Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah?

Hi, do you want a real solution that works? It's fairly simple, but it leads to some odd conclusions.The part of "The Book of Zechariah" that is actually internally attributed to the prophet himself ends with chapter 8. The remainder of the Old Testament consists of 3 curious items referred to internally as "burdens" and modeled after some nice items toward the end of Isaiah. The first two are (now) classified as Zechariah 9-11 and 12-14, the third is what we call Malachi. Here are the headers provided at the beginning of each: and and finally in Malachi Note that Malachi isn't a real name, it just means "my messenger". Nowhere in the New Testament is the name Malachi used, just for reference.The fact that we split these up where we do isn't anything to do with the way the original scrolls were, in the Tanakh the entirety of Hosea-Malachi is for example one scroll called "The Prophets". We run into a similar situation in Mark where a quote from one of the burdens, this time from Malachi, is attributed simply to The Prophets: This case is particularly interesting in that some of our oldest texts actually attribute this burden to the prophet Isaiah. (This might just be a reference to the verse after though.) In the same way, Matthew is attributing the previous burden to Jeremiah. Is he right? You decide.One thing is certain, none of them were written by Zechariah. Here is what his headers look like: and and and with subheaders toward the end of each passage introducing the conclusion, like this and and See the difference? Sure you do Now some fairly weak scholars make it past this leap but then fall into the idea that because these 3 "burdens" are so similar, they are probably all by the same person. (This fictional Malachi perhaps, but hint: no one names their kid "my messenger" if anything they would have named him "messenger of the Lard" = Malachijah; and they didn't).But there are internal reasons in the way of reference and vocabulary to indicate they were written at different times by different authors. The resemblance between them is in the very rigid literary genre that seems to consitute the "burden" format. Assuming this means they have the same author is like assuming that because Shakespeare and Milton both wrote some sonnets in the same scheme, they are the same guy. Some very weak scholars assert this sort of crap all the time though, so don't be surprised!Now, does this prove that Matthew is right in attributing burden 1 to Jeremiah? No.Does it prove that the fact that burden 1 is in a book we call Zechariah means absolutely nothing about the actual authorship? Yes.* edited for accuracyThis message has been edited by Iblis, 01-20-2006 08:44 PM

First of all brother, don't reply to me in the third person, I'm not your pony.Secondly, I don't think you understand your position at all. You seem to be hunting elephants with a bb-gun, I have noticed this and stepped up, stuck my arm in front of my face like it was a trunk, and effortlessly taken away your weapon. Notice I didn't need to weigh several tons or have giant feet? There are real elephants here! If Faith or Herepton or Buzsaw notices you and finds you annoying enough to reply to you are going to get seriously crushed.Thirdly, and to your point, arguing that Matthew is unreliable because he attributes the "30 pieces of silver" language from Burden 1, collected into Zechariah, to Jeremiah instead, is like arguing that Geoffrey of Monmouth is unreliable because he attributes the Arthurian battle-list, collected into Nennius, to Gildas. Geoffrey has a copy of a collection that begins with Gildas's work and includes the Nennius material as well, he is being remarkably accurate in making this attribution, comparatively speaking.In other words, this is about the weakest argument against his reliability that anyone could make! The real reason Geoffrey is unreliable is because he distorts every source he touches and totally disregards the intent of the original authors, to the point of being wildly humorous page after page after page to anyone who understands real history.He's nothing compared to Matthew though. There are literally hundreds of passages in that gospel which are better examples of unreliable (or at least exceptionally difficult to explain away) usage of the Old Testament. Some on the same page! And this is what you come up with?I don't think the Marine Corps really has room for you right now, son. Try the Coast Guard station around the corner

Right no, not even that sentence, every word of the post is figurative.You sir are a good reader

Depends what you mean by "errors" really.There are 53 more distinct citations comparable to this one, each disagrees with the obvious "surface" meaning in context in the original text, each provides words that cannot be accounted for using any existing instance of the original text, and each steps exactly one step over the line set by allowable extensions of the original text in the undisputed opinions delineated in the Mishna as those which have no need for attribution. There are another 47 items classified as "allusions", they represent use of similar Old Testament language to mark points where the Church had departed even further from the Synagogue's standard for messianic expectations and similar enhancements or reinterpretations of the Book. Seen in this context Matthew serves as a very definitive accounting of the differences that had arisen between the two religions over time.But are those errors? I would not hesitate to assert that the author wrote every word of them quite deliberately. If you actually read them, and compare, and look at which doctrine each is used in support of, and make the judgement that any rational person must make, then the conclusion you will end up coming to is the author's real opinion and you will be very impressed by it. If, on the other hand, you don't care to read and check the facts and so on, you're not a thinking person and just want to believe, well then you also will be happy with the text and very impressed by it. It justifies its variation of interpretations by being very clearly variably-interpretable itself!Works like that are not made by coincidence.

I could not offer a better example of the dangers of literalism than Message 16. Are we to have a fist-fight over forced idioms? It's a little too funny, does this whole thread seem somewhat staged to you guys reading? That was brilliant, mountain dew™ came out my nose and everything, keep up the great work!In any case, seeing as absolutely nobody is still waiting for the other shoe to drop, here's the climax of the first burden in Zechariah Notice what might make some of your classical theologians want to steer clear of this obvious match? Who is speaking in this passage? And what are they saying?In this burden the coming shepherd or messiah is represented not as a peace-loving hippy nonviolent cheek-turner type, so much as a beauty-defiling flock-starving nation-breaking proponent for the loss of arms and eyes. We'd rather not look at that, huh? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"Anyway, follow the money, in Zechariah 11 it's the prophet who plays out the scene, and it's the prophet who receives and disposes of the symbolic coinage.Here's Matthew's version again in his context Wow, Judas talked though an Old Testament prophet. Or Judas and the messiah were the same guy in the time of "Zechariah" perhaps. Any more clues like that one in the OT, perhaps in oh say Jeremiah's favorite surprise lawbook of "Moses" Deuteronomy? Did you see that? I don't make this stuff up you know, here's Paul confirming that this is the sort of thing that is suitable to prove his neo-messianic position to the Galatians Matthew didn't start this either, Mark does the same thing in a much more open way, he marks his text with insulting views of the original disciples rather than OT references, that's all. Here's his opinion on the 30 pieces of silver That's it, no coinage, no hanging, those are all Matthew. Mark's making the same point though, which is that there are people in positions of trust and authority who don't have your best interests at heart at all. Don't be fooled!Quick review question, Judas is the real what? Zechariah 11:12* Thanks purpledawn and arachnophilia for this link, it was very informative and entertaining * credit for subtitle to Al Jean in the first episode of the rocking good cartoon series Jesus And His Brothers

Why thank you and sure there is, it is actually pretty standard stuffQuartz Hill School of Theology There's also a substantial review of all the various competing theories and lines of thought, I will use the fairly lucid remarks in the last post by D2s for our example These guys go on to "prove" that Malachi is actually written by Isaiah in order to make their Nestle's Crunch critical text of the NT inerrant as well, I actually prefer to stop well short of that. If a thing is false, simple suggestive logic should be able to disprove it with no trouble at all; but the same methods become unreliable when one attempts to use them to prove anything substantial.