1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mathew 27:9

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Azad, Dec 24, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Azad

    Azad New Member

    Likes Received:
    Anybody has an explanation for this???

    mathew 27:9 attributes a prophecy to Jeremiah, when it's actually found in Zecheriah 11:12-13

    How can it be true?
    if MAthew was inspired, he shouldn't have made such a mistake!!
  2. jbarcher

    jbarcher ANE Social Science Researcher

    Likes Received:

    Your question is, "Why does Matthew 27:9 attribute to Jeremiah a prophecy from Zechariah?"

    Here is the explanation given by the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 345:

    "...the greater portion of it is actually from Zechariah 11:12-13, which reads as follows: "And I said to them, 'If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!' So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then Yahweh said to me, 'Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them' So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of Yahweh." There are significant differences between the Zechariah passage and the quotation in Matthew, which has the prophet paying out--or at least giving--the purchase money, and has him turning over the money for a field rather than giving it to the potter personally. Yet the whole point of the quotation in Matthew is directed toward the purchase of the field. The Zecharias passage says nothing at all about purchasing a field; indeed, it does not even mention a field at all.

    But as we turn to Jeremiah 32:6-9, we find the prophet purchasing a field in Anathoth for a certain number of shekels. Jeremiah 18:2 describes the prophet as watching a potter fashioning earthenware vessels in his house. Jeremiah 19:2 indicates that there was a potter near the temple, having his workship in the Valley of Hinnom. Jeremiah 19:11 reads: "Thus says Yahweh of hosts: 'Even so I will break this people and this city as one breaks a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again; and they shall bury them in Tophet.' " It would seem, therefore, that Zechariah's casting of his purchase money to the potter dated back to the symbolic actions of Jeremiah. Yet it is only Jeremiah that mentions the "field" of the potter--which is the principal point of Matthew's quotation. Matthew is therefore combining and summarizing elements of prophetic symbolism both from Zechariah and from Jeremiah. But since Jeremiah is more prominent of the two prophets, he mentions Jeremiah's name by preference to that of the minor prophet.

    A similar procedure is followed by Mark 1:2-3, which attributes only to Isaiah a combined quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In that case also, only the more famous of the two prophets is mentioned by name. Since that was the normal literary practice of the first century A.D., when the Gospels were written, the authors can scarcely be faulted for not following the modern practice of precise identification and footnoting.
  3. pmarquette

    pmarquette New Member

    Likes Received:
    Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

    Zec 11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

    Jer 32:9 And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's son, that [was] in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, [even] seventeen shekels of silver.
  4. Svt4Him

    Svt4Him Legend Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Or let me reply the same way I did your last one. I guess if you're proven wrong about something, it's best to post another in hopes they aren't seen by the same person?

  5. knightlight72

    knightlight72 Soldier of Christ

    Likes Received:
    Now with Mathew 27:9 you will notice it quotes "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet". There are several possibilities. That it was spoken by Jeremiah, but written by Zechariah. (very easy explanation) But there are other ideas that are plausible as well. The name Jeremiah stands for the collection of prophetic writings in which Zechariah is found. Also another possibility is that back then, the book of Jeremiah headed the books of the prophets, and the quote Matthew used was attributed to the name of the first book, and not name of the specific book within the group.
    Another option Is the fact during that time, the rabbi's did routinely quote from one to three people as give credit to only one. Usually the one more deserving, or the one with the main point, or in many cases if all the people quoted are similar in thought, they would be quoted as one person, (again probably by the one more desrving.)
    So those are the possibilities that are suggested. Whether they are correct, or there is another reason, (there is one other I know of, and it does involve Jeremiah, but also one of the above reasons, but it so complicated, I'd have to go back and study up the connection), the reasons really come down to, are they good possibilities of being correct? Yes.
    Is it probable that Matthew was in error, or confused? Not likely, considering the details that he speaks of, and how much he paid attention to other facts.
    Thinking about these ideas though, does help answer an earlier question mentioned that the bible was made by one person. Considering if one person did write it, don't you think the geneologies would be the same, and they would quote the same books?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.