RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Mt 27:9 Apocryphon of Jeremiah
- Hi Folks,
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued,
whom they of the children of Israel did value;
2. Steven, you mentioned "an argument that the Jews attribute the last four chapters of Zechariah to Jeremiah". Could you give a more detailed reference to this? Is there any "modern" theory on this?
And I may have to adjust this.
It looks like there are two Jewish/Hebraic arguments .. which may be combined :
1) Jeremiah == Prophets .. this is based largely on Talmud ..Bava Bathra and Lightfoot embraced this (too) strongly
One scholar wrote this as: "the Babylonian Talmud placed Jeremiah first in its grouping of the prophets" and thus the collection can go by the name (similar to Jesus referring to "Psalms"). David Christian Ginsburg mentions some mentions in this order. (Gristy gives reference)
2) spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah -- Sepher Hagilgulim (according to Surenhusius) per William Kelly
Now, for a fascinating overview of the weakness of most arguments (except two)
Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (1870)
Combined with the Wes Gristy article, which utilizes Morison.
In my reference above to "last four chapters of Zechariah to Jeremiah" I probably refer back to the whole
group of Mede, Kidder and Allix arguments that are more higher criticism than Judaic. Generally they
refer to three, or six chapters, I am not checking back right now to find why I had "four".
6. This leads us then, to the sixth and final possibility, which is the one that will be used in this outline of the Bible: Matthew is correct in attributing this to Jeremiah, and our understanding of the book of Zechariah needs some modification. (continues)
Calvin's editor John King is not very sympathetic to all this, and gives us more backdrop
Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 30: Zechariah, Malachai, tr. by John King, [1847-50], at sacred-texts.com
Since the days of Calvin a dispute has arisen, originated by Mede, respecting this last portion. Owing especially to a quotation in Matt. 27:9, 10, where Jeremiah, and not Zechariah, is mentioned, many since the time of Mede, such as Hammond, Newcome, and several German divines, have adopted the notion, that these chapters have somehow been misplaced, and that they belong to the book of Jeremiah. This view has been strongly opposed by Blayney and others, who, together with Scott, Adam Clarke, and Henderson, consider that there is no sufficient ground for such a supposition, and who for various reasons think that there is a typographical mistake in Matthew (continues)
None of these interests me much.
Leaving the following.
1) Apocryphon of Jeremiah, noted by Jerome (and noted properly by Gill)
Thus this thread is fascinating, relevant.
To me the decisive factor indicating a Jewish as opposed to a Christian origin for this work is the fact that Jerome saw the work in a Hebrew book. In other words, the work he saw was in Hebrew or perhaps Aramaic. A Hebrew/Aramaic original is often a key criterion for classifying a work as having a Jewish as opposed to a Christian origin.
An excellent point. It is the interplay of the Jerome notation of a Hebrew word "word for word" combined with the Apocryphon extant in three languages that makes a compelling evidence. I felt the Jerome evidence itself was very strong (when I did not know of the Apocryphon) and John Gill gave it a major note even without knowing of an extant text.
Jerom affirms, that in an Hebrew volume, being an apocryphal work of Jeremy, which was shown him by one of the Nazarene sect, he read these words verbatim: so that though they do not stand in the writings of Jeremy, which are canonical Scripture, yet in an apocryphal book of his, and which may as well be referred to, as the book of Maccabees, the traditions of the Jews, the prophecies of Enoch, and the writings of the Heathen poets.
Now, if the Apocryphon was really slavishly Christian (extreme examples, referring to Mary or triune baptism) that would be a counterpoint, yet so far three is no such indication. Simply being a word-for-word prophetic notation in a Hebrew work in 400 AD extant that is matched in the Matthew reference is hard to accuse. Occam would lean to a simple reference by Matthew over a complex forgery designed to fool Jerome ... or something. (Although modern theorists are oft-enamored with forgery theories.)
