This prophecy is partially mentioned in the book of Zechariah, and partially in the book of Jeremiah. Did Matthew make a mistake when he cited the prophet Jeremiah instead of the prophet Zechariah in Matthew 27:9-10?

In the Jewish Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the order of the prophetic books differs from the Christian Old Testament. The Major Prophets (like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) are grouped separately from the Minor Prophets (including Zechariah) in the Jewish tradition, where they appear as the Nevi’im (Prophets) section, with the Twelve Minor Prophets (including Zechariah) compiled as a single scroll.

However, Matthew’s Gospel was written in a cultural and textual context where:

1. Jeremiah was often seen as a “representative” figure for the prophetic corpus. Some Jewish traditions grouped certain prophecies under his name, even if they appeared elsewhere.
2. The reference may be composite: The passage in Matthew 27:9-10 blends themes from both Jeremiah and Zechariah:
3. Zechariah 11:12-13 explicitly mentions 30 pieces of silver thrown into the “house of the Lord” for the potter.
4. Jeremiah 19:1-13 (and Jeremiah 32:6-9) involves a potter’s field and a burial place, with themes of judgment tied to bloodshed.
5. Jeremiah 18-19 also uses the metaphor of the potter, which Matthew may be echoing.

Here are some key references from Jewish and early Christian sources that shed light on Matthew’s attribution of the prophecy to Jeremiah, despite its connections to Zechariah:

1. Jewish Interpretive Tradition

a) Jeremiah as a “Catch-All” for Prophecies:

Some scholars suggest that in certain Jewish traditions, Jeremiah was viewed as a representative figure for prophetic writings, especially those involving judgment or the fall of Jerusalem. This might explain why Matthew grouped Zechariah’s prophecy under Jeremiah’s name.

Example: The Damascus Document (a Jewish text from the Dead Sea Scrolls, CD 7:10-11) blends prophecies from different books under a single prophetic authority.

b) Jeremiah’s Potter Symbolism (Jeremiah 18–19):

– Jeremiah 19:1-13 describes the purchase of a field near the Potter’s Gate, tied to bloodshed and defilement (similar to the “Field of Blood” in Matthew).

– Jeremiah 32:6-9 records Jeremiah buying a field as a symbolic act—another possible link to the potter’s field transaction.

c) Zechariah 11:12-13:

Explicitly mentions 30 pieces of silver thrown into the “house of the Lord” for the potter, closely matching Judas’ actions.

However, Zechariah does not mention a “field of blood”—this detail may have been drawn from Jeremiah’s themes.

2. Early Christian References

a) Origen (3rd century AD):

Acknowledged the difficulty of Matthew’s attribution but suggested that early Christian teachers might have had access to a Jewish tradition linking the prophecies (Commentary on Matthew, 27:9).

b) Jerome (4th century AD):

Proposed that Jeremiah’s name was placed at the head of the prophetic scrolls in some copies, leading to a shorthand reference (Commentary on Matthew 27:9-10).

c) The Gospel of Peter (2nd century, non-canonical):

Also references Judas and the potter’s field, showing early Christian awareness of the tradition (though it doesn’t cite a specific prophet).

3. Possible Scribal or Textual Reasons

– Some manuscripts of Matthew may have originally read “Zechariah,” but scribes “corrected” it to Jeremiah due to familiarity with Jeremiah’s potter imagery.

– Alternatively, Matthew may have been quoting a now-lost Jewish midrash or apocalyptic source that blended the two prophets.

So, in conclusion Matthew’s citation isn’t a simple “mistake” but reflects:

• A composite prophecy (drawing from both Jeremiah and Zechariah).
• Jewish interpretive practices (grouping related themes under a major prophet’s name).
• Typological fulfilment (early Christians often saw layered meanings in OT texts).