Who is mentioned in Matthew 27:9, Jeremiah or Zechariah?

Historical and Textual Context

Matthew 27:9–10 reads:

“Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: ‘They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on Him by the people of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord had commanded me.’”

This passage references the thirty pieces of silver used to betray Jesus, connecting the purchase of the potter’s field with a prophecy attributed by Matthew to Jeremiah. However, many readers notice a strong textual parallel in Zechariah 11:12–13, which states:

“Then I said to them, ‘If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.’ So they weighed out my wages—thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—this magnificent price at which they valued Me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter.”

Alleged Discrepancy

The most common question is whether Matthew mistakenly identified Jeremiah as the source of a prophecy that appears to align more directly with Zechariah. At first glance, readers may conclude that Matthew 27:9 should have read “Zechariah” instead of “Jeremiah.” Yet a deeper exploration reveals that Matthew may be blending key features from multiple Old Testament passages, including ones in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 19:1–13 and 32:6–9 in particular) and Zechariah (11:12–13).

Interwoven Prophetic Themes

1. Potter’s Field (Jeremiah 19:1–13):

In Jeremiah 19, the prophet goes to the Valley of Ben Hinnom with a potter’s earthen flask to pronounce judgment on Jerusalem. Connected to the theme of pottery and land, this text deals with the idea of brokenness and judgment. The setting resonates with Matthew’s reference to the “potter’s field,” suggesting that part of the prophecy’s context comes from Jeremiah.

2. Thirty Pieces of Silver (Zechariah 11:12–13):

Zechariah 11:12–13 famously mentions thirty pieces of silver thrown to the potter in the house of the Lord. The silver’s symbolic value and its disposal in the temple’s vicinity align precisely with Matthew’s description of Judas’s betrayal money.

Possible Explanations

1. Jeremiah as a Representative Heading for the Prophets

Ancient Jewish tradition sometimes used the name of a major prophet (like Jeremiah) to label entire sections of prophetic writings. In larger scroll collections, “Jeremiah” could serve as a title for a grouping that included parts of Zechariah. There are examples in early rabbinic writings where a “headline prophet” was cited and the content included references from other prophets.

2. Composite Citation

Matthew may be merging the imagery of Jeremiah (the potter’s field) and Zechariah (the thirty pieces of silver) into one reference. Pointing to “Jeremiah” in Matthew 27:9 serves to highlight the broader context of destruction and judgment from Jeremiah 19 and 32, while also alluding to Zechariah’s specific mention of silver.

3. Thematic Overlap, Not Error

Critics sometimes assume this is a textual error, but Matthew’s audience, thoroughly steeped in Old Testament knowledge, might have recognized he was conflating multiple prophecies. This technique of blending scriptural allusions was not uncommon in first-century Jewish writing, where a single named prophet stood for a tapestry of prophetic voices.

Support from Biblical Scholarship and Archaeological Insight

• Consistency in Early Manuscripts: The earliest Greek manuscripts of Matthew 27:9 all include “Jeremiah” without variant readings that replace Jeremiah’s name with Zechariah’s. Specialists in textual criticism (see studies by Dr. James White and Dr. Dan Wallace) confirm that there is no textual tradition that suggests Matthew originally wrote “Zechariah.”

• Archaeological and Cultural Backdrop: Excavations near the Valley of Hinnom—identified with Jeremiah’s symbolic acts—demonstrate the potter’s trade in the region (kilns, pottery fragments). These elements match Matthew’s depiction of a potter’s field and the cultural understanding of acquiring land for burial.

• Jewish Interpretive Methods: Jewish writers in the Second Temple period (such as ones found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) commonly conflated or interlaced multiple prophecies under one prophet’s name. This aligns with how the Gospel of Matthew cites Old Testament references as a unified tapestry of God’s redemptive plan.

Possible Theological Significance

1. Fulfillment of Multiple Prophetic Voices

By citing Jeremiah, Matthew draws attention to the prophecy about brokenness and condemnation (Jeremiah 19) and the purchasing of land (Jeremiah 32). Simultaneously, the phrasing directly recalls Zechariah’s thirty pieces of silver. This fuller picture highlights Jesus as the Messiah whose betrayal and suffering were spoken of “through the prophets.”

2. Illustration of Divine Sovereignty

Importantly, the dual reference underscores God’s sovereignty: centuries before Christ’s crucifixion, prophets described circumstances surrounding the purchase of land with betrayal money. This evidences not an accidental mismatch, but a purposeful orchestration of details, pointing to Jesus as the fulfillment of multiple strands of prophecy.

3. Depth of Old Testament Echoes

The Gospels frequently present Jesus as fulfilling all Scripture, not isolated verses. If Matthew had solely mentioned Zechariah, some of Jeremiah’s powerful symbolism might have been lost. By referencing Jeremiah, he encompasses broader themes, reaching back to the covenant warnings central to Jeremiah’s ministry while still drawing on Zechariah’s vivid imagery of the thirty pieces of silver.

Conclusion

When asked, “Who is mentioned in Matthew 27:9, Jeremiah or Zechariah?” the answer encompasses both. Matthew attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah, likely employing a composite citation that weaves together elements from Jeremiah 19, Jeremiah 32, and Zechariah 11. Early Jewish interpretive customs, consistency in manuscript evidence, and the depth of Old Testament allusions strongly support that Matthew knowingly referenced Jeremiah to convey interwoven prophetic themes. Far from being an error, it is a purposeful and inspired blend of prophetic traditions that culminate in the betrayal and redemptive work of Christ.