Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah?

"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;" - Matt 27:9, KJVMost Bibles that give marginal references say this is not a quote from Jeremiah (Jeremy) but from Zechariah 11:12. The Purchase of The Potter's Field and The Fulfillment of the ProphecyThe problem with the "solution" that Jeremiah spoke but didn't write the prophecy is that, without a written record, we have no way of knowing whether Jeremiah spoke it or not, and the author of Matthew, (presumably) similarly lacking a written record, would also be ignorant of what Jeremiah ever said (aside from what was written in the book of Jeremiah, that is).All of that said, of all of the solutions to the problem offered, which do you find most satisfactory--and why?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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

Iblis seems to be getting a bit far afield from the question of whether or not Matthew's reference to Jeremiah is in error, as seems to be the case.There is also the question as to whether the marginal reference in Matthew to Zechariah as found in the KJV (and other Bibles) is in error; however, there is no point in going off on a tangent such as KJV Onlyism.

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

You don't mean this literally though! Brian.

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

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.

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.

have you heard purpledawn's satire theory?she repeated the idea (not sure who originally came up with it) that matthew was essentially a satire of christian claims for a jewish audience, and the "mistakes" are meant to be funny.

---

אָרַח

You like the satire theory. Here is a link to the article I read. The Satire According to MatthewIt might be interesting to discuss sometime.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

i quite agree.
sometimes writers do crazy things like that.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-28-2006 05:32 PM

Since you've done more research than I have, weren't there others claiming to be the messiah at the time of Jesus? Wasn't the criminal he was exchanged for supposedly claiming that?If there were, that could explain the satire. Poking fun at the outlandish claims of supposed messiahs.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

i've heard they were quite common, some even leading failed military campaigns on jerusalem. i don't know the veracity of the claim. not that i know of. john says barabbas is a robber.

---

It looks like Mark and Luke have him as an insurrectionist. Interesting.Makes you wonder how those supposed messiahs presented their authority. What were their credentials???

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton