Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dear Ancient Warrior, Each set of scrolls often had a major name on the outside of them. According to the set of scrolls which had other prophets in it was the name of jeremiah on the outside. The quote is found in Zechariah 11:12-13 within the group of scrolls bearing Jeremiah's name on it.
RESPONSE:
Your explanation is an old attempt to rationalize Matthew's error.
But even if we allowed this, there is NO such prophecy in Zechariah beyond money being tossed into the Temple. It was NOT done by ANYONE REPENTING of any betrayal.
But, just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for the story you are claiming?
Your explanation is an old attempt to rationalize Matthew's error.
But even if we allowed this, there is NO such prophecy in Zechariah beyond money being tossed into the Temple. It was NOT done by ANYONE REPENTING of any betrayal.
But, just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for the story you are claiming?
Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which is declared through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they got the thirty silver pieces. (The price of the Valued One, Whom they value from the sons of Israel),
Zechariah 11:12-13 CLV And I am saying to them, If it is good in your eyes, grant my hire. And if not, forbear. And they are weighing my hire, thirty silverlings." (13) And Yahweh is saying to me, Fling it to the minter--the noble esteem with which I am esteemed by them! So I am taking the thirty silverlings and am flinging them to the minter in the house of Yahweh."
Mat 27:9 -
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying — (Zec_11:12, Zec_11:13). Never was a complicated prophecy, otherwise hopelessly dark, more marvelously fulfilled. Various conjectures have been formed to account for Matthew’s ascribing to Jeremiah a prophecy found in the book of Zechariah. But since with this book he was plainly familiar, having quoted one of its most remarkable prophecies of Christ but a few chapters before (Mat_21:4, Mat_21:5), the question is one more of critical interest than real importance. Perhaps the true explanation is the following, from Lightfoot: “Jeremiah of old had the first place among the prophets, and hereby he comes to be mentioned above all the rest in Mat_16:14; because he stood first in the volume of the prophets (as he proves from the learned David Kimchi) therefore he is first named. When, therefore, Matthew produceth a text of Zechariah under the name of Jeremy, he only cites the words of the volume of the prophets under his name who stood first in the volume of the prophets. Of which sort is that also of our Savior (Luk_24:41), ‘All things must be fulfilled which are written of Me in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,’ or the Book of Hagiographa, in which the Psalms were placed first.” Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary.
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible:
"Mat 27:9 - Spoken by Jeremy the prophet - The words quoted here are not to be found in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Words similar to these are recorded in Zec_11:12-13, and from that place this quotation has been doubtless made. Much difficulty has been experienced in explaining this quotation. In ancient times, according to the Jewish writers; “Jeremiah” was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed first in the “Book of the Prophets,” thus: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. Some have thought that Matthew, quoting this place, quoted the Book of the Prophets under the name of that which had the “first” place in the book, that is, Jeremiah; and though the words are those of Zechariah, yet they are quoted correctly as the words of the Book of the Prophets, the first of which was Jeremiah. Others have thought that there was a mistake made by ancient transcribers, writing the name Jeremiah instead of Zechariah; and it is observed that this might be done by the change of only a single letter. It was often the custom to abridge words in writing them. Thus, instead of writing the name of Jeremiah in full, it would be written in Greek, “Iriou.” So Zechariah would be written “Zion.” By the mere change of Zinto I, therefore, the mistake might easily be made. Probably this is the correct explanation. Others have supposed that the words were “spoken by Jeremiah,” and that “Zechariah” recorded them, and that Matthew quoted them as they were - the words of Jeremiah. The passage is not quoted literally; and by its being “fulfilled” is meant, probably, that the language used by Zechariah on a similar occasion would express also this event. See the notes at Mat_1:22-23. It was language appropriate to this occasion.
The price of him that was valued - That is, the price of him on whom a value was set. The word rendered “valued,” here, does not, as often in our language, mean to “esteem,” but to “estimate;” not to love, approve, or regard, but to fix a price on, to estimate the value of. This they considered to be thirty pieces of silver, “the common price of a slave.”
They of the children of Israel did value - Some of the Jews, the leaders or priests, acting in the name of the nation.
Did value - Did estimate, or fix a price on."
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:
"It was an ancient custom among the Jews, says Dr. Lightfoot, to divide the Old Testament into three parts: the first beginning with the law was called The Law; the second beginning with the Psalms was called The Psalms; the third beginning with the prophet in question was called Jeremiah: thus, then, the writings of Zechariah and the other prophets being included in that division that began with Jeremiah, all quotations from it would go under the name of this prophet. If this be admitted, it solves the difficulty at once. Dr. Lightfoot quotes Baba Bathra, and Rabbi David Kimchi’s preface to the prophet Jeremiah, as his authorities; and insists that the word Jeremiah is perfectly correct as standing at the head of that division from which the evangelist quoted, and which gave its denomination to all the rest. But Jeremiah is the reading in several MSS. of the Coptic. It is in one of the Coptic Dictionaries in the British Museum, and in a Coptic MS. of Jeremiah, in the library of St. Germain. So I am informed by the Rev. Henry Tattam, Rector of St Cuthbert’s, Bedford."
John Gill's Exposition of the bible:
"Mat 27:9 - Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,.... Through the purchasing of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver, the price that Christ was valued at, a prophecy in the writings of the Old Testament had its accomplishment: but about this there is some difficulty. The evangelist here says it was spoken by Jeremy the prophet; whereas in his prophecy there is no mention of any such thing. There is indeed an account of his buying his uncle Hanameel's son's field, in Jer_32:7, but not a word of a potter, or a potter's field, or of the price of it, thirty pieces of silver; and that as a price at which he, or any other person was valued; but the passage which is manifestly referred to, stands in Zec_11:12, where are these words, "and I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my price, and if not, forbear; so they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver: and the Lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter, a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord": the removing of this difficulty, it might be observed, that the Syriac and Persic versions make no mention of any prophet's name, only read, "which was spoken by the prophet"; and so may as well be ascribed to Zechariah, as to Jeremy, and better: but it must be owned, that Jeremy is in all the Greek copies, in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel. Various things are said for the reconciling of this matter: some have thought that Zechariah had two names, and that besides Zechariah, he was called Jeremy; but of this there is no proof. Jerom (y) affirms, that in an Hebrew volume, being an apocryphal work of Jeremy, which was shown him by one of the Nazarene sect, he read these words verbatim: so that though they do not stand in the writings of Jeremy, which are canonical Scripture, yet in an apocryphal book of his, and which may as well be referred to, as the book of Maccabees, the traditions of the Jews, the prophecies of Enoch, and the writings of the Heathen poets. Moreover, Mr. Mede (z) has laboured, by various arguments, to prove, that the four last chapters of Zechariah were written by Jeremy, in which this passage stands; and if so, the reason is clear, for the citation in his name. But what seems best to solve this difficulty, is, that the order of the books of the Old Testament is not the same now, as it was formerly: the sacred writings were divided, by the Jews, into three parts: the first was called the law, which contains the five books of Moses; the second, the prophets, which contains the former and the latter prophets; the former prophets began at Joshua, and the latter at Jeremy; the third was called Cetubim, or the Hagiographa, the holy writings, which began with the book of Psalms: now, as this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, Luk_24:44, because it began with that book; so all that part which contained the latter prophets, for the same reason, beginning at Jeremy, might be called by his name; hence a passage, standing in the prophecy of Zechariah, who was one of the latter prophets, might be justly cited, under the name of Jeremy. That such was the order of the books of the Old Testament, is evident from the following passage (a).
"it is a tradition of our Rabbins, that the order of the prophets is, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and the Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve.''
Moreover, it is usual with them to say (b), that the spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah; and it is very plain, that the latter prophets have many things from the former; and so might Zechariah have this originally from Jeremy, which now stands in his prophecy: all this would be satisfactory to a Jew: and it is to be observed, that the Jew (c), who objects to everything he could in the evangelist, with any appearance on his side, and even objects to the application of this prophecy; yet finds no fault with him for putting Jeremy for Zechariah. That the prophecy in Zechariah belongs to the Messiah, and was fulfilled in Jesus, manifestly appears from the context, for as well as the text itself. The person spoken of is in Zec_11:4, called to "feed the flock of slaughter", which being in a very poor condition, Zec_11:5, the state of the Jews, at the time of Christ's coming, is hereby very aptly represented: he agrees to do it, Zec_11:7, and accordingly furnishes himself for it; but he is despised, abhorred, and rejected by the shepherds, the principal men in church and state; because he severely inveighed against their doctrines and practices, Zec_11:8, upon which he rejects them, and dissolves both their civil and church state; which can suit with no other times than the times of Jesus, Zec_11:9, and lest it should be thought that he used them with too much severity, he gives one single instance of their ingratitude to him, which shows how little they esteemed him; and that is, their valuing him at no greater a price than "thirty pieces of silver", Zec_11:12, which were afterwards "cast unto the potter". The Jews (d) themselves own, that this prophecy belongs to the Messiah, though they interpret it of him in another manner.
