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.

        (4) Matthean editorial activity can be detected in the plural a)rgu/ria (+ au)ta/). The final line betrays a Matthean interest.

II. Influence of the Quotation on the Context?

        We have observed above that the quotation has been adapted in several ways to the narrative that precedes it, and that it shows some traces of Matthean redaction. The obvious conclusion seems to be that the adaptation to the context is the work of the evangelist, just as the other fulfilment quotations in Matthew’s gospel were added and where necessary adapted by the evangelist as the final redactor of the gospel. For the present case, however, it is often assumed, as I mentioned at the beginning of this paper, that the influence was the other way round: the quotation is supposed to have influenced the narrative, not on the small scale that is also detectable in some other quotations, but on a fairly large scale. Now it has to be said immediately that the a priori plausibility of such a position is not very high, not only because it would make this fulfilment quotation into an isolated case, but also because the quotation has so obviously been adapted to the story. But in theory it is possible that Zech 11,12-13 first contributed to the development of the narrative, and was added and adapted to it at a later stage, whether at the Matthean or at the pre-Matthean level. I shall try to distinguish in Matt 27,3-8 between pre-Matthean traditional materials and Matthean redaction. We can then see how far at either level there was influence from the quotation, and finally try to chart, as far as possible, how Matt 27,3-10 in its present state came into being.

1. Tradition and Redaction

        In Matt 27,3-8, we meet several words and expressions which can be considered as Matthean. W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison give the following list: to/te (v. 3), a)rgu/ria (vv. 3.5.6), oi( a)rxierei=j kai_ presbu/teroi (v. 3), a)naxwrei=n (v. 5), lamba/nein (vv. 6.7), ba/llein (v. 6), sumbou/lion lamba/nein (v. 7)⁴⁰. Other scholars present somewhat different and mostly longer lists⁴¹, but it is clear in any case that