The Quran garbles out the encounter between God and Moses at the burning bush.

For instance, in one place the Muslim scripture claims that Moses’ staff appeared to him as a living entity:

Has there come to you the history of Moses When he saw a fire (in the desert), he said to his family, “Wait! Behold, I see a fire far away. Perhaps I can bring to you a burning torch from there or find some guidance at the fire (to get directions).” (This is the story of the days when Moses had reached the converging point of the stream of the conceptual knowledge of intellect, and the stream of the extrinsic knowledge of the Divine Revelation (18:65)). When Moses reached the fire, a voice called out, “O Moses Verily, I am your Lord! Take off your sandals, verily, you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa.” (Your quest for the Truth is over. So lighten the burdens of your search. Now you are in the Sacred Valley of Revelation). I have chosen you to be My Prophet. Listen, then, to what is being revealed. Verily, I, I alone am Allah, there is no god but Me. Therefore, serve Me alone, and from this very moment strive to establish the Divine Order in the land to practically remember Me Behold, the revolution is surely coming. But I Will to keep it hidden for the time-being. (You will be the pioneer of a great revolution, the signs of which are not yet visible). The purpose of this revolution will be for every person to get the fair compensation of his hard work (and bring an end to the hegemony of Pharaoh and his people). Let not those people join your mission who consider it an impossible dream. They accept only what resonates with their desires. Such people will do more harm than good to your Mission.” “What is your strength O Moses?” (Moses was then given complete Guidance and strong Logic, and was encouraged to ask any questions) He said, “Your Guidance is my strength. It will help me in all walks of life. I will prove to be a competent shepherd for the Israelites, and will use it as the challenges come forth.” Allah said, “You are now ready to embark upon your mission.” He felt that the Message given to him was vibrant with life (hayyatun). He said, “Grasp it and fear not. We will keep it evergreen.” Moses was told to hold fast to what he was taught to the extent that it became his first nature; even in frightening situations. And that he would come out unscathed from trying circumstances. The Light in your heart will shine forth in the power of your presentation of the Truth. Another clear evidence We will show you some of Our great Signs (witness how the strength of the Truth can bring about great Revolutions (17:1), (79:20)). Go to Pharaoh who is transgressing the limits.” S. 20:9-24 (Shabbir Ahmed https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/20/st25.htm)

The word hayyatun life/literally means living, as Ahmed correctly rendered it, which other translators interpret it as snake/serpent. However, the word for snake/serpent is not used here. The Arabic term for snake does appear in the encounter between Moses and the Pharoah’s magicians:

(Pharaoh) said: If thou comest with a token, then produce it, if thou art of those who speak the truth. Then he flung down his staff and lo! it was a serpent (thubanun) manifest; And he drew forth his hand (from his bosom), and lo! it was white for the beholders. The chiefs of Pharaoh’s people said: Lo! this is some knowing wizard, S. 7:106-109 Pickthall

(Pharaoh) said: Produce it then, if thou art of the truthful Then he flung down his staff and it became a serpent (thubanun) manifest, And he drew forth his hand and lo! it was white to the beholders. (Pharaoh) said unto the chiefs about him: Lo! this is verily a knowing wizard, Who would drive you out of your land by his magic. Now what counsel ye? S. 26:31-35 Pickthall

However, the foregoing is contradicted elsewhere in the Quran when in other places it states that Moses’ staff appeared as a jinn, which is supposed to be a demonic entity:

“And throw/throw away your stick/cane, so when he saw it, it shakes/moves as if it is a Jinn (jannun) he turned away giving his back, and he did not follow/succeed/track: “You Moses, do not fear, that I, the messengers do not fear at/by/near Me.”” S. 27:10  (Muhammad Ahmed & Samira https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/27/st19.htm)

“… So, as soon as he saw it shaking as if it were a jinni, he turned away withdrawing and did not retrace his steps…” (Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/27/st21.htm)

“… So when he saw it vibrate as if it were a Jinn, he ran away and would not turn back…” (The Monotheist Group (2013 Edition) https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/27/st58.htm)

“… But when he saw it writhing as it were a demon, he turned to flee headlong…” Pickthall

“… When he saw it moving like a demon, he turned around and fled…” Khalifa

“And that (E) throw/throw away your stick/cane. So when he saw it it shakes/moves as though it (is) a Jinn (jannun), he turned away giving his back, and he did not follow/track. “You Moses approach/come, and do not fear, that you are from the safe/secure.”” S. 28:31 (Ahmed & Samira https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/28/st19.htm)

“… So, as soon as he saw it shaking as if it had been a jinni, he turned withdrawing and did not retrace his steps…” (Ghali https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/28/st21.htm)

“… So when he saw it vibrate as if it were a Jinn, he turned around to flee and would not return…” (The Monotheist Group https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/28/st58.htm)

“…. And when he saw it writhing as it had been a demon, he turned to flee headlong…” Pickthall

“…. When he saw it moving like a demon, he turned around and fled…” Khalifa

What this means is that the author(s) and/or the editor(s) of the Quran was/were ignorant of what exactly transpired at the burning bush encounter. S/he/they could not figure out whether Moses’ staff appeared as a jinn/demon or some other living thing. S/he/they was/were definitely ignorant of the biblical narrative that the staff manifested as a snake:

“Then Moses answered and said, ‘What if they will not believe me and will not listen to my voice? For they may say, “Yahweh has not appeared to you.”’ And Yahweh said to him, ‘What is this in your hand?’ And he said, ‘A staff.’ Then He said, ‘Throw it on the ground.’ So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent (nachash); and Moses fled from it. And Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail’—so he stretched out his hand and took hold of it, and it became a staff in his hand—‘that they may believe that Yahweh, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.’ And Yahweh furthermore said to him, “Now put your hand into your bosom.’ So he put his hand into his bosom; then he took it out, and behold, his hand was leprous like snow. Then He said, “Return your hand into your bosom.’ So he returned his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it returned to being like the rest of his flesh. ‘And so it will be, if they will not believe you or listen to the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of this last sign. But if it will be that they will not believe even these two signs and that they will not listen to your voice, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry land; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry land.’” Exodus 4:1-9 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

The other problem with the Quranic perversion of Moses’ encounter with the divine Angel is that the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament writings do not acknowledge the existence of mythical creatures known as jinn/jann, which in English are commonly known a genies. Rather, this is nothing more than a part of Arabian folklore/fables/myths which Muhammad bought into and proceeded to read these fanciful creatures back into the biblical account.

So much for the Quran being a consistent scripture that fully explains all of its verses.

FURTHER READING

Another Passage Which Exposes Muhammad’s Fraud: The Samaritan Who Didn’t Exist

The Garbled-Up Quran: Muhammad’s Confusion of Figures and Names

A Quran Blunder: The Days and Order of Creation

The Quran’s Manifold Blunders Pt. 1, Pt. 2,Appendices

ANOTHER QURANIC BLUNDER: JEWS WORSHIP OSIRIS?

In this post I share some of the earliest surviving evidence for the authorship of the Gospel. In one of the references, I quote Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the Apostles such as the Apostle John. This is significant since it provides an unbroken historical chain that goes back to the very eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ. All emphasis will be mine.

The Muratorian Fragment c. 170 AD

 The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. * It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. Although the manuscript in which it appears was copied during the seventh century, the list itself is dated to about 170 because its author refers to the episcopate of Pius I of Rome (died 157) as recent. He mentions only two epistles of John, without describing them. The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which “some of us will not allow to be read in church.” A very helpful and detailed discussion of this document is to be found in Bruce Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 191-201. Below is Metzger’s English translation of a critically amended text of the Fragment, from Appendix IV of the same book (pp. 305-7). I include Metzger’s footnotes, with their original enumeration, and add some supplementary footnotes of my own. —M.D.M.

* Ludovico Antonio Muratori, ed., Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, v. 3 (ex typographia Societatis palatinæ, Mediolani, 1740). Reprinted in Bologna, 1965.

THE MURATORIAN CANON

The following translation usually follows the amended text edited by Hans Lietzmann, Das Muratorische Fragment und die Monarchianischen Prologue zu den Evangelien (Kleine Texte, i; Bonn, 1902; 2nd ed., Berlin, 1933). Owing to the wretched state of the Latin text, it is sometimes difficult to know what the writer intended; several phrases, therefore, are provided with alternative renderings (enclosed within parentheses). Translational expansions are enclosed within square brackets. The numerals indicate the lines of the original text. For a discussion, see chap. VIII.1 above, where freer renderings are sometimes given in place of the following literalistic translation.

. . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, ‘Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.’ In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith (19) of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the (21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, (22) concerning life with his disciples, (23) and concerning his twofold coming; (24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, (25) the second glorious in royal power, (26) which is still in the future. What (27) marvel is it then, if John so consistently (28) mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, (29) saying about himself, ‘What we have seen with our eyes (30) and heard with our ears and our hands (31) have handled, these things we have written to you? [4] (32) For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, (33) but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. (34) Moreover, the acts of all the apostles (35) were written in one book. For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ [5] Luke compiled (36) the individual events that took place in his presence — (37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter (38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] [5a] (39) when he journeyed to Spain.

As for the Epistles of (40-1) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. (42) First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; (43) next, [6] to the Galatians, against circumcision; (44-6) then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme). [6a] It is necessary (47) for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed (48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor (49-50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians (51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, (52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, (53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans (54-5) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul’s (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.

(68) Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; [7] and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends [7a] of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. (81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, (82) who also composed (83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, (84-5) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians [8a] . . .

1 The meaning may be that Mark arranged the material of his Gospel in the order indicated by Peter, who was participant in the events narrated.

2 The reading of the Fragment, quasi ut uris studiosum, ‘as so to speak, one zealous for (or, learned in) the law,’ has been variously interpreted and/or emended. For example, Routh took iuris as translating του δικαιου, i.e. Luke was studious of righteousness; Buchanan replaced ut iuris with adiutorem, ‘assistant’; Bartlet supposed that the translator read νοσου as νομου (Luke was ‘a student of disease’); Zahn replaced ut iuris with itineris, thereby referring to Luke’s readiness to accompany Paul on his journeys; Lietzmann conjectured litteris, i.e. Luke was well versed as an author. Harnack (Sitzungsberichte der königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [1903], p. 213) and Ehrhardt (op. cit.), who retain iuris studiosus of the Fragment, have pointed out that in technical language of Roman law this could refer to an assesor or legal expert who served on the staff of a Roman official. Although this title was current prior to the time of Justinian’s Digest (published in 533) and so was available to the translator of the Fragment, it is anybody’s guess what Greek phrase it represented—assuming, of course, that the Canon was drawn up originally in Greek (unfortunately no help is provided in David Magie, De Romanorum iuris publici sacrisque vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis [Leipzig, 1905]).

