474

The Traditional Interpretation. fashioner of clay, but to a fashioner of silver, it must follow from this, independently of other elements of proof, that the quotation contained in Matthew 27. 9-10 cannot have been taken from Zechariah II. 12-13. Even apart from these points, however, the advocates of the common traditional method of interpreting Zechariah II. 12-13 cannot, with their utmost ingenuity, get the one passage to fit the other in such a way as to give even plausibility to the assertion that the evangelist is quoting, not from Jeremiah, but from Zechariah. Even if the phrase "y be interpreted as implying moral wretchedness, and the phrase 'n 77 be viewed as ironical, and as denoting the potter, still, as already observed, Zechariah makes no mention either of a field or of the purchase of a field. And yet the purchase of a field is the transaction in which the prophecy quoted by the evangelist was fulfilled.

היוצר

So obviously incompatible with each other, as the quotation and the passage quoted from, are Matthew 27. 9-10 and Zechariah 11. 12-13, that many advocates of the common view either acknowledge that their theory does not adequately account for the discrepancy, or the explanations which they offer are plainly below the mark. Thus Alford says, as already noticed in page 423, 'The quotation here is very different from the LXX, and not much more like the Hebrew.'

Archbishop Newcome, who accepts the traditional view, asks in his Notes on Zechariah,

'how the transaction related by the evangelist can be considered as

Laborious Efforts.

475

a fulfilment of that which was spoken by the prophet, considering the striking difference in some of the circumstances. In the one case thirty pieces of silver were given as wages for service; in the other, they were paid as the price of a man's blood; in the one, they were thrown with contempt to the potter; in the other, they were cast down in the temple in a fit of remorse, and taken up by others who employed them in the purchase of the potter's field.'

The Editor of the Speaker's Commentary says in his special note on Matthew 27. 9

'The words of St. Matthew differ both from the rendering of the Septuagint and from the Hebrew, of which he frequently gives an independent translation. The difference is so great as to make it certain, either that he did not write with the original text before him, or that his object was simply to note coincidences in leading points.'

Well might Matthew Pool confess, in attempting to prove that the quotation is from Zechariah II. 12-13,

...

'It is a very hard text as it lies in the prophet to give a just account of. But how Matthew saith this was spoken by Jeremy the prophet is a harder knot. It is observable that Zechariah hath many things found in Jeremiah, and it is not improbable that the very same thing was prophesied by Jeremiah, though afterward repeated by Zechariah, and only in the writings of Zechariah left upon sacred record.' (Partly quoted in page 422.)

With the many laborious and limping attempts to make straight that which is crooked, or to number that which is wanting, may be contrasted the following clear and concise note in Mr. Burgon's Treatise of 1861, on Inspiration and Interpretation:

'St. Matthew is charged with a bad memory, because he ascribes to "Jeremy the prophet" words which are said to be found in Zechariah.-Strange that men should be heard to differ about a plain matter of fact! I have never been able to find these words in Zechariah yet!'

476 Different modes of quotation.

Quotations and References.

In order that the matter at issue may be fully and satisfactorily discussed, sundry important points, apt to be overlooked, require attentive consideration. There is, for instance, an essential difference between directly quoting a passage, as Deuteronomy 25. 4 in 1 Corinthians 9. 9 and I Timothy 5. 18, and simply referring to a passage, as Leviticus 12. 3 in John 7. 22-23 (Page 355). And even where there is not a mere reference, but a veritable quotation, the Old Testament passage may be quoted either verbatim from the Septuagint, as Isaiah 53. 1 in John 12. 38 and Romans 10. 16,— or, mutatis mutandis, as Isaiah 6. 10 and 29. 10 in Romans 11. 8, or in an abridged form, as Exodus 15. 1-18 in Revelation 15. 3-4. Or the substance rather than the words may be given, as the substance of Genesis 12. 7; 13. 15; 15. 18; 17. 8, in Acts 7. 5.

Two or more passages also from different parts of a book, or even from different books, may be quoted together, as in Mark 1. 2-3; Acts 1. 20; 13. 22; Romans 3. 10-18, without any occasion for their respective differences in position and authorship being mentioned.

I TIM. 5. 18. For the Scripture saith, Boûv ảλoŵvta où piμwoeis. Rom. 10. 16. For Esaias saith, Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν ; ACTS 7. 5. And he promised to give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him.

ACTS 1. 20. For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his office let another take.

Difference in Number and Person. 477

Difference of Person.

One of the simplest and most common of the changes denoted by the phrase mutatis mutandis is change of person, as where the him in John 19. 37 corresponds to the me in Zechariah 12. 10, and the imperative Smite, in Zechariah 13. 7, is changed into the first person, Пarážw, I will smite, in Matthew 26. 31 and Mark 14. 27.

They shall look unto me whom they pierced. They shall look unto him whom they pierced. Smite the Shepherd. I will smite the Shepherd. Now it is thus that critics, in attempting to explain Matthew 27. 9-10 as containing a quotation from Zechariah II. 13, sometimes try to account for the differences, in respect of person, between the two passages.

'The words in the Gospel, "they took the thirty pieces of silver," says the Bampton Lecturer, 'assume the place of "I took" in Zechariah, because the chief priests in this particular acted as Caiaphas before them (John xi. 49-52) in God's stead, and unwittingly fulfilled the Divine will. "The price of him that was valued” is (as Keil well expresses it) a free translation of the words in Zechariah, "a goodly price at which I was priced;" and the clause that follows in the Gospel, viz., "whom they of the children of Israel did value," corresponds to the concluding words of the sentence in the prophet, "at which I was priced by them." Further the words in Matthew xxvii. 10, "and gave them for the potter's field," coincide with the words in Zechariah, "and I cast it to the potter in the house of the Lord," while the concluding words of the quotation in St. Matthew, as the Lord appointed me," seem to refer to the original direction of the Lord concerning the money, namely, "Cast it to the potter."'

66

Yet this attempted explanation does not fit the facts of the case, and utterly fails to account for the difference between the they, the him, and the

478

Two incompatible passages.

me, of Matthew 27. 9-10, which severally denote different individuals, and include difference of number as well as difference of person: whereas the corresponding words, I, I, and me in the passage from which the quotation is said to have been taken, denote one and the same individual, namely the prophet Zechariah.

MATTHEW 27. 9-10.

Καὶ ἔλαβον

ZECHARIAH II. 13.

And they took the And I took the p
thirty pieces of thirty pieces of

Now it is obvious on the face of the passage, that in Zechariah II. 12-13 he who took the silver and cast it to the fashioner was the same person who had been priced, and whom the Lord had appointed to cast the price to the fashioner. In Matthew 27. 9-10, on the contrary, they who took the thirty pieces of silver, and gave them for the potter's field, were different, not only from him who had been priced, but also from the me whom