"Says R. Chanun, the Israelites will have no need of the doctrine of the king Messiah in the time to come; as it is said, Isa_11:10, "to him shall the Gentiles seek", and not the Israelites: if so, for what does the king Messiah come? and what does he come to do? to gather the captives of Israel, and to give them the thirty precepts, as it is said, Zec_11:12, "and I said unto them, if ye think good", &c. Rab says, these are the thirty mighty men; and Jochanan says, these are the thirty commands.''
Should it be objected, that supposing the Messiah is intended, the money is said to be given into his hands, and not into the hands of him that was to betray him; "if ye think good, give me my price", Zec_11:12, it may be replied, that the words הבו שכרי, should not be rendered, "give me my price", but "give my price"; i.e. give what you think fit to value me at, into the hands of the betrayer; and accordingly they did: "so they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver", Zec_11:12; which is the very sum the chief priests agreed with Judas for, and which he received; see Mat_26:15, and if it should be objected to the citation of the evangelist, that it is considerably different from the word of the prophet, it being in the latter, "I took the thirty pieces of silver"; whereas in the former, the words are quoted thus,
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: it may be observed, that the word which Matthew uses may be rendered, "I took", as it is in the Syriac version; and that the thirty pieces of silver were the goodly price, at which the Messiah was valued by the children of Israel, is manifest enough; and is an instance of egregious ingratitude, that this should be the price of the "innocent one", as the Arabic Version renders the phrase, "of him that was valued"; of the "honoured one", as the Ethiopic; of the "most precious one", as the Syriac; he who in his person, and the perfections of his nature, is equal to his father, and his fellow; who has all the riches of grace and glory in him, as mediator; who is superior to angels, and fairer than the sons of men in human nature: is the chiefest among ten thousands, and more precious than rubies; and all the things that can be desired are not to be compared with him, and yet sold for a sum of money, the price of a slave, Exo_21:32, and that by the children of Israel, to whom the Messiah was promised; who expected him, and desired his coming; and who sprung from among them, and was sent unto them, and yet they received him not, but undervalued him in this exceeding mean way. Wicked men have no value for Christ; they sell him and themselves for nought; but gracious souls cannot value him enough, nor sufficiently express their esteem of him.
(y) In loc. (z) Mede's Works, p. 963, 1022, 1023. (a) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 14. 2. Vid. Praefat. R. David Kimchici in Jer. (b) Sepher Hagilgulim apud Surenhus. Biblos Katallages, p. 41. (c) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 25. p. 412. (d) Bere**** Rabba, sect. 98. fol. 85. 3, 4."
Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which is declared through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they got the thirty silver pieces. (The price of the Valued One, Whom they value from the sons of Israel),
Zechariah 11:12-13 CLV And I am saying to them, If it is good in your eyes, grant my hire. And if not, forbear. And they are weighing my hire, thirty silverlings." (13) And Yahweh is saying to me, Fling it to the minter--the noble esteem with which I am esteemed by them! So I am taking the thirty silverlings and am flinging them to the minter in the house of Yahweh."
Mat 27:9 -
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying — (Zec_11:12, Zec_11:13). Never was a complicated prophecy, otherwise hopelessly dark, more marvelously fulfilled. Various conjectures have been formed to account for Matthew’s ascribing to Jeremiah a prophecy found in the book of Zechariah. But since with this book he was plainly familiar, having quoted one of its most remarkable prophecies of Christ but a few chapters before (Mat_21:4, Mat_21:5), the question is one more of critical interest than real importance. Perhaps the true explanation is the following, from Lightfoot: “Jeremiah of old had the first place among the prophets, and hereby he comes to be mentioned above all the rest in Mat_16:14; because he stood first in the volume of the prophets (as he proves from the learned David Kimchi) therefore he is first named. When, therefore, Matthew produceth a text of Zechariah under the name of Jeremy, he only cites the words of the volume of the prophets under his name who stood first in the volume of the prophets. Of which sort is that also of our Savior (Luk_24:41), ‘All things must be fulfilled which are written of Me in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,’ or the Book of Hagiographa, in which the Psalms were placed first.” Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary.
