Maarten J.J. Menken, «The Old Testament Quotation in Matthew 27,9-10: Textual Form and Context», Vol. 83 (2002) 305-328

The source of the fulfilment quotation in Matt 27,9-10 must be Zech 11,13, but the biblical text is distorted to a degree that is unparalleled in the other fulfilment quotations, and Matthew ascribes the quotation to Jeremiah. Another difficulty is that the quotation seems to have influenced the context to a much larger extent than in the case of the other fulfilment quotations. A careful analysis of the text shows that the peculiar textual form can be explained in a relatively simple way. The influence of the quotation on Matt 27,3-8 is limited, and is best ascribed to Matthew’s redaction. After all, this fulfilment quotation appears to be less exceptional than it is sometimes supposed to be.

the equivalent of ytrqy r#$) rqyh is given) is less problematic and therefore preferable. Th_n timh/n is then the obvious equivalent of the articular substantive rqyh. In this case we have to explain why tou= tetimhme/nou was inserted. On both accounts we have to explain why the 1st pers. sg. ytrqy was rendered by the 3rd pers. pl. e)timh/santo, and there is the problem of the alteration of the sequence of lines, so that in Matthew’s quotation Zech 11,13c follows 11,13d.

        All three questions cannot, as far as I can see, be answered as long as we limit our examination to the transmission of Zechariah’s text. They can, however, if the context, within which the quotation now functions, is taken into account. In Zech 11,13, the prophet is the one who takes the money that was paid to him for his work as a shepherd in the name of God, and so basically to God himself. In the application in Matt 27,9, there is a distinction between those who take the money (the chief priests) and the one for whom the money was paid (Jesus). That makes it necessary to introduce into the quotation the person of Jesus as different from the subject of the clause ("I", identified with the chief priests). The "citator" does so by inserting tou= tetimhme/nou between the substantive timh/ and the verb tima=n, that is, he simply makes use of a root already present in his text. The distinction between those who take the money and the one for whom it was paid, also makes it necessary to change Zech 11,13c in such a way that the impression is avoided that the thirty silver pieces were paid for the chief priests; this happens by the introduction of the 3rd pers. pl. e)timh/santo in Zech 11,13c and the adaptation of the relative pronoun (to o#n). The same effect could have been reached by the use of a 1st pers. sg., but in that case the next word of the line (Mhyl(m or its Greek equivalent) would become a problem. The distinction finally explains the inversion of the clauses. God’s words to the prophet have to be eliminated because, in Matthew, the "I" of the quotation no longer coincides with the "I" of God, as is the case in Zechariah. So the relevant part of the divine speech, i.e., the words that characterize the thirty silver pieces, is added as an apposition to Zech 11,13d.

        At the end of the second line of Matthew’s quotation we meet the words a)po_ ui(w=n 'Israh/l, as a replacement of Mhyl(m (MT) / u(pe_r au)tw=n (LXX, Aquila according to Eusebius) / u(p'au)tw=n (Aquila according to ms. 86). Coming now after o$n e)timh/santo, they function as the subject of the relative clause: "some of the sons of Israel"¹⁸. How should we