Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Matthew 27:9 ? Jeremiah prophecies 30 pieces of silver?
#1
Matthew 27:9 ? Jeremiah prophecies 30 pieces of silver?

Matthew 27:9-10(NAS) Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME."

The problem with this is that this prophecy was not written by Jeremiah, but Zechariah.

Zechariah 11:12-13 (NAS)12I 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 the LORD 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 the LORD.

This seems like one of the most blatant, obvious errors/contradictions in the bible that I have ever seen. As for the attempts to solve this problem in the Greek texts, the explanation are certainly lacking. There are many Old Testament books that are rolled together and Jeremiah sometimes has Lamentations included with it. Also, 1&2 Kings is usually one book, 1&2 Chronicles is usually one book and Ezra & Nehemiah are counted as one book. Zechariah is lumped together with eleven other smaller books called the Minor Prophets, but there is no evidence that Zechariah was ever rolled into the major prophetical work of Jeremiah.

However, even the most Western-leaning bible scholars will usually admit there is early evidence that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. This original text had to be translated by someone into the Greek that is commonly used now for translations into English.

It seems very plausible that this early Greek translator chose to add the prophet?s name in Matthew 27:9, but got the wrong name when doing so.

However, this inconvenient error of mentioning Jeremiah as the prophet of the 30 pieces of silver that exists in the Greek translations does not exist in the original Aramaic. The Peshitta text Matthew 27:9 reads (AENT):

?Then the thing was fulfilled which was spoken of by the prophet??

That is, the name of the prophet is not given, which means a name of a wrong prophet (i.e. Jeremiah) is not given as we find in the Greek translations.
Reply
#2
In his translation of the Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus), Thomson writes at the very end of the translation:

Thomson Wrote:NOTE.
Zacharias IX. I. A Burden.] This, and the five following Chapters, though added to what Zacharias wrote, appear evidently, from the style and subjects, to be the work of another. The Evangelist Matthew, in his quotation, (Chap. II.) ascribes them to Jeremias. And it must be allowed that the contents of these chapters agree well with the time of Jeremias, but by no means with that of Zacharias. And the same may be said with respect to the style, which corresponds with that of Jeremias, but not in the least with that of Zacharias. From the words of the Evangelist it would appear that in his time, they were considered as being written by Jeremias:--and it is to be observed that in some ancient manuscripts, there is a large vacant space between the end of Chap. VIII. and IX. to distinguish what precedes, from that which follows.
Source: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=b88UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR154">http://books.google.com/books?id=b88UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR154</a><!-- m -->

I am not certain whether or not this argument undermines Peshitta primacy, because one could then argue that, by the 5th century, it was understood that Zechariah wrote it, and thus, when the Peshitta was translated, the name was removed because it was deemed incorrect. I'd like to hear a proper rebut of this argument though.
Reply
#3
Thanks, Aaron. That is the most plausible explanation I have heard yet. However, it would be nice to see some more scholarship behind the ?differences? in Zechariah 9-14 other than just Thomson?s assertion that there are.

Also, I now see this has already been discussed in the ?Contradictions? forum (albeit in 2003). The info in that thread is limited, but worth checking out for completeness sake.
Reply
#4
Shlama,


although i would push the Peshitta's reading here of omission as best, here's a couple other alternate readings:

"Zechariah" -- 22 l858(1/2) syrh(mg) Armenian mss, Origen latin commentary, Jerome commentary, Augustine commentary

"Isaiah" -- 21 itl


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#5
Aaron S Wrote:In his translation of the Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus), Thomson writes at the very end of the translation:

NOTE.
Zacharias IX. I. A Burden.] This, and the five following Chapters, though added to what Zacharias wrote, appear evidently, from the style and subjects, to be the work of another. The Evangelist Matthew, in his quotation, (Chap. II.) ascribes them to Jeremias. And it must be allowed that the contents of these chapters agree well with the time of Jeremias, but by no means with that of Zacharias. And the same may be said with respect to the style, which corresponds with that of Jeremias, but not in the least with that of Zacharias. From the words of the Evangelist it would appear that in his time, they were considered as being written by Jeremias:--and it is to be observed that in some ancient manuscripts, there is a large vacant space between the end of Chap. VIII. and IX. to distinguish what precedes, from that which follows.
Source: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=b88UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR154">http://books.google.com/books?id=b88UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR154</a><!-- m -->

I am not certain whether or not this argument undermines Peshitta primacy, because one could then argue that, by the 5th century, it was understood that Zechariah wrote it, and thus, when the Peshitta was translated, the name was removed because it was deemed incorrect. I'd like to hear a proper rebut of this argument though.

I understand your viewpoint. But some quote from Mar Aphrahat and Mar Ephraim. Their biblical reference shows a precursor/older version of Peshitta did exist in the 4th century.
By the way, my friend, what is your attitude towards Peshitta? Do you believe this is the bible closest to original manuscript?
Reply
#6
I didn't say I agreed with this particular argument, but it does even the playing field in this particular instance. I appreciate the Peshitta text very much and use it as main witness for studying the ancient writings; most of the time Greek witnesses agree with it. I think Thomson is speaking from the bias that the Greek text has to be correct, but this is the first I've heard of pseudepigraphical text in Zechariah, even in the Tanakh. If there's anyone that could find information on this or has experience with the text, I'd like an answer.
Reply
#7
no It doesn't look like proof of primacy either way..

for what it's worth the Murdock translation was similar to Aent
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)