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible:
"Mat 27:9 - Spoken by Jeremy the prophet - The words quoted here are not to be found in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Words similar to these are recorded in Zec_11:12-13, and from that place this quotation has been doubtless made. Much difficulty has been experienced in explaining this quotation. In ancient times, according to the Jewish writers; “Jeremiah” was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed first in the “Book of the Prophets,” thus: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. Some have thought that Matthew, quoting this place, quoted the Book of the Prophets under the name of that which had the “first” place in the book, that is, Jeremiah; and though the words are those of Zechariah, yet they are quoted correctly as the words of the Book of the Prophets, the first of which was Jeremiah. Others have thought that there was a mistake made by ancient transcribers, writing the name Jeremiah instead of Zechariah; and it is observed that this might be done by the change of only a single letter. It was often the custom to abridge words in writing them. Thus, instead of writing the name of Jeremiah in full, it would be written in Greek, “Iriou.” So Zechariah would be written “Zion.” By the mere change of Zinto I, therefore, the mistake might easily be made. Probably this is the correct explanation. Others have supposed that the words were “spoken by Jeremiah,” and that “Zechariah” recorded them, and that Matthew quoted them as they were - the words of Jeremiah. The passage is not quoted literally; and by its being “fulfilled” is meant, probably, that the language used by Zechariah on a similar occasion would express also this event. See the notes at Mat_1:22-23. It was language appropriate to this occasion.
The price of him that was valued - That is, the price of him on whom a value was set. The word rendered “valued,” here, does not, as often in our language, mean to “esteem,” but to “estimate;” not to love, approve, or regard, but to fix a price on, to estimate the value of. This they considered to be thirty pieces of silver, “the common price of a slave.”
They of the children of Israel did value - Some of the Jews, the leaders or priests, acting in the name of the nation.
Did value - Did estimate, or fix a price on."
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:
"It was an ancient custom among the Jews, says Dr. Lightfoot, to divide the Old Testament into three parts: the first beginning with the law was called The Law; the second beginning with the Psalms was called The Psalms; the third beginning with the prophet in question was called Jeremiah: thus, then, the writings of Zechariah and the other prophets being included in that division that began with Jeremiah, all quotations from it would go under the name of this prophet. If this be admitted, it solves the difficulty at once. Dr. Lightfoot quotes Baba Bathra, and Rabbi David Kimchi’s preface to the prophet Jeremiah, as his authorities; and insists that the word Jeremiah is perfectly correct as standing at the head of that division from which the evangelist quoted, and which gave its denomination to all the rest. But Jeremiah is the reading in several MSS. of the Coptic. It is in one of the Coptic Dictionaries in the British Museum, and in a Coptic MS. of Jeremiah, in the library of St. Germain. So I am informed by the Rev. Henry Tattam, Rector of St Cuthbert’s, Bedford."
