Matthew 27:9-10 cites Jeremiah.

[Deacon]

I spent a bit of time this morning looking through various commentaries.
I'll present some small portions of two commentaries I found most helpful.

The first is from Donald A. Hagner's 2 volume set on Matthew in Word Biblical Commentary (I've reformatted the passage for my clarity)

Scholars have suggested the following possibilities, listed here in what is in my opinion an ascending order of probability:

(1) the quotation is derived from an apocryphal book of Jeremiah (Origen; Jerome; Lohmeyer; Strecker, Weg);
(2) the passage in question is in fact Jer 19:1–13 (E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, reprint [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1956] 4:40–45; Gundry; Senior; Moo, “Traditions,” who admits it is “the least obvious reference” [161]; Carson);
(3) “Jeremiah” means “the prophets” collectively since in some canonical lists the book of Jeremiah stands at the head of the prophets (Str-B 1:1030; Sparks; Sutcliffe);
(4) the Zechariah and Jeremiah passages in question were already associated by the early church and perhaps—although the hypothesis does not depend on this—conflated in a collection of testimonia under Jeremiah’s name, which Matthew made use of (Findlay; Bruce, BJRL 43 [1960–61] 341).

The first solution is of necessity pure speculation;
the second depends on similarities too general in nature;
and the third is based on insufficient evidence.
[SNIP]
Matthew is unconcerned about a number of details that do not correspond,
e.g., that in Zechariah the prophet takes the money while in Matthew the evil chief priests take the money; that in Matthew the priests do not put the money into the temple treasury while in Zechariah the money is cast into “the house of the Lord.”
Instead, because of the important role played by Zech 9–14 in the polemic of the early church, Matthew all the more confidently bases his argument on the quotation of Zech 11:12–13 (for the generative function of the text in explaining the pericope, see R. E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 657–60).

What Judas and the Jewish authorities did had already been anticipated by the prophets. The narrative in effect identifies Jesus as the good shepherd-prophet of Zechariah and at the same time contrasts him with the chief priests, the evil sheep-owners (thus van Tilborg).

Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 815.
​

Douglas Moo's article, referenced in the above, can be accessed at this link => TRADITION AND OLD TESTAMENT IN MATT 27:3-10

​

The second helpful commentary I read is by Craig Blomberg in the The New American Commentary, Matthew, vol. 22,

Matthew, however, tells the story of Judas’s suicide more for the opportunity to cite another fulfillment of Scripture (v. 9a). Verses 9b–10 most closely resemble Zech 11:12–13, with its reference to thirty pieces of silver thrown into the house of the Lord to the potter. But Matthew attributes the citation to Jeremiah. Many commentators thus point to Jer 32:6–9, in which Jeremiah buys a field for seventeen shekels of silver. Better still, however, is the interpretation which sees Jer 19:1–13 in Matthew’s mind, especially with its references to “the blood of the innocent” (v. 4), the “potter” (vv. 1, 11), the renaming of a place in the Valley of Hinnom (v. 6), violence (v. 1), and the judgment and burial by God of the Jewish leaders (v. 11). Matthew is again employing typology and combining allusions to texts in both Jeremiah and Zechariah. As Smith explains of the latter, “Although no strict messianic view should be seen in the original passage, the quality of leadership is its central theme.” The Israelites reject their good leaders (Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Jesus) and therefore suffer under bad ones. What Smith says of the passage in Zechariah applies to Jeremiah as well. Matthew apparently sees references to both passages (and possibly also alludes to Jer 18:2–3) but follows a standard literary convention of his day by referring only to one source (in this case, the more obscure, though probably also the more important one). Compare Mark 1:2, in which Mark conflates quotations from Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1 (and possibly Exod 23:20) but cites only Isaiah by name.

Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 408–409.​

Rob

​

 

[37818]

which part is not from Scripture?

An unBiblical repentance. One cannot produce Scripture for it. Not in John.

