1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Matthew 27:9-10 cites Jeremiah.

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by 37818, Dec 4, 2020.

  1. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Matthew 27:9-10, "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; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."

    The sole reason this needs to be believed is because the writer of Matthew's account was given by the Holy Spirit.

    Two facts to note:
    1. The writings by Jeremaiah have been edited. There are today two editions of Jeremiah where that prophecy is missing from those two edits. The longer Hebrew edition and the shorter LXX Greek edition.
    2. Zechariah quotes Jeremaih.
    Zechariah 1:4, "Be ye not as your fathers, unto whom the former prophets have cried, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Turn ye now from your evil ways, and from your evil doings: but they did not hear, nor hearken unto me, saith the LORD."
    Jeremiah 25:5, "They said, Turn ye again now every one from his evil way, and from the evil of your doings, and dwell in the land that the LORD hath given unto you and to your fathers for ever and ever: . . ."
    Jeremiah 25:7, "Yet ye have not hearkened unto me, saith the LORD; . . ."

    Zechariah 11:12-13. "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 prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    9,302
    Likes Received:
    1,154
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Interesting, I don't recall hearing that explanation before. Probably the most common explanation I have heard is the one quoted below (from the Pulpit Commentary).
    I don't find the Pulpit Commentary explanation especially satisfactory, and have personally been satisfied with the fact that Matthew said Jeremiah spoke it (as opposed to writing it). This is too simplistic for most folks (since Matthew uses "spoken by the prophet" in reference to things that are also written), but I don't mind simple things.

    I notice Matthew quotes Zechariah at least two other times (21:4–5; 26:31), but does not associate the name of a specific prophet with those.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    in the "original" Gospel that Matthew actually wrote, it would have read "Ζαχαρίου", instead of "Ἰερεμίου", which is the reading of some manuscripts and early Versions of the NT. "Ζαχαρίου" was the reading known as early as Origen, who lived in the 3rd century, and known also to the other great scholar, Jerome, and his friend Augustine. The reading "Ἰερεμίου" is obviously a "copyist error", like that found in Mark 1:2-3, where now versions read, "ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ", "Isaiah the Prophet", though there are two OT Prophecies here, one by Isaiah, and the other by Malachi. The KJV rightly reads "ἐν τοῖς προφήταις", "in the Prophets", which has very strong textual evidence. The former reading is an obvious "copyist error".
     
  4. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    again, this could well be due to "copyist error", as there is some early evidence for Matthew 21:4, reading "Ζαχαρίου προφήτου] Mmg 42 ita itc ith copbo(ms) Hilary", which the Old Latin Version, which dates from the 2nd century, and made from Greek manuscripts, actually reads, "Zechariah the Prophet". In 26:31 Matthew does not mention the name of the Prophet Zechariah, but this is no problem, as in Matthew 2:5, we read, "And they said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet", and Jesus Himself says in Matthew 4:4, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", where He does not name where these words are from.
     
  5. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As you presented this, it sounds plausible.
    My Nestle-Aland has only one Greek ms 22. Adam Clarke also only cites one Greek ms dated from the 11th century.
    ". . . One of Colbert's, a MS. of the eleventh century, has ζαξαριου, Zechariah; . . ." The common Greek reading of all the Greek texts across all family types has ιερεμιου.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    129
    Faith:
    Baptist
    37818, why would it "sound plausible" when *not one* printed Greek NT of any type (critical text, TR, majority text) has ever accepted the "Zechariah" reading — one that was obviously created by a very few scribes in an attempt to alleviate the perceived difficulty?
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No "plausible", but fact! Firstly, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of the Original Autographs to have ANY mistakes in them, as they were given by God the Holy Spirit, Who is PERFECT. What is at stake here, is the very Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy, of the Word of God!

    There are some people who are "hung-up" of the textual evidence that is found in Greek manuscripts, as if these COPIES are equally Inspired by the Holy Spirit! There are places in the New Testament, where there are quotations from the Old Testament, that do not mention the name of the OT Prophet, or Book by name.

