Why is Jeremiah mentioned instead of Zechariah in Matthew 27:9? Immediate Old Testament Parallels • Zechariah 11:12-13 – “So they weighed out my wages—thirty pieces of silver…throw it to the potter…” • Jeremiah 18:2-4; 19:1-13 – Jeremiah is sent to the potter’s house, smashes an earthen vessel in the Valley of Hinnom (later called the “Field of Blood,” cf. Matthew 27:8), and pronounces judgment for innocent blood. • Jeremiah 32:6-15 – Jeremiah purchases a field for silver as a prophetic sign. The Zechariah text supplies the exact price and the potter; the Jeremiah passages supply the imagery of the potter, the purchase of a field for silver, and the theme of blood-guilt in the Valley of Hinnom. Matthew’s citation welds these streams together. Jewish Citation Practice: Naming a Scroll by Its First Prophet In first-century synagogue tradition the prophetic books were often stored on a single large scroll grouped as “Jeremiah,” which stood first, followed by Lamentations, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (Minor) Prophets. Citing the lead prophet’s name to refer to any passage within that scroll was common (parallel to “the Law” meaning Genesis–Deuteronomy). This explains why the Talmud occasionally cites “Isaiah” or “Jeremiah” for material now located elsewhere (cf. b. B. Bathra 14b). Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, could therefore reference Zechariah under the heading “Jeremiah” without contradiction. Composite-Prophecy Technique in Matthew Matthew frequently fuses texts to show a fuller prophetic tapestry (e.g., Matthew 2:6 blends Micah 5:2 with 2 Samuel 5:2). Here he joins Zechariah’s thirty-silver motif to Jeremiah’s potter/field/blood imagery, treating the whole as a single oracle fulfilled in Judas’s betrayal, the priestly purchase of the potter’s field, and the subsequent designation “Field of Blood” (Matthew 27:6-10). Citing only one prophet avoided cumbersome double attributions. Possibility of an Extra-Canonical Jeremiac Tradition Several church fathers (e.g., Justin, Dialogue 72; Origen, Commentary on Matthew 27.9) mention sayings of Jeremiah no longer extant. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that prophetic excerpts circulated independently (4QJerb, 4QJerd). Matthew could be quoting an oral or written Jeremiac source that paralleled Zechariah 11 but did not survive. Inerrancy and Harmonization Because Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16), apparent tensions invite deeper study, not dismissal. The options above are all consistent with inerrancy: 1. Matthew uses Jeremiah as the recognized scroll title that included Zechariah. 2. Matthew cites Jeremiah for thematic dominance in a composite citation. 3. Matthew references an authentic Jeremiac oracle not preserved in the canonical text. Any of the three (or a combination) dissolves the “error” claim without forcing special pleading. Pastoral and Theological Significance Judas’s thirty-silver transaction, the potter’s field, and the blood imagery did not unravel accidentally. Centuries beforehand God painted these threads through multiple prophets so that, when Christ was betrayed, the pattern would lock into place and confirm His messianic identity (Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:10-12). The seamless unity of the prophetic word underlines divine sovereignty and the reliability of Scripture, calling every reader to recognize the Lamb of God who paid the price for sin. Conclusion Matthew names Jeremiah because first-century Jewish practice, prophetic compositing, and possibly lost Jeremiac material all converge to justify that attribution. The oldest manuscripts verify the reading, and the thematic synthesis powerfully showcases the foreknowledge of God and the trustworthiness of His word. |
    |