Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah?

I think in some cases it is. Why did God allow a bunch of innocent babies to be murdered by Herod after Jesus was born? "God works in mysterious ways" doesn't seem to really address what horror the children or their friends and families felt.But we probably now have a topic for another discussion.

I don't know why God let this happened. But I do know that there can be no doubt to the wicked extent religion and politics will go to oppose the Son of God. That much was proved for certain.So generations of disciples of Jesus have therefore been given strength to endure opposition from worldly power, not being surprised that they too are marked as enemies.God says that vengence is His and that He will repay. I would not like to be Herod on the day of judgment.

"I would not like to be Herod on the day of judgment."I would not have wanted to be Herod, period. Actually, there were several Herods, each as bad as the next. They spent a lot of time plotting to kill their enemies, who were often their cousins or siblings. They were probably an inbred bunch, to boot.Incidentally, to pull this thread back to the topic, even if you don't believe much of what Matthew or the other gospels have to say about the Herods, I believe secular history treats them no more kindly.This message has been edited by DeclinetoState, 03-14-2006 12:41 PM

A little off topic guys.But back to the original. It is very very simple. The audience was jewish that Matthew wrote to and the Jews grouped books together and called the mini grouping by the first single book of the grouping. In this case, the minor prophets, Jeremiah was the first book and any reference contained in any particular book, in this case Zacharia, of the minor prophets it was simply referred to as Jeremiah. It's just a case of familiarizing oneself with Jewish customs of the time.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Would you have a link or something else to support this claim because it really does sound extremely unlikely. So, why does matthew mention other prophets, such as Isaiah and Daniel by name and not lump them under 'Jeremy'? Did this custom really exist?Brian.

Daniel and Isaiah are not in the grouping of the minor prophets and yes it was a custom of the time...that's why I told you so.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

OIC, so this just applies to the minors?Well, I do have another problem with this hypothesis, matthew 2:5-6 mentions a prophecy of Micah, who is a minor:In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:
'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.Why is this atributed to 'prophet' and not Jeremiah if that was the custom?Also, 2:15 mentions a prophecy of Hosea, another minor, so why is it not attributed to Jeremiah?I am sure there are other but I am sure it makes no difference to the answer. It's nothing personal but I need something a little more that you simply telling me so.I assume since you are so sure that this was the custom that it should be relatively easy for you to supply some supporting evidence, I mean after all you must have some evidence that convinced you that this claim is accurate.I only ask because I really do not think that it was a custom at anytime in Judaism.But I'll keep an open mind and review your evidence.Thanks.Brian.

I knew you would make me back up my statements! I hate it when that happens.I discovered the judaic custom researching bible discrepancies years ago and will look up the other prophets you mentioned. The customs are listed in Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible 1878 and many others since but I'll find some sources for you. Part of the Jeremiah one was because part of the prophecy is in Jeremiah and part is in Zachariah and Jeremiah was the header for the grouping. But like I said I'll dig up sources for you.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Sorry about that, but if we don't back up with evidence then we could just say anything was true.I am really interested in this claim because it looks as if the reference in Matthew is the only occurence in the entire Bible that this is 'grouping' apologetic is offered for.I have tutored intoduction to the Old testament at university, and may be doing this later this year as well, and I have never heard of this custom, that is why I am enquiring.I know I could be wrong as no one can know everything about a subject.I hope this isn't too inconvenient for you.Brian.

There are some good books that explain alledged contradictions and almost all end up being superficial scholarship on the part of the person alleging the contradiction.For example in Acts 22 & 9 of the original KJV (I think chapt 9) both accounts of the conversion of Paul on the road to damascus where one says Paul heard something and the other says he didnt hear. But when one looks it up there are two different greek words used for 'to hear' one means to hear with comprehension and the other means to hear a noise. So it ends up Paul heard something but didnt understand what he heard. The KJV tried not to paraphrase and translated one greek word to one english word where possible and this alleged contradiction arose which was corrected in later translations.Haley's from 1878 is a good starting one but like I said give me some time I'll find the sources for the Jeremiah grouping explanation being judaic custom for you.Especially if you are going to teach intro the Old Testament you should get some materials that thoroughly refute the idea the Old Testament wasn't written until 500 bc. Josh McDowell has some good books on the Subject including "Evidence demands a Verdict Volumn II' where experts are cited ad nauseum. It is a good starting place.Other experts who refute alleged contradictions are R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, and others. Hope this helps

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Thanks. I don't consider McDowell's work to be of a sufficient academic standard to be used for a university. Same with Geisler, their work is far too biased and they really are writing for a non-critical audience. Strobel is exactly the same, its pop-apologetics that makes huge leaps in logic and ignores a lot of contradictory evidence.But I'll look at the grouping evidence.I am not interested in trying to convince anyone that the Bible contradicts itself. The claims that one verse says X and another says Y is not only intensley boring, it is also pointless.I don't see a problem with the Bible containing propaganda, historical inaccuracies, conflicting narratives, and impossibilities. It is difficult to find an ancient near eastern text/inscription that doesn't contain at least one of these factors.Brian.

In Evidence demands a Verdict McDowell merely makes an outline of the topic then cites the experts themselves. Since you were unaware of basic answers to commonly miscomposed supposed contradictions it is a good starting point or reference point. Find the expert from the cite on the topic in McDowell. That's why I suggested it as a starting point not the whole story. Edersheim is a Jewish source that is good also.R.C. Sproul however is a good scholar. He isnt biased you unjustly concluded that because he has come to a definate conclusion that is other than yours...that does not equal bias. He has earned credibility and he cites other experts and again would be a good starting point not the finishing point.To be versed on both sides of an issue you should get a couple of these books on christian apologetics to know both sides and investigate the claims then of the apologists. I have done so. I debated in college for the #1 ranked college at the time and did exactly this type of study on the bible, evolution, economics and psychology. I can recite both sides of an issue and the strenths and weakenesses of each but I have come to a definate conclusion as has McDowell and Sproul...a definate conclusion does not equal bias. If you think they are biased take your own advice you gave me here and demonstrate it..."it isnt so just because you say it is". If you are unwilling to read the apologists and their sources on an issue you will be biased and closed minded yourself. You dont seem like that type of guy so far. Oh I almost forgot. Read Paul Johnson a noted award winning historian "A History of the Jews." You cant argue with that source!

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

ReformedRob,A gentle reminder that the topic is about Mathew 27:9 and not apologetics in general. Please keep to the subject.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

quote:

---

Did this custom really exist?

---

I've tried to find something other than an apologetic source that would back up that idea, but I haven't found a truly Jewish source yet.The closest I've found is on Yashanet which gave three different thoughts and what they considered to be a more likely explanation. Yashanet is a messianic site. The impression I get is that while the scrolls may have been grouped together, I haven't found a Jewish source that supports the custom of quoting a minor prophet by referring to the major prophet in the grouping, which your examples brought out.Even the author of the Yashanet site doesn't think it is likely.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Possibly off-top, but it was quoted.Haley`s piece of bunk contradicts itself. After titling 'Alleged', he then proceeds to excuse strings of real discrepancies as 'scribal errors'.