Matthew 27:9–10 prophecy from Zechariah or Jeremiah?

Matthew 27:9–10 is totally confused. First Matthew quotes part of a prophecy from Zechariah, then he says it comes from Jeremiah, and then he takes the whole thing totally out of context. What a mess!

Allow me to respond to your objection with a question of my own: If you were a traditional Jew and found a similar citation in the Talmud—not with reference to Yeshua, but with reference to some halakhic or haggadic subject—would you say that it was “totally confused,” or would you say that it was a difficult passage but one that could certainly be resolved through careful study? No doubt, you would say that it could be resolved. In fairness, then, let me show you how these verses in Matthew can also be explained through careful study, looking at the deeper themes of his book and not just at this one passage in isolation. Once again, you will see that Matthew is anything but confused in his reading of the Tanakh.

I want to be totally candid with you. Before I examined this passage in depth, I was also confused by the citation, wondering, “What in the world was Matthew thinking? Was he really that free with his use of the Scriptures?” However, the more I looked into the quotation, beginning with the Hebrew text of Zechariah 11:13, the more impressed I was with his insights. I was pleasantly surprised by what I found!

I’m fully aware, of course, that some liberal scholars who have studied Matthew’s Besorah (Hebrew for gospel or good news) have accused him of handling the Tanakh in a superficial or even pedestrian way (see above, 5.1-5.3, for examples of such charges). Others who have studied his work meticulously have come to very different conclusions, and the verdict of two of the top Matthew scholars in the world today bears repeating, especially since both have been highly conversant in ancient Jewish studies and neither of them have been “fundamentalists.” As noted above, professors Davies and Allison wrote:

Matthew was not above scattering items in his Greek text whose deeper meaning could only be appreciated by those with a knowledge of Hebrew. Indeed, it might even be that Matthew found authorial delight in hiding ‘bonus points’ for those willing and able to look a little beneath the gospel’s surface.⁷⁰

Let’s take a look beneath the surface and see what we can learn about Matthew’s methodology here in Matthew 27:1–10. The text records that, after some of the Jewish leaders had decided to put Yeshua to death, Judas Iscariot was struck with remorse over his betrayal of his Master, returning the thirty silver coins he had received in payment from the chief priests and elders, saying to them, “I have sinned, for I have betrayed innocent blood”

(see 27:1–4; and take note of that phrase, “innocent blood”). His words were greeted with indifference, so Judas threw the money into the Temple and then went out and hung himself (27:5). Matthew 27:6–10 then continues the narrative, including the key citation from “Jeremiah” (I have highlighted the text, below):

The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

What are the main problems with this citation? First, the text seems to come from Zechariah 11:11–13 rather than anywhere in Jeremiah, yet Matthew cites it as coming from Jeremiah. Second, there is no reference to a potter’s field in the text in Zechariah. Third, the original context of Zechariah does not seem to relate to the actions of Judas. Let’s review these objections in the order they have been presented, summarizing the best solutions to the apparent problems. For those wanting to study this question further, there are lengthy treatments that already exist.⁷¹

Did Matthew get Zechariah and Jeremiah confused? Some have speculated that there was a scribal error in transmission (due to the close spelling of the names in Greek) or that the original text did not mention a specific prophet’s name (as attested in some manuscripts), but there is little evidence to support these proposals. Others have argued that Matthew simply forgot who said what. This, however, is untenable for a number of reasons: (1) As we have seen clearly, he was a careful student of the Tanakh and would hardly make such an error.

(2) Even those who are not convinced that Matthew knew the Scriptures that well must remember that he did not just sit down and write his Gospel on the fly from memory one day, so the idea that he just had a momentary mental slip and never corrected it is also highly unlikely, to say the least. (3) It has been observed that the passage quoted here “shows evidence of receiving the author’s close attention,”⁷² again making it difficult to believe that he then wrongly identified the source.

In fact, we will see that Matthew translated directly from the Hebrew. He would have hardly gotten the name of the book wrong! (4) The formula introducing this Scripture citation varies from the general quotation formula used in Matthew, but it is identical to that of Matthew 2:17, the only other passage where Jeremiah is cited directly. This too points to premeditation and care.