My other major interest is any interpretation that emphasizes
spoken by Jeremy
over written or scripture. The discussions along the line of "spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah" -- more importantly with the simple idea of the Holy Spirit informing us that Zechariah was recording what had been previously spoken by Jeremiah, are fully acceptable. The usage of "spoken by" looks fully deliberate and unusual.
Yet the Apocryphon theory goes well with "spoken" as well, since "written" tends to imply scripture, and the Apocryphon is not scripture.
- Alfred Resch ("Agrapha") considers the apocryphon
independent of Mt: "The independence [of this apocryphon]
from the canonical Mt is shown not only by the length of the
text, which is not limited to Mt 27:9, but also by the
absence of the words TOU TETIMHMENOU ON ETIMHSANTO, for
which the Sahidic text simply reads "tradent".
He also quotes Bengel: "glossam vetustissimam ex apocryphis
Jeremiae in Matthaeum illatam."
Well, Resch accepts many things. The manuscripts are all
late. Brown mentioned a 9th CE Arabic codex.
Interesting is further this:
The words "potter" and "treasury" in Hebrew look similar.
Perhaps "potter" in Zechariah is a transcriptional error and
the LXX has it right? Now note that in Mt the chief priests
decide not to put the money returned by Judas into "the
treasury" but expend it for "the potter's field". Curious,
What is still not fully clear to me, where the AGRON comes
from in the text of Mt? Is it enough to say it is Jeremian
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
- Already in 1553 Nicolaus Zegerus quoted the Hieronymus' text on the Apocryphon of Jeremiah and mentioned it as a source of Matthew's gospel. So, there is a lot of literature to investigate on the subject before to make conclusions!
Yes, the textcritical issue on the Hebrew text (and LXX) of Zecharja in relation to Matth. 27.9 is curious.
Lohmeyer again, p. 379: < ... [masorete Text}. Den dort steht, dass das Geld in den Tempel geworfen wird, wie es hier Judas tut, und steht auch: "in den Schatz" wie hier eis ton korbanan. Die Lesart "in den Schatz" (osar) ist das K'tib, "zu den Toepfer" (joser) das Q're.>
About osar/josar is written by many: Pagninus, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Beza, Grotius, Meyer/Weiss, ... .
Interesting is Menochius words ad loc Zecharja: <... quae etiam pecuniae summa in templum projecta est, et conversa in pretium agri figuli.>
A conversion parallel to mutation of aleph in jot, Ketib/Qere?
Was the author of the gospel playing with the text in a similar way?
Teunis van Lopik
--- In email@example.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
> Alfred Resch ("Agrapha") considers the apocryphon
> independent of Mt: "The independence [of this apocryphon]
> from the canonical Mt is shown not only by the length of the
> text, which is not limited to Mt 27:9, but also by the
> absence of the words TOU TETIMHMENOU ON ETIMHSANTO, for
> which the Sahidic text simply reads "tradent".
> He also quotes Bengel: "glossam vetustissimam ex apocryphis
> Jeremiae in Matthaeum illatam."
> Well, Resch accepts many things. The manuscripts are all
> late. Brown mentioned a 9th CE Arabic codex.
> Interesting is further this:
> The words "potter" and "treasury" in Hebrew look similar.
> Perhaps "potter" in Zechariah is a transcriptional error and
> the LXX has it right? Now note that in Mt the chief priests
> decide not to put the money returned by Judas into "the
> treasury" but expend it for "the potter's field". Curious,
> isn't it?
> What is still not fully clear to me, where the AGRON comes
> from in the text of Mt? Is it enough to say it is Jeremian
> Best wishes
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> Textcritical Commentary:
- Hi Folks,
Teunis van Lopik
Already in 1553 Nicolaus Zegerus quoted the Hieronymus' text on the Apocryphon of Jeremiah and mentioned it as a source of Matthew's gospel. So, there is a lot of literature to investigate on the subject before to make conclusions!
