The Purchase of "The Potters
Field" (Matthew 27:6-8, and
Acts 1:18, 19) and the Fulfilment of the Prophecy (Matthew
27:9,
10).
This Is Appendix 161 From The Companion Bible.
There are two difficulties connected with these
scriptures:
The two purchases recorded in Matthew 27:6 - 8, and Acts
1:18,
19,
respectively; and
The fulfilment of the prophecy connected with the former
purchase (Matthew 27:9, 10.
THE TWO PURCHASES.
For there were
two. One by "the chief priests", recorded in Matthew
27:6; and the other
by Judas Iscariot, recorded in Acts 1:18. The proofs are
as follows:
- The purchase of Judas was made some time before that
of the chief priests; for there would have been no time to arrange and
carry this out between the betrayal and the condemnation.
The purchase of
the chief priests was made after Judas had returned the
money.
- What the chief priests bought was "a field" (Greek
agros).
What Judas had
acquired (see 3, below) was what in English we call
"Place" (Greek chorion = a farm, or small
property).
The two are quite distinct, and the difference is
preserved both in the Greek text and in the Syriac version. (See
note 1 below).
- The verbs also are different. In Matthew 27:7 the verbs is
agorazo = to buy in the open market (from
agora = a market-place); while, in Acts 1:18, the verb is
ktaomai = to acquire possession of (see Luke
18:12;
21:19. Acts
22:28), and is
rendered "provide" in Matthew 10:9. Its noun,
ktema = a possession (occurs Matthew 19:22. Mark
10:22. Acts
2:45;
5:1).
- How and when Judas had become possessed of this
"place" we are not told in so many words; but we are
left in no doubt, from the plain statement in John 12:6 that
"he was a thief, and had the bag". The
"place" was bought with this stolen money, "the
reward (or wages) of iniquity". This is a Hebrew idiom (like
our English "money ill-got"), used for money obtained
unrighteousness (Appendix 128.
VII. 1; compare Numbers 22:7. 2Peter
2:15).This stolen
money is wrongly assumed to be the same as the "thirty pieces
of silver"
- The two places had different names. The "field"
purchased by the chief priests was originally known as "the
potter's field", but was afterward called "agros
haimatos" = the field of blood; that is to say, a field bought
with the price of blood ("blood" being part by Figure of
Speech Metonymy (of the Subject), Appendix 6, for
murder, or blood-guiltiness).
The
"possession" which Judas had acquired bore an Aramaic
name, "Hakal dema'
" (see Appendix
94 (III.) 3), which is transliterated Akeldama, or
according to some Akeldamach, or
Hacheldamach = "place (Greek
chorion) of blood": a similar meaning but from a
different reason: videlicet, Judas's suicide. It is thus shown that
there is no discrepancy between Matthew 27:6 - 8 and Acts 1:
18,
19.
THE FULFILMENT OF THE PROPHECY (Matthew 27:9, 10.)
Many solutions
have been proposed to meet the two difficulties connected with Matthew
27:9,
10.
As to the first difficulty, the words quoted from Jeremiah are
not found in his written prophecy: and it has been suggested
- That "Matthew quoted from memory" (Augustine and
others).
- That the passage was originally in Jeremiah, but the Jews cut it
out (Eusebius and others); though no evidence for this is
produced.
- That it was contained in another writing by Jeremiah, which is
now lost (Origen and others).
- That Jeremiah is put for the whole body of the prophets (Bishop
Lightfoot and others), though no such words can be found in the
other prophets.
- That it was "a slip of the pen" on the part of
Matthew (Dean Alford).
- That the mistake was allowed by the Holy Spirit on purpose that
we may not trouble ourselves as to who the writers were, but receive
all prophecy as direct from God. Who spake by them (Bishop
Wordsworth).
- That some annotator wrote "Jeremiah" in the margin
and it "crept" into the text (Smith's Bible
Dictionary).
These
suggestions only create difficulties much more grave than the one
which they attempt to remove. But all of them are met and answered by
the simple fact that Matthew does not say it was written
by Jeremiah, but that it was "spoken" by him.
This makes all the difference: for some
prophecies were spoken (and not written), some were written (and not
spoken), while others were both spoken and written.
Of course, by Figure of speech,
Metonymy (of Cause, Appendix 6),
one may be said to "say" what he has written; but we
need not go out of our way to use this figure, if by so doing we
create the very difficulty we are seeking to solve.
There is all the difference in the world between to
rhethen (= that which was spoken), and ho
gegraptai (= that which stands written).
- As to the second difficulty: that the prophecy attributed to
Jeremiah is really written in Zechariah 11:10 - 13, it is created
by the suggestion contained in the margin of the Authorized Version.
That this cannot be the solution may be shown
from the following reasons:-
- Zechariah 11:
10 - 13 contains no
reference either to a "field" or to its
purchase. Indeed, the word "field"
(shadah) does not occur in the whole of Zechariah
except in 10:1, which has
nothing to do with the subject at all.
- As to the "thirty pieces of silver", Zechariah
speaks of them with approval, while in Matthew they are not so
spoken of. "A goodly price" ('eder
hayekar) denotes amplitude,
sufficiency, while the Verb yakar means
to be priced, prized, precious; and there is not the
slightest evidence that Zechariah spoke of the amount as being
paltry, or that the offer of it was, in any sense, an insult. But
this latter is the sense in Matthew 27:9, 10.
