finitum non capax infiniti

Matthew 27.3-10 presents a number of troubles (I suppose this title could be “multiple whammy”). The most obvious is the inconsistencies with the recounting of Luke’s version of the suicide of Judas (Acts 1.9-10) where nearly every aspect of their two stories is in conflict. That is the most obvious tension point in this passage, but there is another one that presents a double whammy for evangelicals who would like to 1) affirm biblical inerrancy, 2) downplay the importance of the exegetical methods of second Temple Judaism when it comes to understanding the NT, or 3) do both at the same time. I would propose that you absolutely cannot choose the third option. Let’s turn to the text.

The ‘double whammy’ passage, as I have affectionately named it this morning during my devotions, is found in Matthew 27.9-10:

Then was fulfilled what has been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom the price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”

The problem with this passage is that Matthew attributes the quotation to Jeremiah, but it is actually Zechariah (11.13-14).

There are two ways that one can look at this passage.

First, you can conclude that Matthew simply made a mistake (and if you are a text critic, you can conclude that he made a mistake by taking the alternate reading found in some manuscripts where Matthew attributes this quote to Isaiah). This conclusion is obviously not one at which someone who holds to inerrancy would want to arrive. For those people, there is a second option…

Second, you can argue that Matthew conflated passages from Jeremiah (most notably Jer 32.6-9) and Zechariah, but only referred to Zechariah in his quotation formula. That would be consistent with rabbinic exegetical methods where rabbis would conflate two (or more) passages but only reference one. If one makes this conclusion then one has held onto inerrancy, but one also admits that second Temple Jewish sources and exegetical methods are extremely valuable and determinative in how we understand the Bible.

When approaching this text it seems impossible to hold to option 3 (above). You have to either rely on second Temple Jewish exegetical methods in order to “save” your version of inerrancy or conclude that Matthew, indeed, made a mistake.

So while it sounds pious to say that the Bible is inerrant and, at the same time, extra-biblical sources are not determinative in our understanding of Scripture, those two simply cannot be held at the same time when the rubber meets Matthew 27.9-10.

You can choose one option, but I’m not quite sure you can choose them both.