 

[SavedByGrace]

An unBiblical repentance. One cannot produce Scripture for it. Not in John.

is that right? Jesus Christ, Who is the Highest Authority, says this, " and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). The Apostle Peter, in his first Sermon, says this, "Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:37-38). In the following chapter, "Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out" (3:19). You saying that there passages are not relevant? Just because ONE Book in the NT does not mention the word "repent", you can conclude that "repentance for forgiveness" is not Biblical? This SAME Apostle says in his First Letter, " If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins (REPENT), he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (1:8-10). Two Books in the OT, Esther and The Song of Solomon, do not mention the word "God" once, do we conclude that God does not exist from this? Your reasoning here, like elsewhere, is MOOT!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I spent a bit of time this morning looking through various commentaries.
I'll present some small portions of two commentaries I found most helpful.

The first is from Donald A. Hagner's 2 volume set on Matthew in Word Biblical Commentary (I've reformatted the passage for my clarity)

Scholars have suggested the following possibilities, listed here in what is in my opinion an ascending order of probability:

(1) the quotation is derived from an apocryphal book of Jeremiah (Origen; Jerome; Lohmeyer; Strecker, Weg);
(2) the passage in question is in fact Jer 19:1–13 (E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, reprint [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1956] 4:40–45; Gundry; Senior; Moo, “Traditions,” who admits it is “the least obvious reference” [161]; Carson);
(3) “Jeremiah” means “the prophets” collectively since in some canonical lists the book of Jeremiah stands at the head of the prophets (Str-B 1:1030; Sparks; Sutcliffe);
(4) the Zechariah and Jeremiah passages in question were already associated by the early church and perhaps—although the hypothesis does not depend on this—conflated in a collection of testimonia under Jeremiah’s name, which Matthew made use of (Findlay; Bruce, BJRL 43 [1960–61] 341).

The first solution is of necessity pure speculation;
the second depends on similarities too general in nature;
and the third is based on insufficient evidence.
[SNIP]
Matthew is unconcerned about a number of details that do not correspond,
e.g., that in Zechariah the prophet takes the money while in Matthew the evil chief priests take the money; that in Matthew the priests do not put the money into the temple treasury while in Zechariah the money is cast into “the house of the Lord.”
Instead, because of the important role played by Zech 9–14 in the polemic of the early church, Matthew all the more confidently bases his argument on the quotation of Zech 11:12–13 (for the generative function of the text in explaining the pericope, see R. E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 657–60).

What Judas and the Jewish authorities did had already been anticipated by the prophets. The narrative in effect identifies Jesus as the good shepherd-prophet of Zechariah and at the same time contrasts him with the chief priests, the evil sheep-owners (thus van Tilborg).

Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 815.
​

Douglas Moo's article, referenced in the above, can be accessed at this link => TRADITION AND OLD TESTAMENT IN MATT 27:3-10

​

The second helpful commentary I read is by Craig Blomberg in the The New American Commentary, Matthew, vol. 22,

Matthew, however, tells the story of Judas’s suicide more for the opportunity to cite another fulfillment of Scripture (v. 9a). Verses 9b–10 most closely resemble Zech 11:12–13, with its reference to thirty pieces of silver thrown into the house of the Lord to the potter. But Matthew attributes the citation to Jeremiah. Many commentators thus point to Jer 32:6–9, in which Jeremiah buys a field for seventeen shekels of silver. Better still, however, is the interpretation which sees Jer 19:1–13 in Matthew’s mind, especially with its references to “the blood of the innocent” (v. 4), the “potter” (vv. 1, 11), the renaming of a place in the Valley of Hinnom (v. 6), violence (v. 1), and the judgment and burial by God of the Jewish leaders (v. 11). Matthew is again employing typology and combining allusions to texts in both Jeremiah and Zechariah. As Smith explains of the latter, “Although no strict messianic view should be seen in the original passage, the quality of leadership is its central theme.” The Israelites reject their good leaders (Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Jesus) and therefore suffer under bad ones. What Smith says of the passage in Zechariah applies to Jeremiah as well. Matthew apparently sees references to both passages (and possibly also alludes to Jer 18:2–3) but follows a standard literary convention of his day by referring only to one source (in this case, the more obscure, though probably also the more important one). Compare Mark 1:2, in which Mark conflates quotations from Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1 (and possibly Exod 23:20) but cites only Isaiah by name.

Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 408–409.​

Rob

​

all these people are doing is making excuses, rather than actually dealing with facts. The evidence for Zachariah is also early, 3rd century, and for no name of any Prophet here, dates even earlier. Jeremiah is an impossibe reading, as this clearly makes the Bible to have "error".

 

[Deacon]

all these people are doing is making excuses, rather than actually dealing with facts. The evidence for Zachariah is also early, 3rd century, and for no name of any Prophet here, dates even earlier. Jeremiah is an impossibe reading, as this clearly makes the Bible to have "error".

One version (Syriac Harclean), a translation/revision in Old Syriac, has the note “Zechariah” in the margin.
You’re really going with that as the answer to the problem?

Rob

 

[SavedByGrace]

One manuscript (Syriac Harclean), a translation in Syriac, has the note “Zechariah” in the margin.
You’re really going with that as the answer to the problem?

Rob

the textual evidence is Ζαχαρίου] 22 l858(1/2) syrh (mg) arm mss Origen latcomm; Jerome comm; Augustine comm

This give us the reading in the early 3rd century, with the high authority of two of the leading textual scholars in the early Church, Origen and Jerome.

The Old Latin Version which is 2nd century, omits any Prophet's name, as does the earlier Diatessaron; as does the Latin Vulgate mss; Syriac (S, P), Coptic (Bo. mss), etc.

As I have said, the reading Ἰερεμίου, is not just a difficult one, but impossible, as it shows a clear error in the quotation, and none of the "explanations" provided really help. I 100% believe in an Infallible and Inerrant Original Bible, which I am sure that you do. This means zero mistakes in the Holy Bible, only "copyist errors".

 

[rlvaughn]

"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.

Do you have the references to these places in Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, which would make it easy to locate them without wading through numerous writings? Thanks!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do you have the references to these places in Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, which would make it easy to locate them without wading through numerous writings? Thanks!

from The Greek New Testament, United Bible Society, 4th edition

 

[Deacon]

Inerrancy is not a new doctrine. This passage has perplexed readers over the ages.
The few examples of manuscripts that stray from using Jeremiah probably were transcribed by copyists felt just the way you do and they “corrected” the original.
Origen wrote of how he “corrected” portions he felt were in err.
But Manuscript evidence overwhelmingly attests to Jeremiah.

all these people are doing is making excuses, rather than actually dealing with facts.

Personally I would rather search for other explanations than rely upon the spotty evidence for something other than Jeremiah.

Rob

 

[SavedByGrace]

Inerrancy is not a new doctrine. This passage has perplexed readers over the ages.
The few examples of manuscripts that stray from using Jeremiah probably were transcribed by copyists felt just the way you do and they “corrected” the original.
Origen wrote of how he “corrected” portions he felt were in err.
But Manuscript evidence overwhelmingly attests to Jeremiah.

Personally I would rather search for other explanations than rely upon the spotty evidence for something other than Jeremiah.

Rob

Why? don't you think that the Bible does have "copyist errors"? Would you rather accept a reading that shows error in the Infallible Bible? For the end of Colossians 2:2, there are over TEN variant readings. The accepted Greek text is based on TWO Greek manuscripts, and TWO Latin early Church Fathers, and zero Greek!

 

[SavedByGrace]

copyists felt just the way you do and they “corrected” the origina

you are just assuming this!

 

[Deacon]

you are just assuming this!

...sorta like you are assuming the reading "Jeremiah" is an err.

It certainly doesn't fit our modern documentation standards but times were different and standards change.

Rob

 

[SavedByGrace]

...sorta like you are assuming the reading "Jeremiah" is an err.

where do the words in Matthew come from?

 

[Deacon]

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved undermine the truth claims of the Bible.

 

[SavedByGrace]

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved undermine the truth claims of the Bible.

Matthew 27:9 as in the "accepted" versions that read Jeremiah, is yet not "resolved", and makes this reading an "error" in the Original. No amount of human reasoning can solve this, as it is a fact, that the words quoted by Matthew, come from, not Jeremiah, but Zechariah. The "soultions" are absurd, like this one:

"Still another suggestion has been that perhaps other writings from the prophet Jeremiah existed in Matthew’s time, and those writings mentioned the 30 pieces of silver"

This is nothing but conjecture to try to "solve" this error, rather than accept that what Origen, Jerome and Augustine saw in their Greek and Latin New Testaments, "Zechariah", is the right one.

