Hi Folks,
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;
And I may have to adjust this.
It looks like there are two Jewish/Hebraic arguments .. which may be combined :
1) Jeremiah == Prophets .. this is based largely on Talmud ..Bava Bathra and Lightfoot embraced this (too) strongly
One scholar wrote this as: "the Babylonian Talmud placed Jeremiah first in its grouping of the prophets" and thus the collection can go by the name (similar to Jesus referring to "Psalms"). David Christian Ginsburg mentions some mentions in this order. (Gristy gives reference)
2) spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah -- Sepher Hagilgulim (according to Surenhusius) per William Kelly
Now, for a fascinating overview of the weakness of most arguments (except two)
Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (1870)
James Morison
http://books.google.com/books?id=xb4CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA623
http://www.archive.org/stream/practicalcomment00mori#page/570/mode/2up (1895)
Combined with the Wes Gristy article, which utilizes Morison.
In my reference above to "last four chapters of Zechariah to Jeremiah" I probably refer back to the whole
group of Mede, Kidder and Allix arguments that are more higher criticism than Judaic. Generally they
refer to three, or six chapters, I am not checking back right now to find why I had "four".
Quartz Hill
http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/zecharia.htm
6. This leads us then, to the sixth and final possibility, which is the one that will be used in this outline of the Bible: Matthew is correct in attributing this to Jeremiah, and our understanding of the book of Zechariah needs some modification. (continues)
Calvin's editor John King is not very sympathetic to all this, and gives us more backdrop
Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 30: Zechariah, Malachai, tr. by John King, [1847-50], at sacred-texts.com
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc30/cc30001.htm
Since the days of Calvin a dispute has arisen, originated by Mede, respecting this last portion. Owing especially to a quotation in Matt. 27:9, 10, where Jeremiah, and not Zechariah, is mentioned, many since the time of Mede, such as Hammond, Newcome, and several German divines, have adopted the notion, that these chapters have somehow been misplaced, and that they belong to the book of Jeremiah. This view has been strongly opposed by Blayney and others, who, together with Scott, Adam Clarke, and Henderson, consider that there is no sufficient ground for such a supposition, and who for various reasons think that there is a typographical mistake in Matthew (continues)
=========================================
None of these interests me much.
Leaving the following.
1) Apocryphon of Jeremiah, noted by Jerome (and noted properly by Gill)
Thus this thread is fascinating, relevant.
James Miller:
To me the decisive factor indicating a Jewish as opposed to a Christian origin for this work is the fact that Jerome saw the work in a Hebrew book. In other words, the work he saw was in Hebrew or perhaps Aramaic. A Hebrew/Aramaic original is often a key criterion for classifying a work as having a Jewish as opposed to a Christian origin.
Steven
An excellent point. It is the interplay of the Jerome notation of a Hebrew word "word for word" combined with the Apocryphon extant in three languages that makes a compelling evidence. I felt the Jerome evidence itself was very strong (when I did not know of the Apocryphon) and John Gill gave it a major note even without knowing of an extant text.
John Gill
Jerom 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.
Steven
Now, if the Apocryphon was really slavishly Christian (extreme examples, referring to Mary or triune baptism) that would be a counterpoint, yet so far three is no such indication. Simply being a word-for-word prophetic notation in a Hebrew work in 400 AD extant that is matched in the Matthew reference is hard to accuse. Occam would lean to a simple reference by Matthew over a complex forgery designed to fool Jerome ... or something. (Although modern theorists are oft-enamored with forgery theories.)
My other major interest is any interpretation that emphasizes
spoken by Jeremy
over written or scripture. The discussions along the line of "spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah" -- more importantly with the simple idea of the Holy Spirit informing us that Zechariah was recording what had been previously spoken by Jeremiah, are fully acceptable. The usage of "spoken by" looks fully deliberate and unusual.
Yet the Apocryphon theory goes well with "spoken" as well, since "written" tends to imply scripture, and the Apocryphon is not scripture.