Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah?

You don't mean this literally though! Brian.

Hi,There have been a few times over the last couple of years where I have wanted to look through gMat and log just how many errors I think I can see, but have never got round to it. Off the top of my head I'd reckon there are between 50-100, might be a good topic for the board one day.Brian.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I already know who the expert biblical scholars are. I don't know how you get the conclusion that I was unaware of anything, wasn;t it my awareness that higlighted the lack of evidence for the ad hoc Jeremiah claim? I didn't mention Sproul, so I have no idea why you say this.I mentioned McDowell, Geisler and Strobel, that was all. The reason I mention them is precisely because they are rank amateur in their approach to biblical studies, and their work is not of a decent academic quality. What makes you think I haven't already done so? Wow, that is so exciting, you will be a great addition to EvC. What kind of study, trying to provide ad hoc unsupported assertions to make the Bible 'perfect'? I didn't say it did. I said McDowell, Geisler, and Strobel's research was biased, and that they are either unaware or ignore a great deal of the contrary evidence and are too ready to accept anything to support their position. But I have read them, how else can I conclude that their work is poor? Would you like to bet?Anyway, this is off topic as this is the thread regarding the error by the author of Matthew's Gospel.I will respond to the 'grouping' evidence when it materialises. Meantime, if you wish to discuss apologists then we need to open another thread.Brian.

It doesn't even sound in the slightest bit credible to me. In fact, it sounds intensely disrespectful to God's chosen medium. I am sure Reformed must have some evidence or he wouldn't be so convinced. I think he is just having some trouble tracking it down, which is surprising since it is supposed to be well known. I think it is more likely that whoever wrote gMat made a boo-boo, which is no big deal really.More problematic is the fact that the author of gMat has made a completely misunderstood the original 'prophecy'. Either that or he meant to take it out of context by quote mining the earlier texts.Brian.

There's an even simpler conclusion, the author of Matthew made a mistake.People make mistakes all the time, and as we know, whoever wrote Matthew made a huge number of mistakes (the Virgin Birth is the most obvious one), so this could just be another one.