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.

Matthew’s hand is discernible in the pericope, and that he connected narrative and quotation by means of the words labo/ntej ta_ a)rgu/ria in v. 6. This does not mean that there is no traditional stratum in the narrative: we shall see that comparison with parallels and attention to tensions within Matthew’s gospel can lead to a determination of pre-Matthean narrative elements and to a reconstruction of the basic outline of the tradition behind Matt 27,3-8. A reconstruction of its wording is, to my mind, impossible, not only on account of the evangelist’s editorial work, but also because the un-Matthean vocabulary in the pericope⁴² is easily explained by the subject-matter of the pericope and is therefore no indication for the use of traditional materials.

        A comparison with Matthew’s primary source, the gospel of Mark, reveals that the idea that Judas betrayed Jesus for money to the chief priests, belongs to tradition (Mark 14,10-11 // Matt 26,14-16).

        In addition to Matt 27,3-8, there are two other stories about the fate of Judas: Acts 1,18-19 and Papias, frg. 3. Matthew’s story is independent of the two others, so that common elements must belong to the tradition preceding them. At least the following elements of Matthew’s story must then be traditional: the fate of Judas was an unhappy one, a piece of land was bought with the money that Judas had earned by betraying Jesus, and this piece of land was later called "field of blood" (Matthew) or "plot of blood" (Acts).

        That Judas reached his unhappy end by suicide, is peculiar to Matthew. There are many indications that the early Christian picture of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was at many points influenced by the biblical stories (and their later interpretations) of the betrayal of David by Ahithophel in 2 Samuel 15-18⁴³. Judas’ suicide is one of these points; that is at least strongly suggested by the striking agreement between the suicide of Ahithophel as related in 2 Sam 17,23 (MT: qnxyw ... Klyw; LXX: a)ph=lqen ... kai_ a)ph/gcato) and the suicide of Judas as related in Matt 27,5 (a)pelqw_n a)ph/gcato). From the circumstance that Matthew does not elsewhere in his gospel contribute to the Judas-Ahithophel