Contradiction?

[TheAristocat]

Matthew 27:9-10 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty pieces of silver, 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.

Zechariah 11:13 And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord.

Jeremiah 32:8-9 Then, just as the Lord had said, my cousin Hanamel came to me in the courtyard of the guard and said, 'Buy my field at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. Since it is your right to redeem it and possess it, buy it for yourself.'"I knew that this was the word of the Lord; so I bought the field at Anathoth from my cousin Hanamel and weighed out for him seventeen shekelsof silver.

Questions:

1. Is seventeen shekels of silver equivalent to thirty pieces of silver?
2. Is Matthew misquoting Zechariah instead of appropriately quoting Jeremiah?
3. Did Jeremiah only speak this as Matthew suggests and it wasn't actually written down? If so how was it recorded so that weight might be leant to the Matthew passage? Or did they count on people not taking the Matthew passage seriously?
4. Why is the price set on "him" in the Matthew passage and who does this "him" refer to?

I've heard that it's a cop-out to suggest that this is a copyist error, but in my opinion it also seems to be a cop-out to just suggest we no longer have any evidence of these words of Jeremiah. Still, I can understand that we don't have all of the writings that the Bible makes mention of such as is found here:

2 Chronicles 20:34 The other events of Jehoshaphat's reign, from beginning to end, are written in the annals of Jehu son of Hanani, which are recorded in the book of the kings of Israel.

 

[kenisyes]

The answer is given in John Gill's commentary on the verse in Matthew. It is several pages long, but I will post it if you like. The simplest answers in Gill's opinion is that the Jews divided the OT into 4 volumes. The volume that contained Zechariah began with Jeremiah, and so was sometimes called by that name. They also held that Zechariah received some of Jermiah's anointing. The entire argument is much longer, and requires referencing old Jewish books to prove that the Jews thought of these two as one continuous prophecy.

 

[TheAristocat]

The answer is given in John Gill's commentary on the verse in Matthew. It is several pages long, but I will post it if you like. The simplest answers in Gill's opinion is that the Jews divided the OT into 4 volumes. The volume that contained Zechariah began with Jeremiah, and so was sometimes called by that name. They also held that Zechariah received some of Jermiah's anointing. The entire argument is much longer, and requires referencing old Jewish books to prove that the Jews thought of these two as one continuous prophecy.

I'd appreciate the extra post to read in detail. I've heard the same argument, but didn't vest a lot of faith in it. Maybe this Mr. Gill does a better job of explaining it.

 

[Bookreader]

17 shekels is about 0.4 lbs

In Jeremiah's day silver was traded by weight - they did not realise the Roman Empire would divise a method to split it into coins with a size described by the print on the coin.

4. the price was for Jesus - the price the Jewish authorities paid for Jesus


Jeremiah was at least sixty years before Zechariah so the field could well be the same but the reason why Jeremiah would be mentioned in preference to Zechariah is the Jewish faith.
Each week they would have a reading from the Torah and from the Prophets
The Prophets meant the books
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel

So Zephaniah was not a 'Prophets' book while Jeremiah was.
Those who knew extended books would have known the Zephaniah context. But it was assumed to come from Jeremiah at a later date - in the continuing history of this infamous field.

 

[Bookreader]

The thing I think is odd is that Joesph was sold for 20 shekels of silver.
As a 'type' of Jesus it's odd that there was deflation over a couple of thousand years

Either that or Joseph was such a hunk and Jesus was considered (by the Pharasees) less worth. Was it an insulting price on purpose?

 

[kenisyes]

I'd appreciate the extra post to read in detail. I've heard the same argument, but didn't vest a lot of faith in it. Maybe this Mr. Gill does a better job of explaining it.

Ask and you shall receive. Here is Mr. Gill's entry on Matt. 27:9

27:9 Ver. 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 32:7-12, 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 11:12,13, 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, Lu 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 11:5,6, 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 11:9-11,14, 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 11:12,13, 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 yrkv wbh, 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 Mt 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, Ex 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} Bereshit Rabba, sect. 98. fol. 85. 3, 4.à

 

[nathan3]

1

Shekel. Hebrew shekel (Exodus 30:13, and frequently). Weight about 10 drams, Avoirdupois. There is a shekel of the sanctuary (Exodus 30:13), and the shekel of the king (2 Samuel 14:26). Their precise relative weights unknown.



2 Matthew 27:

9 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;


spoken. Not " written ", either by Jeremiah or Zechariah, but " spoken " by Jeremiah . Greek to rhethen, not ho gegraptai. See Ap. 161 > ( THE RAIN / THE PURCHASE OF "THE POTTERS FIELD" AND THE FULFILMENT OF THE PROPHECY. )

by = by means of, or by [the mouth of]. Greek dia. Ap 104. v 1 > ( THE RAIN / PREPOSITIONS )

Jeremy = Jeremiah. of = from. Greek apo. Ap. 104. iv >(h ttp://www.therain.org/appendixes/app104.html )

Children = sons. Ap. 108.III.



10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. (KJV)

for. Greek eis. Ap. 104.vi as = according to what. Greek katha. Occ.( occurs, occurrence.) Only here.

the Lord. Ap.98 VI. i. a. 1. B. b. >( THE RAIN /THE DIVINE NAMES AND TITLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. )-( note he uses J in the Lords name, I use Y, seeing it is that sound in Hebrew, there being no J sound the Hebrew . regardless . )

appointed. Greek suntasso. Occ. only in Matthew( here and 26.19).................