It is significant that the Latin text of the Fragment appears to have been a source for Chromace of Aquileia, who in his commentary on Matthew (written between 398 and 407) refers to Luke as follows: Dominum in carne non vidit, sed quia eruditissimus legis erat quippe qui comes Pauli apostoli … (See Joseph Lemarie, ‘Saint Chromace d’Aquilee temoin du Canon de Muratori,’ Revue des etudes augustiniennes, xxiv [1978], pp. 101-2).

3 Here ex opinione is taken as the equivalent of εξ ακοης. Others conjecture ex ordine, representing καθεξης (‘orderly sequence.’ Luke i.3).

3a Latin, principia. —M.D.M.

3b Latin, principali. —M.D.M.

4 I John i.1-3.

5 Luke i.3.

5a That is, the city of Rome. This lack of specificity is one indication that the author was a Roman. —M.D.M.

6 The letter ‘b’ in the Latin text before ‘Galatians’ may belong to ‘Corinthians’ (προς Κορινθιους Β’).

6a Latin, principium. —M.D.M.

6b Tregelles writes, “It appears impossible to suppose that the cento of phrases from St. Paul’s genuine Epistles, often found in Latin MSS. under the name of Epistola ad Laodicenses, is here intended. … the writer seems to have intended the Epistle to the Ephesians, which Marcion altered, and to which he gave this name, either as part of his changes, or it may be from having obtained his copy of it from Laodicea.” (p. 47) —M.D.M.

6c Nothing is known of the Epistle to the Alexandrians mentioned here. —M.D.M.

7 It may be, as Zahn (Geschichte, ii, 66) and others have supposed, that a negative has fallen out of the text here.

7a Tregelles suggests that the Latin translator of this document mistook the Greek Philonos “Philo” for philon “friends.” Many in ancient times thought that the so-called “Wisdom of Solomon” was really written by Philo of Alexandria. —M.D.M.

7b The Apocalypse of Peter describes with some imaginative detail the torments of hell and the blessings of heaven. It was read with respect and used for admonition throughout the churches in early times. —M.D.M.

7c The Shepherd of Hermas is another work widely read in early times. It is a kind of moral allegory, like Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, but more impressive in that it purports to convey a series of divine revelations. —M.D.M.

7d This would be Pius I, bishop of Rome from about 142 to 157. —M.D.M.

8 Perhaps the Fragmentist means that there are three major Prophets and twelve minor Prophets.

8a The few words that follow this are unintelligible, and so the fragment practically ends here. —M.D.M.

Irenaeus c. 180 AD

Chapter 1 The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record, until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, maker of heaven and earth…

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies, Book 3)

Tertullian c. 207 AD

Chapter 2. St. Luke’s Gospel, Selected by Marcion as His Authority, and Mutilated by Him. The Other Gospels Equally Authoritative. Marcion’s Terms of Discussion, However, Accepted, and Grappled with on the Footing of St. Luke’s Gospel Alone.

You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us. I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel — not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus— having become meanwhile adulterated; and this shall indicate the order by which we proceed. We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author. But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side.

Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master — at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, lest he should run, or had been running in vain; Galatians 2:2 in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of St. Luke himself desired the authority of his predecessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for Luke’s Gospel that which was necessary for the Gospel of his master…

Chapter 5. By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True, Including the Real St. Luke’s. Marcion’s Only a Mutilated Edition. The Heretic’s Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other Gospels.

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excellent source of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were founded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ ) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion’s Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned. It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own — as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion’s swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches.

The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke’s Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters? If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels) also were current in the churches, why did not Marcion touch them — either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? For it is but natural that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In short, he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt. For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, while Luke’s, which is received among us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke’s Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way — when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on. (Against Marcion, Book IV)

Origen c. 245 AD

“Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you and so does Mark my son.’ And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John“. (Commentary on Matthew, Book I Fragment)

Eusebius c. 324

Eusebius in his church history mentioned Papias, who was a disciple of the Apostles and the Bishop of Hierapolis (even though Eusebius himself questions that he was). Therefore, Papias is another eyewitness to the authorship of the Gospels.

Chapter 36. Ignatius and His Epistles.

1. At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord.

2. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many…

Chapter 39. The Writings of Papias.

1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was A HEARER OF JOHN and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him. These are the words of Irenæus.

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

10. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said. Acts 1:23

11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.

12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated. (Church History, Book III)

FURTHER READING

IRENAEUS AND MARK’S GOSPEL

Irenaeus and John, the disciple of the Lord

Some critics of the Holy Bible claim that Matthew false and mistakenly attributed a prophecy from Zechariah 11:13 to the prophet Jeremiah (cf. Matt. 27:9-10).

Here I will cite the lengthy refutation to this argument from Dr. Michael L. Brown’s book, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 4: New Testament Objections, published by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2007, pp. 38-41. All bold, italicized emphasis will be mine.

5.4. Matthew 27:9–10 is totally confused. First Matthew quotes part of a prophecy from Zechariah, then he says it comes from Jeremiah, and then he takes the whole thing totally out of context. What a mess!

Allow me to respond to your objection with a question of my own: If you were a traditional Jew and found a similar citation in the Talmud—not with reference to Yeshua, but with reference to some halakhic or haggadic subject—would you say that it was “totally confused,” or would you say that it was a difficult passage but one that could certainly be resolved through careful study? No doubt, you would say that it could be resolved. In fairness, then, let me show you how these verses in Matthew can also be explained through careful study, looking at the deeper themes of his book and not just at this one passage in isolation. Once again, you will see that Matthew is anything but confused in his reading of the Tanakh.