What then is the solution? It would appear that, while quoting primarily from Zechariah, Matthew was pointing the reader to a key passage (or theme) in Jeremiah as well, one that tied in with the point he wanted to make. Thus, to draw this to the reader’s attention, he made reference to Jeremiah, since the reference to Zechariah would be obvious. Similar, although not identical to this, is Mark’s citation from both Isaiah and Malachi, but the introductory comment in Mark 1:2a says, “It is written in Isaiah the prophet,” the next verses then citing Isaiah and Malachi in succession (Mark 1:2b–3).

In the case before us in Matthew 27, the blending of texts and concepts is more subtle, but it is certainly there. What Mark and Matthew also have in common between them is that they cite the more prominent prophet when making reference to two prophetic texts, in the former, to Isaiah, in the latter, to Jeremiah. We will return to the question of which text(s) in Jeremiah Matthew had in mind when we put all the pieces together in concluding our answer to this objection.

What about the potter’s field? Let’s first deal with the issue of the potter. In the NIV, Zechariah 11:13 reads, “And the Lord said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.” In the NJPSV, however, it reads, “The Lord said to me, ‘Deposit it in the treasury.’

And I took the thirty shekels and deposited it in the treasury in the House of the Lord,” with a note that the meaning of some of the words, including “treasury” is uncertain. Why this discrepancy? The Masoretic textual tradition (MT) reads ha-yotser, the potter, but some textual and interpretive traditions understood this to be the equivalent of ha-’otsar, the treasury (cf. Rashi; Radak), or, ha-’otser, the keeper of the treasury (cf. Targum; Rashi).

Within the Tanakh, however, the word yotser never means treasury (or, treasurer) but rather potter, and the text literally says: “Throw it (not, “Deposit it”) to the potter… And I threw it into the house of the Lord to the potter.” The Septuagint (LXX), however, understood ha-yotser to refer to the furnace (as if from “smelter”), a possible but otherwise unattested usage of this noun in the Tanakh.

Which version, then, did Matthew follow? Did he cite the LXX here, as he often does elsewhere? No. Did he follow the tradition reflected later in the Targum? No, although we cannot be sure that this interpretive tradition was already known in his day. What about the tradition reflected in the Syriac Peshitta, which was close to the Targum as well? No, he did not follow (or know) that tradition.

Instead, he translated directly from the Hebrew, rendering ha-yotser as “the potter,” but with the addition of one detail (that, in hindsight, made tremendous prophetic sense): The money that was cast into the house of the Lord for the potter was actually used to buy the potter’s field. In other words, as noted below, this was not a matter of Matthew creating a story to fit the biblical text, as if his secret agenda was to make it look as if Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. Rather, as Carson noted, “when we examine Matthew’s quotation clause by clause, we can see impressive reasons for holding that the narrative does not grow out of the prophecy …”⁷³

Certainly, Matthew was well aware of the tragic events involved in his Master’s betrayal, events which included: (1) the price of the shepherd (a term used by Jesus to describe himself) being set at thirty pieces of silver; (2) those thirty pieces of silver being thrown into the house of the Lord by a despondent Judas; and (3) that money then being used to purchase the potter’s field. With all this in mind, this text in Zechariah could not help but jump to his attention.

To quote Zechariah 11:13 once again: “And the Lord said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.” It is a very small jump, indeed, to move from “to the potter” to “to the potter, for his field.” (For additional comments on the interpretation of this passage, see below.)

And yet there is more, and this is where we need to give Matthew the credit he is due. Why did he make reference to Jeremiah? Wasn’t this prophecy close enough, especially given its somewhat cryptic nature, even in its original context? Obviously, any reader familiar with the Scriptures would have known that the verse itself was drawn from Zechariah, not Jeremiah, so, as we pointed out, above, there must be something else to which Matthew was pointing.

It would seem then, in light of all the potential texts in Jeremiah, that Matthew was most likely pointing to Jeremiah 19:1–13, where the prophet is commanded by the Lord to “buy a clay jar from a potter” (yotser) and to take it, in the presence of the elders and the priests, “to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate,” proclaiming a word of solemn judgment on Jerusalem: “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle” (19:1–3). Jeremiah was then to smash the potter’s jar and say: “This is what the Lord Almighty says: I will smash this nation and this city just as this potter’s jar is smashed and cannot be repaired” (Jer. 19:11).

Tragically, Jeremiah lived to see this prophecy fulfilled, with the Temple of the Lord and the city of Jerusalem demolished by the Babylonians. And note carefully 19:4: Not only would God destroy Jerusalem because of its idolatry, but also because “they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent”—the very phrase on Judas’s lips in Matthew 27:4: “I have betrayed innocent blood.”

