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.

        Another element of the narrative that is best considered as traditional, is the name of the field the chief priests purchase: "the potter’s field". If the name does not belong to the traditional nucleus of the narrative, it must come from the quotation; another explanation is hard to find. However, we observed above that the name has been introduced into the quotation with some "exegetical violence": the word a)gro/j is not in Zech 11,11-13, but comes from the analogous passage Jer 32(39),6-15. The only reasonable way to account for this textual modification is to assume that the name "the potter’s field" was already part of the narrative, and that the quotation was adapted so that it contained the same name⁴⁸. It is very improbable that a "citator" first contrives to create a quotation with the name "the potter’s field", and then imports this name into the narrative.

        We can now tentatively reconstruct the outline of the tradition behind Matt 27,3-8: Judas repents, returns the money he received for his betrayal of Jesus, and hangs himself, the money is used to buy the potter’s field, which is later called "field of blood". Whether in the specific tradition behind the Sondergut of Matt 27,3-8 the chief priests were the receivers of the money and the buyers of the field, is not certain, but the chief priests as the ones with whom Judas had made a deal belonged in any case to the Markan tradition which Matthew used (Mark 14,10, cf. Matt 26,14). Matthew could not do otherwise than identify the money receivers and field buyers with the chief priests.

2. Influence of the quotation?

        The above outline represents a minimum of pre-Matthean elements: it comprises those elements only that can be plausibly determined as pre-Matthean. It is quite possible that the narrative as found by the evangelist comprised more. The important thing, however, is that in this pre-Matthean minimum no influence of Zech 11,12-13 can be detected. The only point of contact is the word