John Gill's Exposition of the bible:
"Mat 27:9 - Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,.... Through the purchasing of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver, the price that Christ was valued at, a prophecy in the writings of the Old Testament had its accomplishment: but about this there is some difficulty. The evangelist here says it was spoken by Jeremy the prophet; whereas in his prophecy there is no mention of any such thing. There is indeed an account of his buying his uncle Hanameel's son's field, in Jer_32:7, but not a word of a potter, or a potter's field, or of the price of it, thirty pieces of silver; and that as a price at which he, or any other person was valued; but the passage which is manifestly referred to, stands in Zec_11:12, where are these words, "and I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my price, and if not, forbear; so they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver: and the Lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter, a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord": the removing of this difficulty, it might be observed, that the Syriac and Persic versions make no mention of any prophet's name, only read, "which was spoken by the prophet"; and so may as well be ascribed to Zechariah, as to Jeremy, and better: but it must be owned, that Jeremy is in all the Greek copies, in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel. Various things are said for the reconciling of this matter: some have thought that Zechariah had two names, and that besides Zechariah, he was called Jeremy; but of this there is no proof. Jerom (y) affirms, that in an Hebrew volume, being an apocryphal work of Jeremy, which was shown him by one of the Nazarene sect, he read these words verbatim: so that though they do not stand in the writings of Jeremy, which are canonical Scripture, yet in an apocryphal book of his, and which may as well be referred to, as the book of Maccabees, the traditions of the Jews, the prophecies of Enoch, and the writings of the Heathen poets. Moreover, Mr. Mede (z) has laboured, by various arguments, to prove, that the four last chapters of Zechariah were written by Jeremy, in which this passage stands; and if so, the reason is clear, for the citation in his name. But what seems best to solve this difficulty, is, that the order of the books of the Old Testament is not the same now, as it was formerly: the sacred writings were divided, by the Jews, into three parts: the first was called the law, which contains the five books of Moses; the second, the prophets, which contains the former and the latter prophets; the former prophets began at Joshua, and the latter at Jeremy; the third was called Cetubim, or the Hagiographa, the holy writings, which began with the book of Psalms: now, as this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, Luk_24:44, because it began with that book; so all that part which contained the latter prophets, for the same reason, beginning at Jeremy, might be called by his name; hence a passage, standing in the prophecy of Zechariah, who was one of the latter prophets, might be justly cited, under the name of Jeremy. That such was the order of the books of the Old Testament, is evident from the following passage (a).
"it is a tradition of our Rabbins, that the order of the prophets is, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and the Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve.''
Moreover, it is usual with them to say (b), that the spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah; and it is very plain, that the latter prophets have many things from the former; and so might Zechariah have this originally from Jeremy, which now stands in his prophecy: all this would be satisfactory to a Jew: and it is to be observed, that the Jew (c), who objects to everything he could in the evangelist, with any appearance on his side, and even objects to the application of this prophecy; yet finds no fault with him for putting Jeremy for Zechariah. That the prophecy in Zechariah belongs to the Messiah, and was fulfilled in Jesus, manifestly appears from the context, for as well as the text itself. The person spoken of is in Zec_11:4, called to "feed the flock of slaughter", which being in a very poor condition, Zec_11:5, the state of the Jews, at the time of Christ's coming, is hereby very aptly represented: he agrees to do it, Zec_11:7, and accordingly furnishes himself for it; but he is despised, abhorred, and rejected by the shepherds, the principal men in church and state; because he severely inveighed against their doctrines and practices, Zec_11:8, upon which he rejects them, and dissolves both their civil and church state; which can suit with no other times than the times of Jesus, Zec_11:9, and lest it should be thought that he used them with too much severity, he gives one single instance of their ingratitude to him, which shows how little they esteemed him; and that is, their valuing him at no greater a price than "thirty pieces of silver", Zec_11:12, which were afterwards "cast unto the potter". The Jews (d) themselves own, that this prophecy belongs to the Messiah, though they interpret it of him in another manner.
"Says R. Chanun, the Israelites will have no need of the doctrine of the king Messiah in the time to come; as it is said, Isa_11:10, "to him shall the Gentiles seek", and not the Israelites: if so, for what does the king Messiah come? and what does he come to do? to gather the captives of Israel, and to give them the thirty precepts, as it is said, Zec_11:12, "and I said unto them, if ye think good", &c. Rab says, these are the thirty mighty men; and Jochanan says, these are the thirty commands.''