And it was this blood money that was used to buy the potter’s field, henceforth called the Field of Blood. And to whom did Judas make this confession, and who was it that decided to use the blood money to buy the potter’s field? It was “the chief priests and the elders” (27:3b). Shades of Jeremiah 19:1! Notice also that Jeremiah, after breaking the potter’s jar, declares, “They will bury the dead in Topheth [in the Valley of Ben Hinnom] until there is no more room” (Jer. 19:11b), while the potter’s field in Matthew 27 became used “as a burial place for foreigners” (27:7).

“As a result,” Michael Knowles points out, “whereas both were formerly associated with potters, they now carry names connoting bloodshed (‘Valley of Slaughter’; ‘Field of Blood’).”⁷⁴

What then was Matthew saying? He was saying, “Remember the potter! Remember the blood guilt! Remember Jeremiah’s prophecy about the destruction of our city and Temple! It happened just as he said it would. And today there is even greater blood guilt with even greater consequences. We have betrayed God’s Son. We have given the Messiah over to death. Judgment is near!” By citing Zechariah, with allusion to Jeremiah, he made his point quite powerfully, not to mention profoundly.⁷⁵

As D. P. Senior notes: “The explicit details which have been fulfilled are spelled out in the words of [Zechariah], but it is the tragic tone of Jeremiah’s prophecy that colors the accomplishment of God’s will in a moment of betrayal and truth.”⁷⁶ Knowles also finds evidence that Matthew was making a direct comparison between Jesus and Jeremiah, both of whom were rejected and mistreated by their own people, and both of whom prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

And, just as Matthew pointed to the slaughter of the innocent boys of Bethlehem in Matthew 2:16–18, quoting from Jeremiah 31:15 and using the identical introductory formula in 2:17 and 27:9a, so also here, at the climax of Messiah’s mission, innocent blood is being shed. As Knowles explains:

In 27:9–10 Matthew sees in what is probably the most perfidious act of opposition to the messiah in his Gospel—Jesus’ betrayal by one of his closest disciples—not only the fulfillment of prophecy in general but also a link to the words of Jeremiah in particular. Indeed, the fact that the entire fulfillment quotation is given under the name of Jeremiah characterizes the whole as typical of that prophet.

Without question, the fulfillment quotation provides the climax and focal point for Matthew’s narrative: the messiah is sold for the price of a slave, with Judas’s belated attempt to redress the wrong demonstrating both a recognition of his own guilt and the complicity of those who refuse what they themselves acknowledge to be “the price of blood.” In this way Matthew demonstrates Jesus’ innocence at the expense of the other participants’ guilt and responsibility. And all this is seen to be fulfilled in the words ascribed deliberately, albeit enigmatically, to the prophet Jeremiah.⁷⁷

 

But was Zechariah really prophesying the betrayal of the Messiah? It is true that both the New Testament and the Rabbinic writings cite several passages from Zechariah with reference to the Messiah. As noted in the Jewish Study Bible:

Many ancient readers found in Zechariah numerous references to messianic times. As expected, some early Christian readers understood them in christological terms (see, for instance Mark 14:27 and Zech. 13:7; Matt. 27:9 and Zech. 11:12–13; John 19:37 and Zech. 12:10; John 12:15 and Zech. 9:9). Rabbinic Judaism interpreted many of these texts in relation to a messianic time still to come (e.g., Zech. 3:8; 6:12 in the Targum; in relation to Zech. 6:12 see Num. Rab. 18.21; for Zech. 9:9 see Gen. Rab. 56.2, 98.9; and for Zech. 12:10 as pointing to the Messiah from the House of Joseph, see b. Sukkah 52a).⁷⁸

That being said, the question remains: Is there Messianic significance to Zechariah 11:12–13? Let’s see how some of the classical Rabbinic commentators interpret this verse, after which we can ask again: Was Matthew justified in citing this with reference to the betrayal of Yeshua, the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep?

According to Rashi:

12 And they weighed out My hire, thirty pieces of silver. [Targum] Jonathan paraphrases: And they performed My will with a few men. There were a few good men among them, such as the craftsmen and the sentries, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, and Ezekiel. But I do not know how to explain the expression here of thirty pieces of silver exactly, except that kesep is an expression of desire. Our Sages, too, explained it this way in Chullin (92a). They brought proof from (Prov. 7:20), “The bundle of the desirable ones He took in His hand.” The thirty they explained in the following manner: There are forty-five righteous men in every generation.

