This question is another of the "old chestnuts" that has been observed by many commentators for many years, even as far back as Augustine.
The solutions to this problem fall into several categories:
- A transcriber mistook Zecharias for Jeremiah [This is possible as described below; there is some evidence for this, see UBS5, but it is weak]
- The original text has no name of the prophet [there is some evidence for this, see UBS5, but it is weak]
- Matthew's memory was faulty and listed Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. (I personally do not subscribe to this theory if we understand that the Scriptures are inspired)
- "Jeremiah" stood for the portion or section of the Jewish OT which contained Zechariah [possible but at a "stretch"]
Here is a sample:
Barnes:
Spoken by Jeremy the prophet - The words quoted here are not to be
found in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Words similar to these are recorded
in Zechariah 11:12-13, and from that place this quotation has been
doubtless made. Much difficulty has been experienced in explaining
this quotation. In ancient times, according to the Jewish writers;
"Jeremiah" was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed
first in the "Book of the Prophets," thus: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah,
and the twelve minor prophets. Some have thought that Matthew, quoting
this place, quoted the Book of the Prophets under the name of that
which had the "first" place in the book, that is, Jeremiah; and though
the words are those of Zechariah, yet they are quoted correctly as the
words of the Book of the Prophets, the first of which was Jeremiah.
Others have thought that there was a mistake made by ancient
transcribers, writing the name Jeremiah instead of Zechariah; and it
is observed that this might be done by the change of only a single
letter. It was often the custom to abridge words in writing them.
Thus, instead of writing the name of Jeremiah in full, it would be
written in Greek, "Iriou." So Zechariah would be written "Zion." By
the mere change of Zinto I, therefore, the mistake might easily be
made. Probably this is the correct explanation. Others have supposed
that the words were "spoken by Jeremiah," and that "Zechariah"
recorded them, and that Matthew quoted them as they were - the words
of Jeremiah. The passage is not quoted literally; and by its being
"fulfilled" is meant, probably, that the language used by Zechariah on
a similar occasion would express also this event. See the notes at
Matthew 1:22-23. It was language appropriate to this occasion.
Benson:
Matthew 27:9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy — The
words here quoted are not in any copy of Jeremiah extant. But they
bear a strong resemblance to the words of Zechariah 11:12-13. One MS.,
not of great account, has Ζεχαριου, of Zechariah. Another adds no name
to the word prophet, and there is none added in the Syriac version,
the words being only, which was spoken by the prophet. And it seems,
from a remark of Augustine, that some copies in his time named no
prophet. Indeed it is not improbable that the name Jeremiah was
inserted by some officious transcriber. Or we may suppose, with Bishop
Hall, that in copying the words, Jeremiah was put down for Zechariah,
a blunder which transcribers might easily commit, especially if the
names were written by abbreviation, Ιριου for Ζριου, as the bishop
says he has seen in some ancient MSS. But if the present reading is
retained, we may allow, that, as the Jewish Scriptures were divided
into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, what was
found in the prophets might properly enough be said to be in Jeremiah,
if his prophecies stood first in the collection, just as our Lord
affirmed that whatever was in the Hagiographa concerning him, was
contained in the Psalms, because the Psalms stood first in that
division of the Scriptures. Or, we may adopt the solution offered by
Grotius, who observes, that the Jews had many prophecies handed down
to them by tradition, such as the prophecy of Enoch, Jdg 1:14-15, and
the traditionary prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem
mentioned by Josephus, and that the later prophets often allude to and
repeat the words of the former. He therefore declares it to be his
opinion, that the prophecy concerning the thirty pieces of silver,
recorded Zechariah 11:12-13, which represented symbolically, according
to the manner of the prophets, the things that were to befall the
Messiah, was originally acted and spoken by Jeremiah, as Matthew
affirms; but that Zechariah, who in many particulars followed
Jeremiah, was directed by the Spirit to repeat it afterward, and
preserve it in writing among his other prophecies; and that the Jews
had preserved the knowledge of this fact by tradition; wherefore,
though it be now found in Zechariah, being originally spoken by
Jeremiah, Matthew has committed no error here in referring it to him.
See note on Zechariah 11:12-13.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Various conjectures have been formed to account for Matthew's
ascribing to Jeremiah a prophecy found in the book of Zechariah. But
since with this book he was plainly familiar, having quoted one of its
most remarkable prophecies of Christ but a few chapters before (Mt
21:4, 5), the question is one more of critical interest than real
importance. Perhaps the true explanation is the following, from
Lightfoot: "Jeremiah of old had the first place among the prophets,
and hereby he comes to be mentioned above all the rest in Mt 16:14;
because he stood first in the volume of the prophets (as he proves
from the learned David Kimchi) therefore he is first named. When,
therefore, Matthew produceth a text of Zechariah under the name of
Jeremy, he only cites the words of the volume of the prophets under
his name who stood first in the volume of the prophets. Of which sort
is that also of our Saviour (Lu 24:41), 'All things must be fulfilled
which are written of Me in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,'
or the Book of Hagiographa, in which the Psalms were placed first."
Ellicott:
(9) Then was fulfilled.—Three questions present themselves, more
or less difficult:—
The words cited are found in our present Old Testament, not in
Jeremiah, but in Zechariah 11:13, and there is no trace of their ever
having occupied any other place in the Hebrew Canon. How is this
discrepancy to be explained?
(a) Are we to assume an early error in transcription? Against this,
there is the fact that MSS. and versions, with one or two exceptions,
in which the correction is obviously of later date, give Jeremiah and
not Zechariah.
(b) May we fall back upon the Jewish notion that the spirit of
Jeremiah had passed into Zechariah; or that Jeremiah, having, at one
time, stood first in the Jewish order of the Prophets, was taken as
representing the whole volume, as David was of the whole Book of
Psalms? This is possible, but it hardly falls within the limits of
Probability that the writer of the Gospel would deliberately have thus
given his quotation in a form sure to cause perplexity.
(c) May we believe that the writer quoted from memory, and that
recollecting the two conspicuous chapters (18 and 19) in which
Jeremiah had spoken of the potter and his work, he was led to think
that this also belonged to the same group of prophecies? I am free to
confess that the last hypothesis seems to me the most natural and free
from difficulty, unless it be the difficulty which is created by an
arbitrary hypothesis as to the necessity of literal accuracy in an
inspired writing.