I want to be totally candid with you. Before I examined this passage in depth, I was also confused by the citation, wondering, “What in the world was Matthew thinking? Was he really that free with his use of the Scriptures?” However, the more I looked into the quotation, beginning with the Hebrew text of Zechariah 11:13, the more impressed I was with his insights. I was pleasantly surprised by what I found!

I’m fully aware, of course, that some liberal scholars who have studied Matthew’s Besorah (Hebrew for gospel or good news) have accused him of handling the Tanakh in a superficial or even pedestrian way (see above, 5.1-5.3, for examples of such charges). Others who have studied his work meticulously have come to very different conclusions, and the verdict of two of the top Matthew scholars in the world today bears repeating, especially since both have been highly conversant in ancient Jewish studies and neither of them have been “fundamentalists.” As noted above, professors Davies and Allison wrote:

Matthew was not above scattering items in his Greek text whose deeper meaning could only be appreciated by those with a knowledge of Hebrew. Indeed, it might even be that Matthew found authorial delight in hiding ‘bonus points’ for those willing and able to look a little beneath the gospel’s surface.⁷⁰

Let’s take a look beneath the surface and see what we can learn about Matthew’s methodology here in Matthew 27:1–10. The text records that, after some of the Jewish leaders had decided to put Yeshua to death, Judas Iscariot was struck with remorse over his betrayal of his Master, returning the thirty silver coins he had received in payment from the chief priests and elders, saying to them, “I have sinned, for I have betrayed innocent blood” (see 27:1–4; and take note of that phrase, “innocent blood”). His words were greeted with indifference, so Judas threw the money into the Temple and then went out and hung himself (27:5). Matthew 27:6-10 then continues the narrative, including the key citation from “Jeremiah” (I have highlighted the text, below):

The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

What are the main problems with this citation? First, the text seems to come from Zechariah 11:11–13 rather than anywhere in Jeremiah, yet Matthew cites it as coming from Jeremiah. Second, there is no reference to a potter’s field in the text in Zechariah. Third, the original context of Zechariah does not seem to relate to the actions of Judas. Let’s review these objections in the order they have been presented, summarizing the best solutions to the apparent problems. For those wanting to study this question further, there are lengthy treatments that already exist.⁷¹

Did Matthew get Zechariah and Jeremiah confused? Some have speculated that there was a scribal error in transmission (due to the close spelling of the names in Greek) or that the original text did not mention a specific prophet’s name (as attested in some manuscripts), but there is little evidence to support these proposals. Others have argued that Matthew simply forgot who said what. This, however, is untenable for a number of reasons: (1) As we have seen clearly, he was a careful student of the Tanakh and would hardly make such an error. (2) Even those who are not convinced that Matthew knew the Scriptures that well must remember that he did not just sit down and write his Gospel on the fly from memory one day, so the idea that he just had a momentary mental slip and never corrected it is also highly unlikely, to say the least. (3) It has been observed that the passage quoted here “shows evidence of receiving the author’s close attention,”⁷² again making it difficult to believe that he then wrongly identified the source. In fact, we will see that Matthew translated directly from the Hebrew. He would have hardly gotten the name of the book wrong! (4) The formula introducing this Scripture citation varies from the general quotation formula used in Matthew, but it is identical to that of Matthew 2:17, the only other passage where Jeremiah is cited directly. This too points to premeditation and care.

What then is the solution? It would appear that, while quoting primarily from Zechariah, Matthew was pointing the reader to a key passage (or theme) in Jeremiah as well, one that tied in with the point he wanted to make. Thus, to draw this to the reader’s attention, he made reference to Jeremiah, since the reference to Zechariah would be obvious. Similar, although not identical to this, is Mark’s citation from both Isaiah and Malachi, but the introductory comment in Mark 1:2a says, “It is written in Isaiah the prophet,” the next verses then citing Isaiah and Malachi in succession (Mark 1:2b–3). In the case before us in Matthew 27, the blending of texts and concepts is more subtle, but it is certainly there. What Mark and Matthew also have in common between them is that they cite the more prominent prophet when making reference to two prophetic texts, in the former, to Isaiah, in the latter, to Jeremiah. We will return to the question of which text(s) in Jeremiah Matthew had in mind when we put all the pieces together in concluding our answer to this objection.

What about the potter’s field? Let’s first deal with the issue of the potter. In the NIV, Zechariah 11:13 reads, “And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’ the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.” In the NJPSV, however, it reads, “The LORD said to me, ‘Deposit it in the treasury.’ And I took the thirty shekels and deposited it in the treasury in the House of the LORD,” with a note that the meaning of some of the words, including “treasury” is uncertain. Why this discrepancy? The Masoretic textual tradition (MT) reads ha-yotser, the potter, but some textual and interpretive traditions understood this to be the equivalent of ha-’otsar, the treasury (cf. Rashi; Radak), or, ha-’otser, the keeper of the treasury (cf. Targum; Rashi). Within the Tanakh, however, the word yotser never means treasury (or, treasurer) but rather potter, and the text literally says: “Throw it (not, “Deposit it”) to the potter… And I threw it into the house of the LORD to the potter.” The Septuagint (LXX), however, understood ha-yotser to refer to the furnace (as if from “smelter”), a possible but otherwise unattested usage of this noun in the Tanakh.