Although this still does not tell us much about the discovery of the three manuscripts, it shows us the proper respect given the Jerome notation even without any external evidence. (And substantially predates my mention of John Gill.)
And Debora Shuger tells us this goes back to an auxiliary understanding from Erasmus and also mentions Clarius (1495-1555) as well as Zegerus (died 1559),
The Renaissance Bible Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity (1994)
After Allegory : New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance
Debora Kuller Shuger
Renaissance biblical scholarship likewise sifts textual cruxes for evidence of rule-governed praxis. A particularly interesting sequence of notes considers the problem of miscitation. The beginning of Matthew 27:9 reads: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet," a line that always presented difficulties since the ensuing passage does not appear in Jeremiah but instead closely resembles Zechariah 11:1213. Earlier sixteenth-century exegetes like Erasmus and Sebastian Munster generally view the transposition as an early scribal error or as a mistake on Matthew's part. But Erasmus also offers an alternative explanation, based on Origen and Jerome, which found wide acceptance among subsequent Roman Catholic exegetes: the citation derives from a lost apocrypha of Jeremiah. Interestingly, Erasmus is far less uneasy than Jerome about the possibility that "an oracle explicating the mystery of the Passion" could have a noncanonical source (6:930); he elsewhere notes in passing that
- clearly not a few books of the Old Testament have been lost, the titles of which still remain in the canonical books: the books of the Wars of the Lord, cited in Numbers 21, and the book of the just (librum Justorum ) cited in Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 1.... [Such books] must have had great authority, since canonical Scripture so often rests on that authority. But whether they belonged to the Hebrew canon I leave to others to discover. (6:132)
Debora Shugar then goes into the canon issues and into the Grotius understanding, which includes what was mentioned in an earlier post using the source:
Sepher Hagilgulim (according to Surenhusius) per William Kelly
With Grotius similarly saying:
"the Jews were accustomed to say that the spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah "
From the google cache we have much of the Jan Krans notation about Erasmus, which was clearly simplified by Debora Shuger to focus on a couple of points. However, possibly because of google cache limitations, so far we do not have the exact words of Erasmus about Jerome about the Apocryphon.
Beyond what is written: Erasmus and Beza as conjectural critics of the New Testament (2006)
A similar conjecture is known on Matt 27:9. In 1516, Erasmus only mentions Jerome's opinion, according to which the citation presented under Jeremiah's name is not from the biblical book of Jeremiah nor from an apocryphal writing by Jeremiah, but from
Zechariah, but taken up by the evangelist in such a way that it that it hardly corresponds to either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint. In 1519, , the annotation is considerably enlarged, mainly in order to circumvent criticism. Erasmus adds Jerome's exact words, as a way of stressing against his critics that he was only transmitting some information. He now transmits four ways to solve the problem, the first two derived from Origen and the second two from Chrysostom: to assume an error in the transmission of Matthew's text; Erasmus adds that... " ... Matthew's indication as guided and warranted by the Holy Spirit." Of
these four possibilities, an error of transmission is the most likely possibility, according to Erasmus, but he adds:
- For the rest, even if there had been a lapse of memory in the name
5 - In the annotation 'Aperiam in parabolis os meum' on Matt 13:35 (ASD VI-5, p. 226 ll. 838-847; from 1516 onwards). .
Paraphrase on Matthew (2008)
Jerome Comm in Matt 4 (on Matt 27:9-10) pl 26 205B had stated quite bluntly that the citation was not from Jeremiah. Cf Albright-Mann Matthew (ab) 341. ... (p. 364)
- Yes, Erasmus and Clarius are also referring to the Nazarene codex as seen by Hieronymus. Zegerus is quoting the full text of Hieronymus. (For the three 16th century exegetes together see their commentaries ad loc. in the Critici Sacri, 1660 or later editions.)
Hieronymus note on the apocryphon must be in common memory in the 16th century, because in Thomas Aquino's (in M.A. and afterwards most popular) Catena Aurea Hieronymus it is quoted too.
Teunis van Lopik