The Fashioning of Silver.

469

Even if there was a considerable interval of time between the incidents of the sixth chapter and the incidents of chapter eleventh, and if accordingly there is no reason to suppose that the 0 of 11. 12, 13 were used for the making of the silver crown prescribed in the sixth chapter, yet the narrative recorded in chapter sixth proves nevertheless that a fashioner must have been employed by the prophet Zechariah in the making of gold and silver jewels for the house of Jehovah. Whereas, on the contrary, as already noticed, there is not so much as even the slightest trace of Zechariah having had any dealings whatever with a potter; as Jeremiah unquestionably had.

In commenting on Zechariah 11. 13, the Bampton Lecturer says

'There is not the slightest necessity on critical grounds to translate the noun which occurs here by anything else than " a potter." The verb (7) from which the participial noun which is here used (i) is derived, signifies to form, to fashion (Ps. lxxiv. 17; sometimes with the special signification of moulding out of clay, Gen. ii. 7, 8, 19). When the participle is used as a noun it occurs in the special signification of a potter (as Isa. xxix. 16, xxx. 14, xli. 25, xlv. 9; Jer. xviii. 2-6, xix. 1; 1 Chron. iv. 23, etc.). But the verbal form often retains its participial meaning, and is followed by the accusative of the thing formed, whether a real or an ideal creation (as Hab. ii. 18; Isa. xlv. 7, 18; Ps. xciv. 20). . . . The verb is occasionally used of fashioning or forming metals (Isa. xliv. 12, etc.). But this translation is impossible in this place, unless it be intended only as a paraphrase.'

Yet nothing is said in the Lectures to show how fashioner as a translation of in Zechariah II. 13 is either impossible or paraphrastic. Fashioner

יוצר

470

Paraphrastic Renderings.

is a strictly literal translation, importing into the universion neither more nor less than what is expressed by the original word. On the other hand, potted potter is obviously paraphrastic, importing into the version, not only the simple act or operap.469) nocention, which is all that the verb expresses, but also an explicit reference to the material alleged

texto

it stand fo

a silver! shift.

!!

to have been operated upon. In this respect potter, as a paraphrastic and sometimes positively misleading representative of , resembles goldsmith as the rendering of is or in Isaiah 40. 19; 41. 7; 46. 6; Nehemiah 3. 8, 32;-and slave as a suggested rendering of Tay and doûλos.

But be this as it may, the Bampton Lecture on the Crowning of the High-Priest shows that the viewing of the yi in Zechariah II. 13 as a fashioner of metal is not so untenable or inconsistent with the scope of the prophecy as the Lecture on the Good Shepherd represents it to be. After quoting, in the Lecture on Zechariah 6. 9-15, a remark of Hengstenberg, that 'the prophet can hardly have been a goldsmith, and yet he was ordered to make the crown,' the Bampton Lecturer adds, 'The direction to make the crown signifies nothing more than that the prophet, in some way or other, was to get the crown or crowns duly made.' Now surely these words imply such intercourse with a fashioner of silver and gold as is amply sufficient to account for in Zechariah 11. 13 being used with reference to a fashioner of silver, and to explain accordingly the presence of such a fashioner in the house of Jehovah.

Points of Coincidence.

471

The Consensus of Critics and Commentators.

The largeness of the number of critics and commentators who have assigned the quotation in Matthew 27. 9-10 to Zechariah, and have accordingly viewed as ironical, and

as referring to a potter, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, carry much weight, but may be easily accounted for. So far from being in the position of judges or witnesses severally independent of one another, one has followed in the wake of another; and the current interpretation has, throughout many centuries, been handed down from one critic to another, till at length it appears to have been accepted without inquiry, by many writers, as if it were an undisputed and indisputable fact that the evangelist is quoting, not from Jeremiah, but from Zechariah.

The coincidence between the τριάκοντα ἀργύρια of Matthew 27. 9 and the pub of Zechariah II. 12, 13 seems to have been the pioneer in this old and extensively adopted interpretation. The words καὶ ἔλαβον also are common to the Septuagint and the Gospel, though not in respect of number and person. Then the designating of the τριάκοντα ἀργύρια as τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου, ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν ̓Ισραήλ coincides clearly and closely with the designating of

אדר היקר אשר יקרתי מעליהם as שלשים כסף the

And since a Keрaμe's is mentioned in Matthew 27. 10, while in Psalm 2. 9; Isaiah 29. 16;

30. 14; 41. 25; Jeremiah 18 and 19, refers to a fashioner who was a potter, it is inferred that the of Zechariah 11. 13 must likewise have been And thus it is concluded that it must be from Zechariah 11. 13, and cannot be from the Book of Jeremiah, that the evangelist is quoting in Matthew 27. 9-10.

a potter. And thus

The Testimony of the Septuagint.

In connection with this point, it is worthy of special inquiry, whether, if Zechariah II. 12-13 were looked at independently of Matthew 27. 9-10,

would be held to refer to a potter. To this question a negative answer is given by the old Jewish interpretation of as denoting treasury

אוצר were equivalent to יוצר as if ,(אמרכלא,Targum)

Since this rendering, however, though adverse to potter, is uncalled for, and unsupported by evidence, it may be left out of account.

'No two words, in any language,' says Dr. Pusey, 'are more distinct than 88 and 8, both of them also being, in their several senses, common words. i, "treasure," or at times "treasury," occurs 79 times in the O. T.; yi, lit. "former," occurs 41 times, besides these verses. There is not the slightest approximation of the meaning of the two roots; is, "treasured up;" 3", “made." Since then, apart from inspiration, every writer wishes to be understood, it is, in the nature of things, absurd to suppose, that, had Zechariah meant to say, "Cast into the treasury," he should not have used the word, which everywhere else, 79 times, is used to express it, but should have used a word, which is always, viz. 41 times, used of something else. The Hebrew-Arabic translation, which Pococke so much valued (12th cent.) has twice, (used chiefly of a gold-smith).’

In the Septuagint (being represented by TÒ XWVEVTýρLOV, the furnace) is interpreted, not as if it had some connection with potter's clay, which, as already observed, is utterly alien to the Book of Zechariah, but in its obvious relation to the precious metal which was cast to the .

And the Lord said unto me, Cast them [the Tрιáкоvта åрyvрoûs] into the furnace; and I shall see whether it is proved in like manner as I was proved by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the house of the Lord, into the furnace (εἰς τὸ χωνευτήριον).

Now although, strictly speaking, denotes, not Tò xwvevτýptov the furnace, but the fashioner who makes use of the furnace, yet the Septuagint rendering, with which, in this point, the version of Symmachus coincides, has a special value of its own. For it proves that many years before the Gospel of Matthew was written, or the events recorded in it had occurred, and when it was thus impossible for the Alexandrian translators to be influenced by Matthew 27. 9-10, in Zechariah II. 13 was interpreted as referring, not to a fashioner of clay, but to a fashioner of the material which the prophet gave to the . And it may be here noticed incidentally, that the Septuagint rendering of is thus directly adverse also to

,אדר היקר the ironical interpretation of the phrase

Inadequate Explanations.

If it be proved that potter is inadmissible as a translation of in Zechariah 11. 13, and that here this participial noun refers, not to a