 

[nathan3]

I would have given more notes for Jeremiah 32:8-9 But, that is going to take longer to post .

 

[Bookreader]

I'm confused Nathan - what did you say?
You posted a number of parts of scripture and/or some notes in such a random way they made no coherent sense (which we already have more clearly)

What was your point? as I'm sure you have one. And I'm sure it's worth hearing.

 

[nathan3]

I'm confused Nathan - what did you say?
You posted a number of parts of scripture and/or some notes in such a random way they made no coherent sense (which we already have more clearly)

What was your point? as I'm sure you have one. And I'm sure it's worth hearing.

waht? these are study notes. they make sense if you study them -_-.. there is No point im trying to make. The purpose was to help the poster of the questions . ( the point is to help him follow better what he is reading, then perhaps, it will clear it up with some time and effort studying . If, that is he intends to do that .

 

[Laodicea]

Though he quotes Jeremiah there is also a quote from Zechariah. Matthew quotes the foremost of the writers.

 

[TheAristocat]

Ask and you shall receive. Here is Mr. Gill's entry on Matt. 27:9

27:9 Ver. 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 32:7-12, 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 11:12,13, 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, Lu 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 11:5,6, 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 11:9-11,14, 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 11:12,13, 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 yrkv wbh, 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 Mt 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, Ex 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} Bereshit Rabba, sect. 98. fol. 85. 3, 4.à

I think the main point of this post is:

this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, Lu 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.

Interesting stuff. I assume that Jeremy is another name for Jeremiah here, because I've heard that name referenced with regard to the Bible. But usually from foreigners. So if the prophets start with Jeremiah as this says, then I suppose it could be true. I'll just try to look into it more.

 

[Mark51]

It is generally thought that the “silver pieces” often mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures were silver shekels, the standard monetary unit. (Jg 16:5; 1Ki 10:29; Ho 3:2) This is borne out by the Septuagint (in which the Greek word for “silver pieces” at Genesis 20:16 is the same as the Greek word for “shekels” at Genesis 23:15,　16) as well as by the Targums. According to Jeremiah 32:9, the prophet paid “seven shekels and ten silver pieces” for a field. Perhaps this was simply a legal formula meaning 17 silver shekels (AS, Da, NE, RS), or possibly, it meant seven gold shekels and ten silver shekels.

The fulfillment of prophecy recorded by Matthew is based on “what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet.” Jeremiah was at times placed first in “the book of the prophets,” and this section of prophecies therefore included not only Jeremiah’s writings but also those of Zechariah. (Compare Lu 24:44.) The quotation made by Matthew appears to be drawn principally from Zechariah 11:12,　13, but paraphrased by Matthew and applied to the circumstances fulfilling it, this under inspiration by God’s spirit. As a potter’s field the land would be considered as worn out and of little value, worth only the price of a slave.

It appears that Jeremiah was at times reckoned as first of the Later Prophets (instead of Isaiah, as in our present Bibles); hence Matthew, in referring to Zechariah as “Jeremiah,” could have been following the Jewish practice of including a whole section of Scripture under the name of the first book of the section. Jesus himself used the designation “Psalms” to include all the books known as the Writings.—Luke 24:44.

We notice that, in Matthew 27:9, 10, the apostle Matthew says that it was the saying of the prophet Jeremiah that was fulfilled. If Matthew was referring to that section of the Hebrew Scriptures known as The Prophets and this section in Matthew’s day was headed by the prophecy of Jeremiah, then the name Jeremiah would include all the other prophetic books, including that of Zechariah. In such a case Matthew would really be meaning Zechariah although using the name Jeremiah.

Since Matthew 27:9, 10 corresponds with Zechariah 11:13 and with nothing in the book of Jeremiah, Matthew’s quotation must have been a loose translation of Zechariah 11:13. The way in which Matthew translated Zechariah 11:13 was evidently meant to show how the fulfillment of Zechariah 11:13 worked out, namely, that “they took,” the priestly representatives of Israel took, the thirty silver pieces from the floor of the temple, and “they [the priests, acting instead of the individual, Judas Iscariot] gave them for the potter’s field.” Zechariah 11:13 does not tell us how the thirty silver shekels that Zechariah threw into the treasury of Jehovah’s temple were particularly disposed of later. Matthew, however, does tell us how the fulfillment of the prophecy did dispose of the money, to fit the altered circumstances. This fulfillment would confirm that the shepherd Zechariah here pictured the betrayed and sold Messianic Shepherd, Jesus, so cheaply priced.
　

 

[danschance]

I'd appreciate the extra post to read in detail. I've heard the same argument, but didn't vest a lot of faith in it. Maybe this Mr. Gill does a better job of explaining it.

I believe this article will answer your question.

Apologetics Press - Who was Matthew Quoting?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

It is believed by a lot of scholars that Zechariah didn't even write Zechariah 9 - 14.

 

[TheAristocat]

Matthew 27:9-10 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty pieces of silver, 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.

[...]

4. Why is the price set on "him" in the Matthew passage and who does this "him" refer to?

So I just wanted to follow up with this fourth question that I had listed in my original post. The Matthew passage says, "... they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me." Because the "they" does not grammatically correspond to "me" this makes me think that this passage is being loosely quoted (i.e. paraphrased). There definitely seems to be some missing information. For example, how is it that some people (i.e. they) buying a potter's field is accomplishing what the Lord commanded that one guy (i.e. me)? How can one guy - separate from the they - accomplish what only the they are doing?