Which version, then, did Matthew follow? Did he cite the LXX here, as he often does elsewhere? No. Did he follow the tradition reflected later in the Targum? No, although we cannot be sure that this interpretive tradition was already known in his day. What about the tradition reflected in the Syriac Peshitta, which was close to the Targum as well? No, he did not follow (or know) that tradition. Instead, he translated directly from the Hebrew, rendering ha-yotser as “the potter,” but with the addition of one detail (that, in hindsight, made tremendous prophetic sense): The money that was cast into the house of the Lord for the potter was actually used to buy the potter’s field. In other words, as noted below, this was not a matter of Matthew creating a story to fit the biblical text, as if his secret agenda was to make it look as if Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. Rather, as Carson noted, “when we examine Matthew’s quotation clause by clause, we can see impressive reasons for holding that the narrative does not grow out of the prophecy …”⁷³

Certainly, Matthew was well aware of the tragic events involved in his Master’s betrayal, events which included: (1) the price of the shepherd (a term used by Jesus to describe himself) being set at thirty pieces of silver; (2) those thirty pieces of silver being thrown into the house of the Lord by a despondent Judas; and (3) that money then being used to purchase the potter’s field. With all this in mind, this text in Zechariah could not help but jump to his attention. To quote Zechariah 11:13 once again: “And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.” It is a very small jump, indeed, to move from “to the potter” to “to the potter, for his field.” (For additional comments on the interpretation of this passage, see below.)

And yet there is more, and this is where we need to give Matthew the credit he is due. Why did he make reference to Jeremiah? Wasn’t this prophecy close enough, especially given its somewhat cryptic nature, even in its original context? Obviously, any reader familiar with the Scriptures would have known that the verse itself was drawn from Zechariah, not Jeremiah, so, as we pointed out, above, there must be something else to which Matthew was pointing. It would seem then, in light of all the potential texts in Jeremiah, that Matthew was most likely pointing to Jeremiah 19:1–13, where the prophet is commanded by the Lord to “buy a clay jar from a potter” (yotser) and to take it, in the presence of the elders and the priests, “to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate,” proclaiming a word of solemn judgment on Jerusalem: “This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle” (19:1–3). Jeremiah was then to smash the potter’s jar and say: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: I will smash this nation and this city just as this potter’s jar is smashed and cannot be repaired” (Jer. 19:11).

Tragically, Jeremiah lived to see this prophecy fulfilled, with the Temple of the Lord and the city of Jerusalem demolished by the Babylonians. And note carefully 19:4: Not only would God destroy Jerusalem because of its idolatry, but also because “they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent”—the very phrase on Judas’s lips in Matthew 27:4: “I have betrayed innocent blood.” And it was this blood money that was used to buy the potter’s field, henceforth called the Field of Blood. And to whom did Judas make this confession, and who was it that decided to use the blood money to buy the potter’s field? It was “the chief priests and the elders” (27:3b). Shades of Jeremiah 19:1! Notice also that Jeremiah, after breaking the potter’s jar, declares, “They will bury the dead in Topheth [in the Valley of Ben Hinnom] until there is no more room” (Jer. 19:11b), while the potter’s field in Matthew 27 became used “as a burial place for foreigners” (27:7). “As a result,” Michael Knowles points out, “whereas both were formerly associated with potters, they now carry names connoting bloodshed (‘Valley of Slaughter’; ‘Field of Blood’).”⁷⁴

What then was Matthew saying? He was saying, “Remember the potter! Remember the blood guilt! Remember Jeremiah’s prophecy about the destruction of our city and Temple! It happened just as he said it would. And today there is even greater blood guilt with even greater consequences. We have betrayed God’s Son. We have given the Messiah over to death. Judgment is near!” By citing Zechariah, with allusion to Jeremiah, he made his point quite powerfully, not to mention profoundly.⁷⁵

As D. P. Senior notes: “The explicit details which have been fulfilled are spelled out in the words of [Zechariah], but it is the tragic tone of Jeremiah’s prophecy that colors the accomplishment of God’s will in a moment of betrayal and truth.”⁷⁶ Knowles also finds evidence that Matthew was making a direct comparison between Jesus and Jeremiah, both of whom were rejected and mistreated by their own people, and both of whom prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. And, just as Matthew pointed to the slaughter of the innocent boys of Bethlehem in Matthew 2:16–18, quoting from Jeremiah 31:15 and using the identical introductory formula in 2:17 and 27:9a, so also here, at the climax of Messiah’s mission, innocent blood is being shed. As Knowles explains:

In 27:9–10 Matthew sees in what is probably the most perfidious act of opposition to the messiah in his Gospel—Jesus’ betrayal by one of his closest disciples—not only the fulfillment of prophecy in general but also a link to the words of Jeremiah in particular. Indeed, the fact that the entire fulfillment quotation is given under the name of Jeremiah characterizes the whole as typical of that prophet. Without question, the fulfillment quotation provides the climax and focal point for Matthew’s narrative: the messiah is sold for the price of a slave, with Judas’s belated attempt to redress the wrong demonstrating both a recognition of his own guilt and the complicity of those who refuse what they themselves acknowledge to be “the price of blood.” In this way Matthew demonstrates Jesus’ innocence at the expense of the other participants’ guilt and responsibility. And all this is seen to be fulfilled in the words ascribed deliberately, albeit enigmatically, to the prophet Jeremiah.⁷⁷

But was Zechariah really prophesying the betrayal of the Messiah? It is true that both the New Testament and the Rabbinic writings cite several passages from Zechariah with reference to the Messiah. As noted in the Jewish Study Bible:

Many ancient readers found in Zechariah numerous references to messianic times. As expected, some early Christian readers understood them in christological terms (see, for instance Mark 14:27 and Zech. 13:7; Matt. 27:9 and Zech. 11:12–13; John 19:37 and Zech. 12:10; John 12:15 and Zech. 9:9). Rabbinic Judaism interpreted many of these texts in relation to a messianic time still to come (e.g., Zech. 3:8; 6:12 in the Targum; in relation to Zech. 6:12 see Num. Rab. 18.21; for Zech. 9:9 see Gen. Rab. 56.2, 98.9; and for Zech. 12:10 as pointing to the Messiah from the House of Joseph, see b. Sukkah 52a).⁷⁸

That being said, the question remains: Is there Messianic significance to Zechariah 11:12–13? Let’s see how some of the classical Rabbinic commentators interpret this verse, after which we can ask again: Was Matthew justified in citing this with reference to the betrayal of Yeshua, the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep?

According to Rashi:

12 And they weighed out My hire, thirty pieces of silver. [Targum] Jonathan paraphrases: And they performed My will with a few men. There were a few good men among them, such as the craftsmen and the sentries, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, and Ezekiel. But I do not know how to explain the expression here of thirty pieces of silver exactly, except that kesep is an expression of desire. Our Sages, too, explained it this way in Chullin (92a). They brought proof from (Prov. 7:20), “The bundle of the desirable ones He took in His hand.” The thirty they explained in the following manner: There are forty-five righteous men in every generation. They brought proof from (Hosea 3:2), “a homer of barley and a letek of barley”—fifteen righteous in Babylon and thirty in Eretz Israel. It is said: “And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and I cast them into the house of the Lord in Eretz Israel.” The number thirty is explained by the Midrash Aggadah (Cf. Genesis Rabbah 49:3, Pesikta d’Rav Kahana 88a), that our father Abraham was promised that no generation would have fewer than thirty righteous in men, the number of (Gen. 15:8): “So shall your seed be.” The word yihyeh has the numerical value of thirty.

Does this sound somewhat far-fetched? Rashi continues:

13 And the Lord said to me: Cast it to the keeper of the treasury like ha’otser the keeper of the treasury. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to the prophet: Write, and leave over these and their righteousness to be preserved for the end of the seventy years of the Babylonian exile. The Temple shall be built by them. Now what is the treasury? [Cf. below] the stronghold of glory My Temple, the stronghold of My glory. of which I stripped them of which I stripped them so that they should no longer have glory.… My explanation is similar to Jonathan’s translation. I have seen many variant versions of the explanation of this prophecy, but I cannot reconcile those with the text.

The Living Nach conveniently summarizes some of the other, major Rabbinic commentators:

—thirty pieces of silver. This was the standard wage for a shepherd in those days (Metzudoth). The 30 pieces allude to the 30 righteous people who are alive in every generation (Rashi, Metzudoth). According to Malbim, the 30 righteous individuals of Zechariah’s generation gave their lives to sanctify God’s Name. In this way they “paid” God to continue protecting the Israelites despite their wickedness. —Deposit it. God commanded Zechariah to store away the merit of the 30 righteous individuals alluded to in the previous verse (see preceding note) until the future, when, in that merit, the Third Temple will be built (Metzudoth). Or, God commanded the prophet to have the images of the 30 righteous individuals who died sanctifying God’s Name engraved on the silver coins [citing Malbim and others]

—treasury. (Radak on 11:[13]; Metzudoth.) The Hebrew word yotzer, which begins with the letter yod, and usually means “craftsman.” However, this is one of the cases where a yud is used interchangeably with an aleph, making the word otzar, “treasury” (Rashi, Radak). Or, “keeper of the treasury” (Targum, Rashi).

Malbim, however, interprets yotzer to mean “craftsman”: God figuratively commands Zechariah to bring the 30 silver talents to a coin minter, for him to engrave the image of the 30 righteous individuals.⁷⁹

As odd as all this seems (remember, these are not simply midrashic applications that are being made from the text; these are interpretations of the text by the leading Rabbinic commentaries), the rendering of the Orthodox Jewish Stone Edition of the Tanakh adds one more twist, translating part of Zechariah 11:13 with, “Throw it to the treasurer of the Precious Stronghold,” explaining in the note, “The Temple. By throwing the deeds of these thirty righteous people into the Temple, Zechariah symbolized that the Temple would be rebuilt because of their merits.”

Contrast all this with Matthew’s citation: First, he accurately translates yotser with potter, adding that it was the potter’s field that was bought by the coins; second, he explains thirty silver coins to mean thirty silver coins, as opposed to the deeds of thirty righteous people or the faces of these thirty righteous people engraved on the coins; third, he refers the text to the actual betrayal of the Good Shepherd (see 11:4-9), the principle difference being that in Zechariah it was the prophet, as the shepherd, who acted out the symbolic vision of his own betrayal, whereas inMatthew 27 it was Judas who literally committed the act; fourth, the larger context in Zechariah is fraught with Messianic imagery, including 9:9, the prophecy of the Messianic king coming meek and lowly, riding on a colt; 12:10, where repentant Israel looks to the one whom they have pierced; 13:7, where God calls for the sword to strike the one who is his close companion, resulting in the scattering of the sheep (cf. the translation of the Living Nach, “O sword, rouse yourself against My shepherd and against My colleague—declares the God of hosts.”);⁸⁰ and 14:1–21, which is Messianic from beginning to end. Matthew knew exactly what he was doing, and with complete justification cited this passage with reference to the Messiah’s betrayal for thirty pieces of silver, also pointing to the profound parallels with Jeremiah.