They brought proof from (Hosea 3:2), “a homer of barley and a letek of barley”—fifteen righteous in Babylon and thirty in Eretz Israel. It is said: “And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and I cast them into the house of the Lord in Eretz Israel.” The number thirty is explained by the Midrash Aggadah (Cf. Genesis Rabbah 49:3, Pesikta d’Rav Kahana 88a), that our father Abraham was promised that no generation would have fewer than thirty righteous in men, the number of (Gen. 15:8): “So shall your seed be.” The word yihyeh has the numerical value of thirty.

Does this sound somewhat far-fetched? Rashi continues:

13 And the Lord said to me: Cast it to the keeper of the treasury like ha’otser the keeper of the treasury. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to the prophet: Write, and leave over these and their righteousness to be preserved for the end of the seventy years of the Babylonian exile. The Temple shall be built by them. Now what is the treasury? [Cf. below] the stronghold of glory My Temple, the stronghold of My glory. of which I stripped them of which I stripped them so that they should no longer have glory.… My explanation is similar to Jonathan’s translation. I have seen many variant versions of the explanation of this prophecy, but I cannot reconcile those with the text.

The Living Nach conveniently summarizes some of the other, major Rabbinic commentators:

—thirty pieces of silver. This was the standard wage for a shepherd in those days (Metzudoth). The 30 pieces allude to the 30 righteous people who are alive in every generation (Rashi, Metzudoth). According to Malbim, the 30 righteous individuals of Zechariah’s generation gave their lives to sanctify God’s Name. In this way they “paid” God to continue protecting the Israelites despite their wickedness.

—Deposit it. God commanded Zechariah to store away the merit of the 30 righteous individuals alluded to in the previous verse (see preceding note) until the future, when, in that merit, the Third Temple will be built (Metzudoth). Or, God commanded the prophet to have the images of the 30 righteous individuals who died sanctifying God’s Name engraved on the silver coins [citing Malbim and others]

—treasury. (Radak on 11:[13]; Metzudoth.) The Hebrew word yotzer, which begins with the letter yod, and usually means “craftsman.” However, this is one of the cases where a yud is used interchangeably with an aleph, making the word otzar, “treasury” (Rashi, Radak). Or, “keeper of the treasury” (Targum, Rashi).

Malbim, however, interprets yotzer to mean “craftsman”: God figuratively commands Zechariah to bring the 30 silver talents to a coin minter, for him to engrave the image of the 30 righteous individuals.⁷⁹

As odd as all this seems (remember, these are not simply midrashic applications that are being made from the text; these are interpretations of the text by the leading Rabbinic commentaries), the rendering of the Orthodox Jewish Stone Edition of the Tanakh adds one more twist, translating part of Zechariah 11:13 with, “Throw it to the treasurer of the Precious Stronghold,” explaining in the note, “The Temple. By throwing the deeds of these thirty righteous people into the Temple, Zechariah symbolized that the Temple would be rebuilt because of their merits.”

Contrast all this with Matthew’s citation: First, he accurately translates yotser with potter, adding that it was the potter’s field that was bought by the coins; second, he explains thirty silver coins to mean thirty silver coins, as opposed to the deeds of thirty righteous people or the faces of these thirty righteous people engraved on the coins; third, he refers the text to the actual betrayal of the Good Shepherd (see 11:4–9), the principle difference being that in Zechariah it was the prophet, as the shepherd, who acted out the symbolic vision of his own betrayal, whereas in Matthew 27 it was Judas who literally committed the act; fourth, the larger context in Zechariah is fraught with Messianic imagery, including 9:9, the prophecy of the Messianic king coming meek and lowly, riding on a colt; 12:10, where repentant Israel looks to the one whom they have pierced; 13:7, where God calls for the sword to strike the one who is his close companion, resulting in the scattering of the sheep

(cf. the translation of the Living Nach, “O sword, rouse yourself against My shepherd and against My colleague—declares the God of hosts.”);⁸⁰ and 14:1–21, which is Messianic from beginning to end. Matthew knew exactly what he was doing, and with complete justification cited this passage with reference to the Messiah’s betrayal for thirty pieces of silver, also pointing to the profound parallels with Jeremiah.

