Mr. Schmitt has simplified my task by admitting the unlikeliness of various attempts that have been made to explain why Matthew attributed to Jeremiah a "prophecy" that can be found nowhere in the book of Jeremiah (Matt. 27:9-10). Schmitt very wisely recognizes that these various solutions "create difficulties far more grave than the one they attempt to eliminate." Since there is no controversy between us on this point, all I need to do is show that Schmitt's solution is also fraught with difficulties.
Mr. Schmitt believes that the solution to this problem is as simple as noticing that Matthew said only that the prophecy had been spoken by Jeremiah but did not say that the prophecy had been written. This, by the way, is the same "explanation" that inerrantists resort to when confronted with Matthew's claim that Joseph took his family to Nazareth in order to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene. Here too Matthew said that this had been "spoken" by the prophets, and so inerrantists explain the absence of any such prophecy in the Old Testament by quibbling that Matthew had said that the prophets had "spoken" this. He did not say that they had written it. So now Mr. Schmitt is making this same appeal as an explanation of the problem in Matthew 27:9-10, where the claim is that Jeremiah had spoken a prophecy that cannot be found anywhere in the book of Jeremiah.
Although commonly used, this explanation fails to consider the fact that Matthew, who constantly saw prophecy fulfillment in events associated with Jesus, consistently introduced his various prophecy-fulfillment claims by saying that such and such an event fulfilled that which had been spoken by prophet so and so. The following examples will illustrate that this was simply Matthew's literary style.
The birth of Jesus: "So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: `Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,' which is translated, `God with us'" (Matt. 1:22). Although Matthew said that this prophecy had been spoken, it was written in Isaiah 7:14.
Jesus in Capernaum: "Now when he [Jesus] heard that John had been put in prison, He departed from Galilee. And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: `The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light...'" (Matt. 4:12-16). Matthew said that this prophecy had been spoken by Isaiah, but it is actually a quotation of a written statement in Isaiah 9:1-2.
The chosen servant: "But when Jesus knew it [a plot by the Pharisees to kill him], He withdrew from there. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all. Yet He warned them not to make Him known, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: `Behold! My servant whom I have chosen, my Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased! I will put My spirit upon Him, and He will declare justice to the Gentiles...'" (Matt. 12:15-18). This "prophecy" that Matthew said had been spoken by Isaiah was actually written in Isaiah 42:1-4.
The parables of Jesus: "All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: `I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world'" (Matt. 13:34-35). Matthew said that this "prophecy" had been spoken, but it is actually a quotation of a statement written in Psalm 78:2.
These examples are sufficient to establish that Matthew's literary style was to introduce a prophecy-fulfillment claim by saying that the event had been spoken by a prophet. This wasn't just a literary device that he occasionally used; he always introduced his own prophecy-fulfillment claims in this way. Sometimes, in quoting prophecy-fulfillment claims that had been made by Jesus, John the Baptist, and others, he had them say that the prophecies had been written (Matt. 2:5; 4:6; 11:10; 21:42), but Matthew himself always introduced his own prophecy-fulfillment claims by saying that they had been spoken. That being true, we can conclude that in reference to prophecy-fulfillment, Matthew used the word spoken in the sense of written, and that is unfortunate for Mr. Schmitt's explanation of Matthew 27:9-10, where a prophecy that appears nowhere in the book of Jeremiah was nevertheless attributed to Jeremiah. An analysis of Matthew's writing style gives us every reason to think that Matthew thought that Jeremiah had written about the purchase of Judas's burial place for 30 pieces of silver. So Mr. Schmitt's explanation is really no explanation at all.
Certainly, it is no explanation for Schmitt to claim that Matthew, either through "some historical source or by direct divine revelation from the Holy Spirit, could have had knowledge of words that had been spoken by Jeremiah but not written." Such an argument assumes the very point that biblicists want to prove, i.e., the Bible is inerrant because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The fact that Matthew quoted a prophecy that may never have been made by Jeremiah is a plausible reason to doubt the doctrine of inspiration, so Schmitt resorts to question begging when he says that Matthew could have known by direct inspiration that Jeremiah had spoken this prophecy. That writers make mistakes in quoting is a known fact. That writers are inspired by invisible deities is an unverifiable conjecture. So Schmitt needs more than a could-have-been guess. He needs solid evidence that Jeremiah really did make the statement.
Schmitt's belief that Matthew combined a statement that
Jeremiah had
only spoken with a parenthetical reference to the price that Zechariah
had been paid for his shepherding services is really a moot point. If
Matthew
attributed a prophecy to Jeremiah that we have every reason to suspect
was never made by Jeremiah, what difference does it make if a
parenthetical
reference to Zechariah was included? He still erred in attributing to
Jeremiah
a prophecy that was never made. So I will remind Schmitt of a point
that
I have made before. We have every reason to expect an omniscient,
omnipotent
deity to inspire clear, unequivocal writing. If such a deity did
inspire
Matthew to write the statement as it was recorded, he could profit from
a good course in basic writing.