Really now, who could honestly say that Matthew got this wrong but the Rabbinic commentaries, just cited, got it right? And is it any wonder that the Targum removes all reference to the thirty coins in this verse? According to Targumic scholar Bruce Chilton, the Targum here “omits the reference to ‘thirty pieces of silver’ at 11:12, to ‘the potter’ at 11:13 (cf. Matt. 27:3–10), and to ‘him whom they have pierced’ at 12:10 (cf. John 19:37; Rev. 1:7)”—all with the intent of removing these references that were pointed to by the New Testament authors.⁸¹

Far from this being an example of exegetical confusion, it is an example of inspired interpretation, perhaps inspired by the Messiah himself (see Luke 24:44-46), and rather than exposing Matthew’s weakness in the Word, it reveals his depth.

Later, at 5.14, we address the objection that the New Testament writers reconstructed the life of Jesus to fit the Messianic prophecies (an objection, of course, that completely contradicts the claim that he actually fulfilled none of the prophecies; see below, 5.15; vol. 3, 4.32–4.33). In terms of the prophecy under discussion here, Carson offers a wise response to the critical scholars who also espouse the view that the life of Jesus was rewritten to conform to the prophecies:

Many scholars hold that Matthew presents as history a number of “fulfillments” that did not happen. Rather he deduces that they must have happened because his chosen OT texts predict, as he understands them, that such events would take place. To this there are two objections. First, the more complex and composite a quotation (as here), the less likely is it that the “fulfillment” was invented. It is far easier to believe that certain historical events led Matthew to look for Scriptures relating to them.… Second, when we examine Matthew’s quotation clause by clause, we can see impressive reasons for holding that the narrative does not grow out of the prophecy.… To give but one instance, the “thirty silver coins” (v. 3) are mentioned in Zechariah 11:13; but Mark speaks of betrayal money without mentioning Zechariah. Even if Mark does not specify the amount, the fact that Judas had been paid became well known, independent of any Christian interpretation of Zechariah 11:12–13; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the amount of money also became common knowledge.⁸²

You might say, “Well, I’ve heard your arguments and I’m not convinced that Matthew got it right. If he was trying to get me to believe in Jesus through this citation, it hasn’t worked.”

Actually, Matthew was not trying to “prove” to his readers that Yeshua had to be the Messiah based on this one citation from Zechariah and Jeremiah. Rather, as an eyewitness to Messiah’s glory and as one convinced by the testimony of Scripture that Yeshua, indeed, was the Messiah of Israel, he then wrote his account to share this Good News with his Jewish people (and other interested readers), looking back at the Tanakh and seeing remarkable prophecies and allusions and hints and types and shadows of what was to come.⁸³ He carefully observed Jesus’ life, he carefully studied the Tanakh, and there before his eyes, on many different levels, he saw some of the key events foretold and foreshadowed, without thinking for a moment that each of these foreshadowings constituted a “proof.” This would be similar to the Rabbinic teaching that there are seventy facets to the Torah, but not all of them carry legal authority and certainly not all of them are to be interpreted in the same way.

Listen once more to Carson:

What must not be overlooked is that, unlike any other broad, hermeneutical category used by the Jews, NT approaches to the OT are steeped in a salvation-historical perspective that finds in the sacred text entire patterns of prophetic anticipation (see esp. on 2:15; 5:17–20; 8:17; 11:11–13; 13:34–35). In this sense Matthew sees in Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11 not merely a number of verbal and thematic parallels to Jesus’ betrayal but a pattern of apostasy and rejection that must find its ultimate fulfillment in the rejection of Jesus, who was cheaply valued, rejected by the Jews, and whose betrayal money was put to a purpose that pointed to the destruction of the nation (see on 15:7–9; 21:42).⁸⁴

Insights such as these on the part of Matthew are hardly superficial or confused. Rather, they only appear to be off base when read superficially, critically, or with wrong presuppositions. So then, rather than ask, “Does this citation prove that Jesus is the Messiah?,” ask instead, “If he is the Messiah and if he did fulfill everything that had to be fulfilled at that time, was it legitimate for Matthew to turn back and look at the whole Bible and find spiritual parallels and Messianic foreshadowings throughout Israel’s history and throughout the words of the prophets?” The answer is yes, without a doubt. And I repeat a statement made above, 5.1: The interpretations of Matthew are sober and restrained in comparison with later Rabbinic interpretation. In fact, as I have interacted with some extremely Orthodox or Chasidic Jews who have discovered that Yeshua is our Messiah, I have been amazed to see some of the “proofs” they have come up with in the Tanakh. Why? It is because that is how they have been reading Scripture all their lives—finding references to Torah or some halakhic principle or mystical insight in every letter, word, and phrase—and now that they encountered Moshiach, they see him everywhere in Scripture too. To repeat once more: Matthew is quite restrained in comparison!

