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.

In my view, the solution of the riddle lies in Jer 32(39),6-15. According to this passage, Jeremiah buys, at the command of the Lord, a field at Anathoth from his cousin Hanamel, for the price of seventeen shekels of silver. The act of the prophet is meant to symbolize that in the future houses, fields and vineyards shall again be bought in the land. We find the word hd#& / a)gro/j in Jer 32(39),7.8.9.15.

        The episode from Jeremiah shows so many similarities to Zech 11,11-13, that the two passages can be considered as analogous. The words lq#$ / i(sta/nai, "to weigh out", and Psk / a)rgurou=j, -ion, "silver", connect them (see Zech 11,12.13; Jer 32[39],9.10)²⁷, but that is not all. The most significant agreement between Zech 11,11-13 and Jer 32(39),6-15 is a clause found at the end of both Zech 11,11 and Jer 32(39),8²⁸. In the Hebrew text of Zechariah, it runs as follows: )wh hwhy-rbd yk ... w(dyw, "and they knew that it was the word of the Lord"; the LXX translation has: kai_ gnw/sontai ... dio/ti lo/goj kuri/ou e)sti/n, "and they will know ... for it is the word of the Lord". In Jeremiah, we read in the Hebrew text: )wh hwhy-rbd yk (d)w, "and I knew that it was the word of the Lord"; the LXX renders correctly: kai_ e!gnwn o#ti lo/goj kuri/ou e)sti/n. In the MT, the clause )wh hwhy-rbd yk occurs in these two verses only. In the LXX, the same is valid for the clause (di)o#ti lo/goj kuri/ou e)sti/n; there is only the minor difference of dio/ti and o#ti. The analogy of Zech 11,11-13 and Jer 32(39),6-15 is obvious.

        The textual analogy made it legitimate to import the word a)gro/j into the quotation from Zechariah. It seems that it was inserted between the preposition ei)j and "the potter", with simultaneous omission of "into the house of the Lord", possibly on account of the shorter parallel wording of v. 13b ("throw it to the potter"). An interesting point is that because of this insertion, the act of giving the thirty silver pieces to the potter, now becomes an act of paying this sum for the potter’s field. This shift is possible only when the insertion is made in a Greek text: dido/nai ei)j can mean both "to give to" (ei)j with an accusative replacing the dative)²⁹ and "to give for" ³⁰, but in