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.

2. Matt 27,9c (Zech 11,13c)

        The second line of the quotation must be a rendering of at least part of Zech 11,13c. The LXX translator read )r) instead of rd), and considered –h not as an article but as an interrogative particle¹⁴. He further read the substantive rqy as an adjective and translated it by do/kimoj, and rendered the verb rqy by dokima/zein. Finally, he possibly read l( instead of l(m and translated it by u(pe/r¹⁵. The translation of the Hebrew root rqy by do/kimoj and dokima/zein is not found elsewhere in the LXX; the usual Greek translation is by timh/, tima=n, ti/mioj and cognate words. The latter rendering appears in Aquila’s translation (u(permege/qhj h( timh_ h$n e)timh/qhn), and in the quotation in Matthew. On this point the translation offered in the first gospel can be either a fresh translation of the Hebrew or a revision of the LXX.

        It is obvious that, in the quotation, Zech 11,13c (or at least part of it) is made into an apposition to "the thirty silver pieces" of Zech 11,13d. But what Hebrew words are exactly rendered in Matthew’s text? Do the words th_n timh_n tou= tetimhme/nou o$n e)timh/santo render ytrqy r#$) rqyh rd), or only ytrqy r#$) rqyh, with omission of an equivalent of rd) and simultaneous introduction of tou= tetimhme/nou without a Hebrew counterpart? The former solution implies the difficulty that th_n timh/n should be considered as the rendering of rd), "splendour". Although a Greek translation of rd) by timh/ is maybe in itself not unthinkable, it is not attested in the LXX or in the later Greek versions¹⁶. This solution also implies that tou= tetimhme/nou is the equivalent of rqyh, which would mean that rqfyahv was read as rqfy,Fhv, "of the precious one"¹⁷. It seems to me that the other solution (that only