Prophet used. This reading is also supported by some Old Latin manuscripts, which are also 2nd century, and also manuscripts of the later Latin Vulgate by Jerome in the 4th century. Also the Syriac, Coptic, etc. Secondly, the reading of some Old Latin manuscripts which predate the greater majority of the Greek mss, which do read "Ζαχαρίου", is accepted as the original. The fact that this reading was known to the Greek scholar, Origen, as well as to the Greek and Latin scholar, Jerome, and the high authority Augustine, is noteworthy, and cannot be dismissed by anyone who is serious about the true text of the Bible. One thing we do know for sure, that the HolyBible in the Original Autographs, are 100% without ANY error, and FULLY Trustworthy as THE Word of Almighty God!

For those who only are interested in what the Greek manuscript "evidence" says, I shall give one important textual example. The famous "Pericope Adulterae", which is the account in the Gospel of John, of the woman caught in adultery, found in 7:53-8:11, which is in the KJV, but either omitted in modern versions, or the words are placed within brackets. The oldest Greek manuscript the does have this account, is The Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis (D), and of the 5th century. However, about 100 years earlier, the scholar Jerome, who produced the Latin Vulgate from Greek manuscripts, and who had access to many such manuscripts, says that the account is found in "many manuscripts both Greek and Latin" (C. Pelag, ii, 17). As does Augustine. What of these "MANY" Greek manuscripts? Are we to assume that Jerome was mistaken or even lying? Whatever for, as he was just reporting as it was at his time! We do know that many manuscrips were destroyed, and we are discovering new ones even in our time.

People can believe what they like, but when it comes to the Infallibility of the Holy Bible in the Original Autographs, I do NOT agree with those who suppose with ZERO evidence, that any reading was "created" by copyists, or that the "accepted" reading, even though WRONG, is somehow the right one!

 

so you think that the Bible has ERRORS? This is exactly what it means by accepting the reading "Ἰερεμίου", instead of "Ζαχαρίου". There are NO other options here, if you have one, then present it. Don't criticize me on textual studies, as your own posts which are on here, show that you have not the first clue about this! PROVE me wrong!

 

Like your post on "Silly Translation", which I have well countered to be wrong, which others have still tried to show where my understanding is wrong, but have failed!

 

answer my simple question. Does the Bible in reading "Jeremaiah", as some suppose to be the original reading, make this an error, or not? simple yes or no will do! Again, show where I am wrong, especially in #7

 

again, you don't answer the question. do YOU accept the reading of Matthew 27:9, as "Jeremaiah", which is found in most versions, as being what the Apostle Matthew wrote, as Inspired by God the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

 

not there! show me?

 

the WORD happens to be masculine, it does NOT follow that in every instance, it should mean "male". The Greek word "ἄνθρωπος" is a masculine noun. so, so we always translate this as "male" even though there are many instances where it definitely includes females? Genesis 1:27 reads "So God created man in His own image", where in the LXX, "man" is "ἄνθρωπος", does this mean that only "males" are created in the "Image of God", and not "females"?

I am still waiting for your clear response to Matthew 27:9?

 

so the Holy Spirit, according to you, made a MISTAKE, because this quotation is NOT from Jeremiah, but clearly is Zachariah! Can you not see the problem here with the "traditional" reading? It is from the devil so that people can say that the Word of God is not Perfect, as it has blatant errors!!!