In the January/February 1997 Skeptical Review, one Joel Wasserman commented on my article dealing with alleged difficulties in Matthew 27:9-10, published in the September/October 1996 edition. In his response, he accused me of merely looking up "a few Hebrew/ Greek words in Strong's concordance" in order to "make it seem" [as if] I am an expert. Perhaps Mr. Wasserman will explain how I was able to do this in view of the fact that I do not own a Strong's nor did I have a copy available when I composed the article in question.
The Hebrew terms referenced in my article are given according to Dr. C. D. Ginsberg's Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible. The transliteration of the Hebrew words follows a system generally approved by oriental scholars, which may differ from that favored by Mr. Wasserman. Also, it is common practice to give Hebrew words not in the inflection found in the text, but in their root form. This makes it easier to locate them in the lexicons.
Regarding the significance of the Septuagint, competent students of Semitic languages often can determine, with a high degree of probability, what the Hebrew word must have been that the Septuagint translators were looking at, from the Greek word or words used to translate them. It was this very technique that enabled Champollion to "crack" Egyptian hieroglyphics by studying the Rosetta Stone, which had the same message inscribed in hieroglyphics, demotic, and Greek characters. That is why we should "care about what the Septuagint says," and also all other ancient documents that bear on Biblical texts. One never knows when even an obscure source will shed light for scholarship.
In his disposition to focus on details of transliteration and vocabulary, Mr. Wasserman lost sight of the principal points I raised: (1) Matthew stated that the prophecy was "spoken" (not written) by Jeremiah. Matthew's general practice of using the word spoken in the sense of written is an example of a literary figure of speech known as "metonymy of cause," but it does not necessarily follow that this is the case in 27:9-10, where it is conceivable that Matthew literally meant "spoken." When two interpretations of a passage are equally possible, one of which causes a problem while the other does not, who has the right to insist on the one that creates the problem? (2) It is possible that Matthew quoted Jeremiah's spoken words and interjected other portions from the Old Testament by way of parenthetical explanation. These are not to be confused with the quoted words. This is another literary device known as "parenthetical interjection," and in my article I gave three possible examples. Regardless of one's interpretation of the various statements in Zechariah 11:12-13, the fact remains that the two considerations above obviate the alleged difficulty. Only by forcing acceptance of an alternate interpretation that is guaranteed to create the difficulty can the skeptical view be enthroned.
It is also regrettable that Mr. Wasserman was so quick to question my motives and accuse me of plagiarism and pompous pretense. Such a spirit does not minister to attainment of truth, and it interferes with true scholarship.
(Wilhelm E. Schmitt, 4500 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington,
MN 55379.)