- The givers were "the poor of the
flock". This enhanced the value. "The worth of the
price" was accepted as "goodly" on that
account, as in Mark 12:43, 44.
2 Corinthians
8:12.
- The waiting of the "poor of the
flock" was not hostile, but friendly, as in Proverbs
27:18. Out of
above 450 occurrences of the Hebrew shamar, less than
fourteen are in a hostile sense.
- In the disposal of the silver, the sense of the Verb
"cast" is to be determined by the context (not by the
Verb itself). In Zechariah 11, the context shows it to be in a good
sense, as in Exodus 15:25.
1 Kings
19:19.
2 Kings
2:21;
4:41;
6:6.
2 Chronicles
24:10,
11.
- The "potter" is the fashioner, and his work was
not necessarily confined to fashioning "clay", but it
extended to metals. Compare Genesis 2:7, 8. Psalms
33:15;
94:9. Isaiah
43:1, 6,
10, 21; 44:2, 9 - 12, 21,
24; 45:6, 7;
54:16,
17. Out of the sixty-two occurrences of the Verb
yazar), more than three-fourths have nothing whatever
to do with the work of a "potter".
- A "potter" in connection with the Temple, or its
service, is unknown to fact, or to Scripture.
- The material, "silver" would be
useless to a "potter", but necessary to a fashioner of
metallic vessels, or for the payment of artizans who wrought them
(2 Kings
12:11 -
16; 22:4 - 7.
2 Chronicles
24:11 -
13). One might as well cast clay to a
silversmith as silver to a potter.
- The prophecy of Zechariah is rich in reference to metals; and
only the books of Numbers (31:22) and Ezekiel
name as many. In Zechariah we find six named: Gold,
six times (4:2, 12, 12;
6:11;
13:9;
14:14). Fine gold,
once (9:3). Silver,
six times, (6:11;
9:3;
11:12,
13; 13:9;
14:14). Brass,
once (6:1, margin).
Lead, twice (5:7, 8). Tin, once
(4:10, margin).
Seventeen references in all.
- Zechariah is full of references to what the prophet
saw and said; but there are only
two references to what he did; and both
of these have reference to "silver" (6:11;
11:13).
- The Septuagint, and its revision by Symmachus, read "cast
them (that is to say, the thirty pieces of silver) into the
furnace" (Greek eis to choneuterion),
showing that, before Matthew was written, yotzer was
interpreted as referring not to a "potter" but to a
fashioner of metals.
- The persons, also, are different. In Matthew we
have "they took", "they gave",
"the price of him"; in Zechariah we read "I
took", "I cast", "I was
valued".
- In Matthew the money was given "for the field",
and in Zechariah it was cast "unto the
fashioner".
- Matthew names three parties as being concerned in
the transaction; Zechariah names only one.
- Matthew not only quotes Jeremiah's spoken words,
but names him as the speaker. This is in keeping with Matthew
2:17,
18. Jeremiah is likewise named in Matthew 16:14; but nowhere
else in all the New Testament.
- The conclusion. From all this we gather that the passage is
Matthew (27:9, 10) cannot have
any reference to Zechariah 11:10 - 13.
(1) If Jeremiah's
spoken words have anything to do with what is recorded in
Jeremiah 32:6 - 9, 43, 44, then in the
reference to them other words are interjected by way of parenthetical
explanation. These are not to be confused with the quoted
words. They may be combined thus:-
"Then was fulfilled that which was
SPOKEN by Jeremiah the
prophet, saying 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver
[the price of him who was priced, whom they of the sons of Israel did
price], and they gave them for the potter's field, as the
LORD appointed me.' "
Thus Matthew quotes that which was "SPOKEN" by Jeremiah the
prophet, and combines with the actual quotation a
parenthetical reference to the price at which the prophet Zechariah had
been priced.
(2) Had the sum of money been twenty pieces of
silver instead of thirty, a similar remark might well have been
interjected thus:-
"Then was fulfilled that which was
SPOKEN by Jeremiah the
prophet, saying: 'And they took the twenty pieces of silver
[the price of him whom his brethren sold into Egypt], and they
gave them for the potter's field' ", etc.
(3) Or, had the reference been to the compensation
for an injury done to another man's servant, as in Exodus
21: 32, a similar
parenthetical remark might have been introduced thus:-
"Then was fulfilled that which was
SPOKEN by Jeremiah the
prophet, saying: 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver
[the price given in Israel to the master whose servant had been
injured by an ox], and they gave them for the potter's field'
", etc.
A designed parenthetical insertion by the inspired
Evangelist of a reference to Zechariah, in a direct
quotation from the prophet Jeremiah, is very different from a
"mistake", or "a slip of the pen", "a
lapse of memory", or a "corruption of the text",
which need an apology.
The quotation itself, as well as the parenthetical
reference, are both similarly exact.
NOTES
1 Of these, the
Aramaic (or Syriac), that is to say, the Peshitto, is the
most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek
manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170.
Though the Syrian Church was divided by the Third
and Fourth General Councils in the fifth century, into three, and
eventually into yet more, hostile communions, which have lasted for 1,400
years with all their bitter controversies, yet the same version is ready
to-day in the rival churches. Their manuscripts have flowed into the
libraries of the West. "yet they all exhibit a text in every
important respect the same." Peshitto means a
version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical
glosses. Hence we have given this authority, where
needed throughout our notes, as being of more value than the modern
critical Greek texts; and have noted (for the most part) only those
"various readings" with which the Syriac agrees.
|