Btw, are you KJVO?

 

[rlvaughn]

View attachment 4475

from The Greek New Testament, United Bible Society, 4th edition

Thanks. I appreciate it.

"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.

From what I have been able to ferret out, these witness do not testify to Ζαχαρίου being the reading known to them -- unless there is something more that you know of that I cannot find. First, Augustine addressed this in his De Consensu Evangeliorum (Harmony of the Gospels). Augustine does not claim any readings with Zechariah, only that there are some codices which have "by the prophet" rather than mentioning the name of Jeremiah. However, Augustine does not accept that as the better reading, stating that "a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah" and that name is found "in the more ancient Greek exemplars."

Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken by the prophet. It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken by the prophet, saying, which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defense, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah. Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, Book 3, Chapter 7

Augustine goes on to discuss his thoughts on this quite a bit more, which can be read at the link provided. I have copied the above which relates to whether or not Augustine found the reading of Ζαχαρίου in any texts he had.

 

[rlvaughn]

As to the testimony of Jerome, I had more difficulty. Apparently the only reference to this by him is in his Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei (Commentary on Matthew). I did not find his commentary online translated into English. However, I found his Latin quoted in A Study of the Old Testament Quote in Matthew 27:9, 10, thusly:

Hoc testimonium in Hieremia non invenitur, in Zacharia vero qui paene ultimus duodecim prophetarum est, quaedam similitudo fertur et quamquam sensus non multum discrepet, tamen et ordo et verba diuersa sunt. Legi nuper in quodam hebraico volumine quem Nazarenae secta mihi Hebraeus obtulit Hieremiae apocryphum in quo haec ad verbum scripta repperi. Sed tamen mihi videtur magis de Zacharia sumptum testimonium, evangelistarum et apostolorum more vulgato qui verborum ordine praetermisso sensus tantum de veteri testamento proferunt in exemplum.

I am no student of Latin, but with the help of an online translator, I hobbled along and came up with this:

This witness in Jeremiah is not found. However, something similar is in Zechariah, almost the last of the twelve prophets. There is a lot of variation and the order and the wording are different, though not in disagreement [i.e. with Matthew]. Recently I read in a Hebrew volume that one of the Hebrews of the sect of Nazarenes offered me -- an apocryphal book of Jeremiah, where this was written verbatim. But, nevertheless, to me, it seems to be more likely taken from Zechariah's testimony, with the Evangelists' and the Apostles' common style of taking a sense of the Old Testament without following the order of the words, for example.

[Someone on the BB who knows Latin could give us a better translation.] Again, unless there is something else written by Jerome, he does not claim the text is found in any Greek text, only that he says it is not in Jeremiah and is in Zechariah. He also makes the unusual claim that a Hebrew gave him an apocryphal book of Jeremiah that had the words of Matthew in the very order Matthew gave them. Finally, it seems the testimony of his Vulgate translation is that Jerome accepted "Jeremiah" as the original reading:

Matthaeus 27:9 Tunc impletum est quod dictum est per Jeremiam prophetam, dicentem: Et acceperunt triginta argenteos pretium appretiati, quem appretiaverunt a filiis Israel: [emp. mine]

 

[SavedByGrace]

As to the testimony of Jerome, I had more difficulty. Apparently the only reference to this by him is in his Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei (Commentary on Matthew). I did not find his commentary online translated into English. However, I found his Latin quoted in A Study of the Old Testament Quote in Matthew 27:9, 10, thusly: I am no student of Latin, but with the help of an online translator, I hobbled along and came up with this: [Someone on the BB who knows Latin could give us a better translation.] Again, unless there is something else written by Jerome, he does not claim the text is found in any Greek text, only that he says it is not in Jeremiah and is in Zechariah. He also makes the unusual claim that a Hebrew gave him an apocryphal book of Jeremiah that had the words of Matthew in the very order Matthew gave them. Finally, it seems the testimony of his Vulgate translation is that Jerome accepted "Jeremiah" as the original reading:

Thanks for your posts, I have the same information as you, with a couple of others that are helpful. One a long one on the text by Jerome, and another by Cyril of Jerusalem, where he simply says, "The Prophet says"