This, then, was the perspective of Matthew and his fellow authors who penned the Messianic Scriptures. Messiah did come at the time appointed by the peshat (that is, the plain, historical sense) of Scripture and he did fulfill what had to be fulfilled during that phase of his mission—again, according to the plain, historical sense of the Tanakh—and he continues to accomplish that mission—once again, according to the plain, historical sense of the Tanakh (see vol. 1, 2.1; vol. 3, 4.32–4.33, for more on this). And so, the New Testament authors started with that reality: Messiah has come in accordance with the true and literal meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures, announced by angels and confirmed by miracles, and based on that reality, they then turned to their Bible and saw prophecies and allusions and types of the Messiah throughout the Scriptures, just as the rabbis saw references to the Torah everywhere in the Scriptures, even where those references were entirely midrashic or allegorical. To repeat: Yeshua’s followers did not try to prove his Messianic credentials by means of midrashic interpretations; rather, having seen him teach Torah, perform miracles, die, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven, and then immerse them in the Holy Spirit, and recognizing that he fulfilled the essential qualifications for the Messiah’s mission at that point in time—in accordance with the plain meaning of the Scriptures!—they adorned their message with midrashic allusions and illustrations. Even in doing this, however, they were led by the Spirit, who also inspired the authors of the Tanakh. And so, just as traditional Jews trust the methodology and interpretation of the Talmudic sages, I trust the methodology and interpretation of the followers of Jesus the Messiah and, when read through fair-minded and not caustically critical eyes, the spiritual riches are there to behold.

⁷⁰ Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 279, with reference to R. T. France.

⁷¹ In addition to the Matthew commentaries of Carson, Keener, Davies and Allison, Luz, and Nolland, all of which provide further bibliographical details, see the monograph of Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 68; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Most recently, see Clay Alan Ham, The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd: Matthew’s Reading of Zechariah’s Messianic Hope (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006)

⁷² D. P. Senior, “The Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew,” quoted in Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 61.

⁷³ Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:563.

⁷⁴ Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 70–71, where he conveniently lists six “close parallels” between Jeremiah 19 and Matthew 27, with reference on 70, n. 1 to the observation of Senior that Matthew 27:8 in the Greek is very close to the LXX of Jeremiah 19:6.

⁷⁵ It is also possible that there are allusions to other texts in Jeremiah, including Jeremiah 32:14; there is also some close verbal similarity between key phrases in Matthew 27:9 and Lamentations 4:2. Cf. ibid., 74–77.

⁷⁶ Senior, “The Passion Narrative,” 369, cited in Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 76.

⁷⁷ Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 77.

⁷⁸ The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 1250.

⁷⁹ Yaakov Elman, ed. and trans., The Living Nach: Later Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Twelve Prophets. A New Translation based on Traditional Sources (New York: Moznaim, 1995), 803.

⁸⁰ Living Nach, 812. Interestingly, the footnotes point out that the “shepherd” and “colleague” are taken by the Rabbinic commentators to refer to gentile kings (fighting against Israel during the Messianic era of the Messiah ben Joseph), Esau, the nations’ archangels, or even Muhammad, with Ibn Ezra and Malbim claiming that “My colleague” means that, “because of his considerable power, he will consider himself equal to God”! But when is ‘amit, colleague, neighbor (here, “the man who is my colleague/neighbor”) ever used in this hostile way? See Lev. 5:21 (2x); 18:20; 19:11, 15, 17; 24:19; 25:14 (2x), 15, 17, the only other times the word is used in the Tanakh. Who could it be that God calls his colleague? The answer is found in Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27.

⁸¹ Chilton, “From Aramaic Paraphrase to Greek Testament,” 39.

⁸² Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:563.

⁸³ We should also note that he was not just trying to spread the Good News to those who had never heard it. His book was also a training manual for disciples who were already convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and King (cf. Matt. 28:19), and so, in his writing, he had several goals to accomplish. For evidence of this, note, e.g., the fivefold division of Matthew, marked by the phrase, “When Jesus had finished saying these things” (see Matt. 7:28; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).

⁸⁴ Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:566.

FURTHER READING

THE DIVINE SHEPHERD THAT BRINGS EXILE

The OT On The Messiah Rising On The Third Day [Part 2]

Mark’s Prologue Examined In light of the assertions of an Incompetent Dawagandist

This will be a very short post.

According to the Aramaic paraphrase of Micah 4:8, the Messiah was hidden from Israel because of their sins:

וְאַתְּ מְשִׁיחָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל דְטָמִיר מִן קֳדָם חוֹבֵי כְנִשְׁתָּא דְצִיוֹן לָךְ עֲתִידָא מַלְכוּתָא לְמֵיתֵי וְיֵיתֵי שִׁלְטוֹנָא קַדְמָאָה לְמַלְכוּת כְּנִשְׁתָּא דִירוּשְׁלֵם:

And you, O anointed one (Messiah) of Israel, who have been hidden away because of the sins of the congregation of Zion, the kingdom shall come to you, and the former dominion shall be restored to the kingdom of the congregation of Jerusalem. (Targum Jonathan on Micah 4:8 https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Micah.4.8?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)

This implies that the identity of the Messiah was veiled from Israel as punishment for their sins, which sounds much like what the NT writings teach:

“And as Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He cried over it, saying, ‘If you knew in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.  For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.” Luke 19:41-44

“And such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters having been engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, which was being brought to an end, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be even more in glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had been glorious, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which was being brought to an end was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the consequence of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is brought to an end in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart, but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” 2 Corinthians 3:4-18

“Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for the sake of Jesus. For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 4:1-6

FURTHER READING  

The Messiah Revealed Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3, Pt. 4

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 1

MORE ON DANIEL’S MESSIANIC TIMELINE

MESSIANIC TIMELINE OF DANIEL REVISITED AGAIN

RABBINIC JUDAISM ON THE TIME OF MESSIAH’S APPEARANCE