Should it be objected, that supposing the Messiah is intended, the money is said to be given into his hands, and not into the hands of him that was to betray him; "if ye think good, give me my price", Zec_11:12, it may be replied, that the words הבו שכרי, should not be rendered, "give me my price", but "give my price"; i.e. give what you think fit to value me at, into the hands of the betrayer; and accordingly they did: "so they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver", Zec_11:12; which is the very sum the chief priests agreed with Judas for, and which he received; see Mat_26:15, and if it should be objected to the citation of the evangelist, that it is considerably different from the word of the prophet, it being in the latter, "I took the thirty pieces of silver"; whereas in the former, the words are quoted thus,
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: it may be observed, that the word which Matthew uses may be rendered, "I took", as it is in the Syriac version; and that the thirty pieces of silver were the goodly price, at which the Messiah was valued by the children of Israel, is manifest enough; and is an instance of egregious ingratitude, that this should be the price of the "innocent one", as the Arabic Version renders the phrase, "of him that was valued"; of the "honoured one", as the Ethiopic; of the "most precious one", as the Syriac; he who in his person, and the perfections of his nature, is equal to his father, and his fellow; who has all the riches of grace and glory in him, as mediator; who is superior to angels, and fairer than the sons of men in human nature: is the chiefest among ten thousands, and more precious than rubies; and all the things that can be desired are not to be compared with him, and yet sold for a sum of money, the price of a slave, Exo_21:32, and that by the children of Israel, to whom the Messiah was promised; who expected him, and desired his coming; and who sprung from among them, and was sent unto them, and yet they received him not, but undervalued him in this exceeding mean way. Wicked men have no value for Christ; they sell him and themselves for nought; but gracious souls cannot value him enough, nor sufficiently express their esteem of him.
(y) In loc. (z) Mede's Works, p. 963, 1022, 1023. (a) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 14. 2. Vid. Praefat. R. David Kimchici in Jer. (b) Sepher Hagilgulim apud Surenhus. Biblos Katallages, p. 41. (c) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 25. p. 412. (d) Bere**** Rabba, sect. 98. fol. 85. 3, 4."
RESPONSE:
Thank you for your lengthy post and many explanations.
However, the fact remains:
Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which is declared through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they got the thirty silver pieces. (The price of the Valued One, Whom they value from the sons of Israel),
Zechariah 11:12-13 CLV And I am saying to them, If it is good in your eyes, grant my hire. And if not, forbear. And they are weighing my hire, thirty silverlings." (13) And Yahweh is saying to me, Fling it to the minter--the noble esteem with which I am esteemed by them! So I am taking the thirty silverlings and am flinging them to the minter in the house of Yahweh."
The fact remains that Matt 27:9's claim is not found in Jeremiah, nor is it found in Zechariah 11:12-13 which describes a pay dispute.
Thank you for your lengthy post and many explanations.
However, the fact remains:
Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which is declared through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they got the thirty silver pieces. (The price of the Valued One, Whom they value from the sons of Israel),
Zechariah 11:12-13 CLV And I am saying to them, If it is good in your eyes, grant my hire. And if not, forbear. And they are weighing my hire, thirty silverlings." (13) And Yahweh is saying to me, Fling it to the minter--the noble esteem with which I am esteemed by them! So I am taking the thirty silverlings and am flinging them to the minter in the house of Yahweh."
The fact remains that Matt 27:9's claim is not found in Jeremiah, nor is it found in Zechariah 11:12-13 which describes a pay dispute.
Matthew goofed again.
I think so. I am willing to be persuaded that Matthew might have taken Jeremiah as a generic term for a number of books including Zechariah. There must have been some reason why he put 'jeremy'.
But that's a side issue. The main issue is that the thirty silver in Zechariah - no matter how one fiddles the language (silverlings, indeed!) - does not look in the least like the Judas story. It is an example of handy quotemining out of context (as it most certainly is) and used to construct a scenario (in which the nasty Jewish priests are made to look as bad as possible by our Gentile Christian writer) to ensure that Judas gets his come - uppance.
However, just as in the Nativity, Luke does the same but (because they never saw each other's work) the two accounts contradict. Just as the sinking Simon episode is discredited by the others and the double donkey, of course, depite our well - named apologetics pal's bland denial of the clear error.
I'm not settiing up a shout and trophy any more than in the exodus thread where the Tempest stele was pretty comprehensively demolished as evidence for the exodus, but you have to keep pointing up the result, otherwise is just gets ignored. That's what theist apologetics works.
'X Y or Z has never been disproved by the skeptics'.
Debate. Evidence presented, comprehensively demolished.
Attempt to claw a draw by various irregular means (you are in denial, were you there?)
Dead silence, then after a suitable interval:
'X Y or Z has never been disproved by the skeptics'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-10-2010 at 06:09 AM..
In this case either Matthew or Luke, or both, got the story wrong. Can we conclude that both passages cannot be correct and “God breathed?”