Really now, who could honestly say that Matthew got this wrong but the Rabbinic commentaries, just cited, got it right? And is it any wonder that the Targum removes all reference to the thirty coins in this verse? According to Targumic scholar Bruce Chilton, the Targum here “omits the reference to ‘thirty pieces of silver’ at 11:12, to ‘the potter’ at 11:13 (cf. Matt. 27:3–10), and to ‘him whom they have pierced’ at 12:10 (cf. John 19:37; Rev. 1:7)”—all with the intent of removing these references that were pointed to by the New Testament authors.⁸¹

Far from this being an example of exegetical confusion, it is an example of inspired interpretation, perhaps inspired by the Messiah himself (see Luke 24:44–46), and rather than exposing Matthew’s weakness in the Word, it reveals his depth.

Later, at 5.14, we address the objection that the New Testament writers reconstructed the life of Jesus to fit the Messianic prophecies (an objection, of course, that completely contradicts the claim that he actually fulfilled none of the prophecies; see below, 5.15; vol. 3, 4.32–4.33). In terms of the prophecy under discussion here, Carson offers a wise response to the critical scholars who also espouse the view that the life of Jesus was rewritten to conform to the prophecies:

Many scholars hold that Matthew presents as history a number of “fulfillments” that did not happen. Rather he deduces that they must have happened because his chosen OT texts predict, as he understands them, that such events would take place. To this there are two objections. First, the more complex and composite a quotation (as here), the less likely is it that the “fulfillment” was invented.

It is far easier to believe that certain historical events led Matthew to look for Scriptures relating to them.… Second, when we examine Matthew’s quotation clause by clause, we can see impressive reasons for holding that the narrative does not grow out of the prophecy.… To give but one instance, the “thirty silver coins” (v. 3) are mentioned in Zechariah 11:13; but Mark speaks of betrayal money without mentioning Zechariah. Even if Mark does not specify the amount, the fact that Judas had been paid became well known, independent of any Christian interpretation of Zechariah 11:12–13; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the amount of money also became common knowledge.⁸²

You might say, “Well, I’ve heard your arguments and I’m not convinced that Matthew got it right. If he was trying to get me to believe in Jesus through this citation, it hasn’t worked.”

Actually, Matthew was not trying to “prove” to his readers that Yeshua had to be the Messiah based on this one citation from Zechariah and Jeremiah. Rather, as an eyewitness to Messiah’s glory and as one convinced by the testimony of Scripture that Yeshua, indeed, was the Messiah of Israel, he then wrote his account to share this Good News with his Jewish people (and other interested readers), looking back at the Tanakh and seeing remarkable prophecies and allusions and hints and types and shadows of what was to come.⁸³

He carefully observed Jesus’ life, he carefully studied the Tanakh, and there before his eyes, on many different levels, he saw some of the key events foretold and foreshadowed, without thinking for a moment that each of these foreshadowings constituted a “proof.” This would be similar to the Rabbinic teaching that there are seventy facets to the Torah, but not all of them carry legal authority and certainly not all of them are to be interpreted in the same way.

Listen once more to Carson:

What must not be overlooked is that, unlike any other broad, hermeneutical category used by the Jews, NT approaches to the OT are steeped in a salvation-historical perspective that finds in the sacred text entire patterns of prophetic anticipation (see esp. on 2:15; 5:17–20; 8:17; 11:11–13; 13:34–35). In this sense Matthew sees in Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11 not merely a number of verbal and thematic parallels to Jesus’ betrayal but a pattern of apostasy and rejection that must find its ultimate fulfillment in the rejection of Jesus, who was cheaply valued, rejected by the Jews, and whose betrayal money was put to a purpose that pointed to the destruction of the nation (see on 15:7–9; 21:42).⁸⁴

Insights such as these on the part of Matthew are hardly superficial or confused. Rather, they only appear to be off base when read superficially, critically, or with wrong presuppositions. So then, rather than ask, “Does this citation prove that Jesus is the Messiah?,” ask instead, “If he is the Messiah and if he did fulfill everything that had to be fulfilled at that time, was it legitimate for Matthew to turn back and look at the whole Bible and find spiritual parallels and Messianic foreshadowings throughout Israel’s history and throughout the words of the prophets?” The answer is yes, without a doubt.

And I repeat a statement made above, 5.1: The interpretations of Matthew are sober and restrained in comparison with later Rabbinic interpretation. In fact, as I have interacted with some extremely Orthodox or Chasidic Jews who have discovered that Yeshua is our Messiah, I have been amazed to see some of the “proofs” they have come up with in the Tanakh.

