30 pieces of silver

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 98-12-30 00:23:25 EST, you write:

<< Subj:	 Re: 30 pieces of silver
 Date:	98-12-30 00:23:25 EST
 From:	Pelagiuss@aol.com
 Sender:	owner-errancy@infidels.org
 To:	errancy@infidels.org
 
 In a message dated 12/30/98 0:07:55 AM EST, brite1@inetworld.net writes:
 
 << It seems to me that the issue of the inerrancy of the bible can be easily
  dismissed by reference to Matthew 27:9. Here Matthew says the business
  about the thirty pieces of silver given Judas was in fulfilment of a
  prophecy in Jeremiah. No less an authority than Bruce Metzger however in
  his "The Text of the New Testament" states that what Matthew attributes to
  Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah (11:12f). How is it possible that a
  reference from this inerrant book to another passage in this inerrant work
  could be wrong? >>
 
 There is always a way the biblical inerrantists can explain away
 contradiction, errors, and absurdities.  In this case, the sleight-of-hand
 "explaination" usually involves an unsubstantiated assumption that Zechariah
 was once a part of Jeremiah and was made into a separate book after Matthew
 wrote his gospel.  If that is demonstrated to be wrong, no doubt they'll come
 up with an alternative scenerio.  You see, the Bible is always right, no
 matter what.  Once you accept with all your being that premise, there is no
 stopping creating whatever contorted logic that is needed to justify that
 irrational assumption.
====================
Joe Alward:

Even that "explanation" won't cut it; the ONLY place in the Old Testament
where anybody pays silver for a field is in Jeremiah 32:8-9.  How could
anybody--even an inerrantist--believe that Matthew's mention of Jeremiah is
just an amazing coincidence?  

What happened, I suspect, is that Matthew--or Matthew's source--remembered two
different stories from two different authors with names which sounded alike,
and blended them into one.  The first story was the one in Jeremiah about the
Jews asserting their rights of land ownership:  "And I bought the field of my
uncle's son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen
shekels of silver. " (Jeremiah 32:8-9).  The second was in Zechariah, the one
about the money being thrown back in disgust to the paymaster (mistranslated
as the "potter"):  "And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a
goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of
silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD." (Zechariah
11:13)

Matthew blended the three "purchase+silver+field" words he heard in a story
from Jeremiah with the two "thirty+potter" words he heard from a story in
Zechariah into his story based on the five words "purchase-field-potter-
thirty-silver".  He was just confused, that's all, or his source was; either
that, he was constructing a deliberate fabrication, but that's hard to
believe.

Lots of ink has been wasted, I think, debating the translation of the
Zechariah verses which deal with the paymaster/potter.  It think such effort
is misguided because it's unnecessary, in my view.  All the errantist has to
do is point out that which I pointed out above:  Matthew SAID Jeremiah said
silver would be paid for a field, and that's exactly what Jeremiah--and ONLY
Jeremiah--said.  That can't be a coincidence.  The "Matthew" author,
therefore, believed that Jeremiah was speaking of a man paying silverr for a
potter's field, when in fact he was speaking of a man asserting his rights of
land ownership.  This "Matthew" must not have read the relevant Old Testament
verses; if he had, he would have known that he couldn't possibly have gotten
away with such an easily discovered deception.  Perhaps this "Matthew"
couldn't read Hebrew?

• Previous message: 30 pieces of silver
• Next message: 30 pieces of silver
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]