Jerome, To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating. Again in Matthewhen the thirty pieces of silver are returned by the traitor Judas and the potter’s field is purchased with them, it is written:—“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken of by Jeremy the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver the price of him that was valued which they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.’” This passage is not found in Jeremiah at all but in Zechariah, in quite different words and an altogether different order. In fact the Vulgate renders it as follows:—“And I will say unto them, If it is good in your sight, give ye me a price or refuse it: So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Put them into the melting furnace and consider if it is tried as I have been tried by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the house of the Lord.” It is evident that the rendering of the Septuagint differs widely from the quotation of the evangelist. In the Hebrew also, though the sense is the same, the words are quite different and differently arranged. It says: “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and, if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said
unto me, Cast it unto the potter; a goodly price that I was priced at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.” They may accuse the apostle of falsifying his version seeing that it agrees neither with the Hebrew nor with the translators of the Septuagint: and worse than this, they may say that he has mistaken the author’s name putting down Jeremiah when it should be Zechariah."

Also from Jerome:

"You observe that He was appraised by the traitor’s covetousness at thirty pieces of silver. Of this also the Prophet speaks, “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price, or if not, forbear;” and presently, “I received from them,” he says, “thirty pieces of silver, and I cast them into the house of the Lord, into the foundry.”- Jerome Comm on Apostles Creed, sec xx

Cyril of Jerusalem, On the words, Crucified and Buried.

“How exact the prophecy! how great and unerring the wisdom of the Holy Ghost! For he said, not ten, nor twenty, but thirty, exactly as many as there were. Tell also what becomes of this price, O Prophet! Does he who received it keep it? or does he give it back? and after he has given it back, what becomes of it? The Prophet says then, And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the house of the Lord, into the foundry. Compare the Gospel with the Prophecy: Judas, it says, repented himself, and cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed.”

 

[rlvaughn]

View attachment 4475

from The Greek New Testament, United Bible Society, 4th edition

My 3rd edition does not have that note. However, based on the explanation of abbreviations, the comments on Zechariah are found in their commentaries, so the sources above for Augustine and Jerome should be the correct ones. If so, the note does not mean they support the reading Zechariah, but just that they discuss it. If you are aware of other writings that vary from this, please let me know. Now, finally, Origen. So far it appears that what Origen commented on this has only survived in a Latin translation (i.e., what Origen wrote translated into Latin by someone else, later). More information may prove that an incorrect notion. First, I find this comment on Origen's view in A Study of the Old Testament Quote in Matthew 27:9, 10.

Origen, for example, claims that it arises from an apocryphal version of Jeremiah which was lost through time.

The Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew can be found HERE. I have not found the time to try to bungle through a translation of it, but it mainly seems to say that it cannot be found in Jeremiah's book of prophecy, but that there might be some secret scripture of Jeremiah in which it is found. He goes on to mention it is in Zechariah, but does not seem to claim that any original or early text has the name Ζαχαρίου there.

 

[SavedByGrace]

My 3rd edition does not have that note. However, based on the explanation of abbreviations, the comments on Zechariah are found in their commentaries, so the sources above for Augustine and Jerome should be the correct ones. If so, the note does not mean they support the reading Zechariah, but just that they discuss it. If you are aware of other writings that vary from this, please let me know. Now, finally, Origen. So far it appears that what Origen commented on this has only survived in a Latin translation (i.e., what Origen wrote translated into Latin by someone else, later). More information may prove that an incorrect notion. First, I find this comment on Origen's view in A Study of the Old Testament Quote in Matthew 27:9, 10. The Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew can be found HERE. I have not found the time to try to bungle through a translation of it, but it mainly seems to say that it cannot be found in Jeremiah book of prophecy, but that there might be some secret scripture of Jeremiah in which it is found. He goes on to mention it is in Zechariah, but does not seem to claim that any original or early text has the name Ζαχαρίου there.

all said and done, it remains that the reading in Matthew 27:9, Jeremiah cannot be correct, as these words referred to by Matthew are not in this Prophet's writings. I would probably agree that The Prophet instead of any name, seems the best way, as the Scriptures cannot err