Matt 27:5 "Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. "(NRSV)
Or
Acts 1:18 “(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out)." (NRSV)
[Some creative apologists will try to insist that there is no inconsistency here. Judas hanged himself, then the rope broke, and then Judas did a somersault in mid-air and, even though he landed on his head, his bowels burst open in the middle].
Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-10-2010 at 06:44 AM..
Reason: remove "size"
In this case either Matthew or Luke, or both, got the story wrong. Can we conclude that both passages cannot be correct and “God breathed?”
Matt 27:5 "Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. "(NRSV)
Or
Acts 1:18 “(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out)." (NRSV)
[Some creative apologists will try to insist that there is no inconsistency here. Judas hanged himself, then the rope broke, and then Judas did a somersault in mid-air and, even though he landed on his head, his bowels burst open in the middle].
Can't you connect the dots? Who said Judas did a somersault in mid-air? Why could'nt the rope break? Or after so many days hanging by the rope his head disengaged from his body and when his body hit the ground (which may have been at the edge of a long drop-off) he burst open?
Since the disciples were under such intense scrutiny by their fellow Jews, don't you think they knew they had to "get it right" or they would be considered liars?
Also it was the chief priests who said the king of the Jews should be born in Bethleham of Judea and then those chief priests quoted the Old Testament to Herod from Micah 5:2 so those chief priests must have known "Bethleham of Judah" and "Bethlehem Ephratah" were one and the same place.
And maybe Judas didn't use a rope. Maybe he hung himself using some of his clothes and after he died the cloth tore and he fell and his bowels burst open.
Maybe no one knew at the time he hung himself and so after he died and after a number of days his body had swollen then when it fell to the ground the bowels burst open.
Why can't you people think logically rather than act like little babies and make trite remarks like somersaults?
Obviously these matters have been known to the church for almost two thousand years and people figured these things out.
[>>Can't you connect the dots? Who said Judas did a somersault in mid-air?<<
RESPONSE:
Luke does in Acts 1: 18 "Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong (ie., headfirst), he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out)." (NRSV)
>>Why could'nt the rope break? Or after so many days hanging by the rope his head disengaged from his body and when his body hit the ground (which may have been at the edge of a long drop-off) he burst open?<<
RESPONSE:
The rope could certainly break. But when you are hanged, your head is up and your body is down. If the rope broke, your feet, not your head, would hit first, unless the dead man did a somersault.
>>Since the disciples were under such intense scrutiny by their fellow Jews, don't you think they knew they had to "get it right" or they would be considered liars
RESPONSE:
Note carefully, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts are different, thus one of them didn't "get it right" And they both were written about 50 years after the event. (Incidentally, who owned the field where this occurred, the high priests (according to Matthew,) or Judas (according to Luke)?
>>Also it was the chief priests who said the king of the Jews should be born in Bethlehem of Judea and then those chief priests quoted the Old Testament to Herod from Micah 5:2 so those chief priests must have known "Bethlehem of Judah" and "Bethlehem Ephratah" were one and the same place<<
RESPONSE: On the contrary.This has already been explained elsewhere. The prophet Micah does not say Bethlehem of Judea. Matthew does. Once again, Bethlehem Ephratah is a clan, not a place. And there is a Bethlehem in Galilee, too.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-10-2010 at 02:10 PM..
Reason: removed repeated "[SIZE]"
>>And maybe Judas didn't use a rope. Maybe he hung himself using some of his clothes and after he died the cloth tore and he fell and his bowels burst open.<<
RESPONSE:
Whatever he used, his head would be up and his feet down. Hence, he would not have fallen "headlong."
>>Maybe no one knew at the time he hung himself and so after he died and after a number of days his body had swollen then when it fell to the ground the bowels burst open.<<
RESPONSE:
Thus to fall "headlong" (headfirst) and somersault would be necessary.
>>Why can't you people think logically rather than act like little babies and make trite remarks like somersaults?<<
RESPONSE:
We are thinking logicall and not trying to ignore the contradiction between Matthew and Luke
>>Obviously these matters have been known to the church for almost two thousand years and people figured these things out.
<<
RESPONSE:
Obviously they haven't as your attempted explanation so eloquently proves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The death of Judas. Matthew verses Luke