    We only have two options for the quotation in Matthew 27:7, where most versions read "Ἰερεμίου". Firstly, we accept the reading that dates from around the 2nd century in the Diatessaron of Titian, which is a Harmony of the Gospels, and made from the Greek New Testament at this time, where he has it, "Therein was fulfilled the saying in the prophet which said, I took thirty pieces of money". There is no name of any Prophet used. This reading is also supported by some Old Latin manuscripts, which are also 2nd century, and also manuscripts of the later Latin Vulgate by Jerome in the 4th century. Also the Syriac, Coptic, etc. Secondly, the reading of some Old Latin manuscripts which predate the greater majority of the Greek mss, which do read "Ζαχαρίου", is accepted as the original. The fact that this reading was known to the Greek scholar, Origen, as well as to the Greek and Latin scholar, Jerome, and the high authority Augustine, is noteworthy, and cannot be dismissed by anyone who is serious about the true text of the Bible. One thing we do know for sure, that the HolyBible in the Original Autographs, are 100% without ANY error, and FULLY Trustworthy as THE Word of Almighty God!

    For those who only are interested in what the Greek manuscript "evidence" says, I shall give one important textual example. The famous "Pericope Adulterae", which is the account in the Gospel of John, of the woman caught in adultery, found in 7:53-8:11, which is in the KJV, but either omitted in modern versions, or the words are placed within brackets. The oldest Greek manuscript the does have this account, is The Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis (D), and of the 5th century. However, about 100 years earlier, the scholar Jerome, who produced the Latin Vulgate from Greek manuscripts, and who had access to many such manuscripts, says that the account is found in "many manuscripts both Greek and Latin" (C. Pelag, ii, 17). As does Augustine. What of these "MANY" Greek manuscripts? Are we to assume that Jerome was mistaken or even lying? Whatever for, as he was just reporting as it was at his time! We do know that many manuscrips were destroyed, and we are discovering new ones even in our time.

    People can believe what they like, but when it comes to the Infallibility of the Holy Bible in the Original Autographs, I do NOT agree with those who suppose with ZERO evidence, that any reading was "created" by copyists, or that the "accepted" reading, even though WRONG, is somehow the right one!
     
  8. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As he presented this, he made it sound plausible. To me it was not even plausible at all. I am sorry, to me, it seems he thinks he understands textual criticism better than most. I believe he is well meaning. And I will leave it at that.
     
  9. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    so you think that the Bible has ERRORS? This is exactly what it means by accepting the reading "Ἰερεμίου", instead of "Ζαχαρίου". There are NO other options here, if you have one, then present it. Don't criticize me on textual studies, as your own posts which are on here, show that you have not the first clue about this! PROVE me wrong!
     
  10. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are silly here. Fact is always plausible. I presented what I understood to be facts in my OP.

    Those other textual issues have little, if any relavance to Matthew 27:9-10 issue.
     
  11. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Like your post on "Silly Translation", which I have well countered to be wrong, which others have still tried to show where my understanding is wrong, but have failed!
     
  12. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    answer my simple question. Does the Bible in reading "Jeremaiah", as some suppose to be the original reading, make this an error, or not? simple yes or no will do! Again, show where I am wrong, especially in #7
     
  13. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What I know is God's given written revelation is both inerrant and unchangeable.

    We, on the other hand, are not inerrant interpreters of God's word. And there are no inerrant translations. And we do not have inerrant copies handed down to us.
     
  14. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    again, you don't answer the question. do YOU accept the reading of Matthew 27:9, as "Jeremaiah", which is found in most versions, as being what the Apostle Matthew wrote, as Inspired by God the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
     
  15. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My answer is in my OP.
     
  16. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    not there! show me?
     
  17. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ok, while off topic here, so am I suppose to believe you think males should be addresed as "and sisters?"
     
  18. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ". . . this needs to be believed . . . ." that it "was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, . . ." because "Matthew's account was given by the Holy Spirit."
     
  19. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    the WORD happens to be masculine, it does NOT follow that in every instance, it should mean "male". The Greek word "ἄνθρωπος" is a masculine noun. so, so we always translate this as "male" even though there are many instances where it definitely includes females? Genesis 1:27 reads "So God created man in His own image", where in the LXX, "man" is "ἄνθρωπος", does this mean that only "males" are created in the "Image of God", and not "females"?

    I am still waiting for your clear response to Matthew 27:9?
     
  20. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    3,283
    Likes Received:
    125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    so the Holy Spirit, according to you, made a MISTAKE, because this quotation is NOT from Jeremiah, but clearly is Zachariah! Can you not see the problem here with the "traditional" reading? It is from the devil so that people can say that the Word of God is not Perfect, as it has blatant errors!!!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
Loading...