Why? It is because that is how they have been reading Scripture all their lives—finding references to Torah or some halakhic principle or mystical insight in every letter, word, and phrase—and now that they encountered Moshiach, they see him everywhere in Scripture too. To repeat once more: Matthew is quite restrained in comparison!

This, then, was the perspective of Matthew and his fellow authors who penned the Messianic Scriptures. Messiah did come at the time appointed by the peshat (that is, the plain, historical sense) of Scripture and he did fulfill what had to be fulfilled during that phase of his mission—again, according to the plain, historical sense of the Tanakh—and he continues to accomplish that mission—once again, according to the plain, historical sense of the Tanakh (see vol. 1, 2.1; vol. 3, 4.32–4.33, for more on this).

And so, the New Testament authors started with that reality: Messiah has come in accordance with the true and literal meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures, announced by angels and confirmed by miracles, and based on that reality, they then turned to their Bible and saw prophecies and allusions and types of the Messiah throughout the Scriptures, just as the rabbis saw references to the Torah everywhere in the Scriptures, even where those references were entirely midrashic or allegorical.

To repeat: Yeshua’s followers did not try to prove his Messianic credentials by means of midrashic interpretations; rather, having seen him teach Torah, perform miracles, die, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven, and then immerse them in the Holy Spirit, and recognizing that he fulfilled the essential qualifications for the Messiah’s mission at that point in time—in accordance with the plain meaning of the Scriptures!—they adorned their message with midrashic allusions and illustrations.

Even in doing this, however, they were led by the Spirit, who also inspired the authors of the Tanakh. And so, just as traditional Jews trust the methodology and interpretation of the Talmudic sages, I trust the methodology and interpretation of the followers of Jesus the Messiah and, when read through fair-minded and not caustically critical eyes, the spiritual riches are there to behold.

⁷⁰ Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 279, with reference to R. T. France.

⁷¹ In addition to the Matthew commentaries of Carson, Keener, Davies and Allison, Luz, and Nolland, all of which provide further bibliographical details, see the monograph of Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 68; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Most recently, see Clay Alan Ham, The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd: Matthew’s Reading of Zechariah’s Messianic Hope (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006)

⁷² D. P. Senior, “The Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew,” quoted in Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 61.

⁷³ Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:563.

⁷⁴ Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 70–71, where he conveniently lists six “close parallels” between Jeremiah 19 and Matthew 27, with reference on 70, n. 1 to the observation of Senior that Matthew 27:8 in the Greek is very close to the LXX of Jeremiah 19:6.

⁷⁵ It is also possible that there are allusions to other texts in Jeremiah, including Jeremiah 32:14; there is also some close verbal similarity between key phrases in Matthew 27:9 and Lamentations 4:2. Cf. ibid., 74–77.

⁷⁶ Senior, “The Passion Narrative,” 369, cited in Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 76.

⁷⁷ Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 77.

⁷⁸ 78. The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 1250.

⁷⁹ Yaakov Elman, ed. and trans., The Living Nach: Later Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Twelve Prophets. A New Translation based on Traditional Sources (New York: Moznaim, 1995), 803.

⁸⁰ Living Nach, 812. Interestingly, the footnotes point out that the “shepherd” and “colleague” are taken by the Rabbinic commentators to refer to gentile kings (fighting against Israel during the Messianic era of the Messiah ben Joseph), Esau, the nations’ archangels, or even Muhammad, with Ibn Ezra and Malbim claiming that “My colleague” means that, “because of his considerable power, he will consider himself equal to God”! But when is ‘amit, colleague, neighbor (here, “the man who is my colleague/neighbor”) ever used in this hostile way? See Lev. 5:21 (2x); 18:20; 19:11, 15, 17; 24:19; 25:14 (2x), 15, 17, the only other times the word is used in the Tanakh. Who could it be that God calls his colleague? The answer is found in Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27.

⁸¹ Chilton, “From Aramaic Paraphrase to Greek Testament,” 39.

⁸² Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:563.

⁸³ We should also note that he was not just trying to spread the Good News to those who had never heard it. His book was also a training manual for disciples who were already convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and King (cf. Matt. 28:19), and so, in his writing, he had several goals to accomplish. For evidence of this, note, e.g., the fivefold division of Matthew, marked by the phrase, “When Jesus had finished saying these things” (see Matt. 7:28; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).

⁸⁴ Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:566.

Brown, M. L. (2007). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 4: New Testament objections. (27). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Baker Books.

Matthew 27:9–10 prophecy from Zechariah or Jeremiah?