Robert said

If you want to understand the original intent of the author, it is best to read a single line of text in its immediate context. There is no indication that Zechariah employed so much literary parallelism in this verse and then all of the sudden changed his intent to continue writing in the style of literary parallelism but with a different, hidden intent to no longer have his literary parallelism taken literally, but rather hyper-literally. This is just a silly argument on your part. You have presented no evidence for this view other than your desire to imagine Matthew as a genius interpreter of Zechariah’s true intent, contrary to the way in which the Hebrew is normally understood.

Zech 9:10 begins with a parallelism “I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the warhorses from Jerusalem” but doesnt mean we should read the rest of the verse like this. “his dominion shall be from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth” shouldnt be read as the same geographical area.

The interpretation of the last line of 9:9 is wholly dependent on whether one thinks it can be sensibly read as two distinct animals. If it can be, its impossible to know if Zech meant it to be read poetically or “hyper-literally”.

You say, “Ok sure,” but it still seems as if you have not understood Matthew’s style of direct discourse and quotation. He says he is providing a direct quote from Jeremiah, but begins by providing a direct quote from Zechariah. Why can’t you see this?  

Because “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel …” is not a direct quote from Zechariah.

“Ok sure” λέγοντος suggest quotation but its not always exact – Matthew’s quote of Zech 9:9 itself is not an exact word for word copy, but we can see he’s attempting to give the correct general sentiment.

His quote in 27:9 however is neither an exact word for word quote nor a general sentiment of anything in Zech. You could argue is neither of those in Jeremiah either, but Matthew has not incorrectly attributed anything from Zech to Jeremiah.

Robert said
Very poor example. The rest of Zechariah 9,10 continues in very fine Hebrew literary parallelism!

But you dont think “His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth” refers to the same geographical area do you? 

How can we tell this refers to two distinct areas but 9:9 refers to one animal despite literary parallelism being used throughout both verses?

Again, you are confusing the accuracy of the quotation with the intent and affirmation that one is providing a direct quote. But As I’ve already demonstrated for you, the beginning of Matthew’s direct quotation is indeed very accurate:

Matt: τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· καὶ ἔλαβον τὰτριάκοντα ἀργύρια … 

Thus almost identical to exact words of the old Greek of Zechariah: καὶ ἔλαβον τοὺς τριάκοντα ἀργυροῦς … 

Matthew just does not seem to know that he he actually quoting from Zechariah here.  

He may be affirming a direct quote but how can you say its Zechariah he’s quoting? just sharing a few words doesn’t count.

“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” shares many words with Mark 1:1 but this isn’t the verse I’m quoting.

Robert said

It’s called synonymous parallelism, not exact repetition. Thus one should not expectiidentical geographical areas as would be denoted by a cartographer, but a synonymous expression of the wide expanse of the area. You only need to learn to recognize Hebrew literary parallelism to see this.

But how can the reader tell that “his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” is synonymous parallelism but “humble and riding on a donkey, and upon a colt the foal of a donkey” is not?

You’ve already admitted as much. But if you want to retract that concession, perhaps you could tell me whom do you now think Matthew is quoting? What else could he be quoting? Where else does one find the the worth of a man being set at 30 pieces of silver and those thirty pieces of silver being returned to the temple?

But the quote in 27:9,10 makes no mention of the silver being returned to the temple?

Yes instances of τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος previously in Matthew do indicate a direct word for word quotation and the expectation with 27:9 is therefore that we should get the same.

There are then two possibilities with 27:9

1) contrary to expectations Matthew has failed to provide a direct word for word quotation and also mis-attributed his intended quotation of something from Zechariah to Jeremiah

or

2) contrary to expectations Matthew has not intended a direct word for word quotation but merely to paraphrase a prophecy and has correctly attributed it to Jeremiah.

I dont see why you think 1) is more likely?

Robert said

But how can the reader tell that “his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” is synonymous parallelism but “humble and riding on a donkey, and upon a colt the foal of a donkey” is not?

They both are! You do understand what ‘synonymous’ means, right?

well regardless of how theyre described the point is “humble and riding on a donkey, and upon a colt the foal of a donkey” and “his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” are being treated differently.

The first is seen as describing one object the second two objects. What is it in the text itself that tells us to do this?

brenmcg said 
But the quote in 27:9,10 makes no mention of the silver being returned to the temple?

Yes, it does: Mt 27,6: Οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς λαβόντες τὰ ἀργύρια … 9 τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· καὶ ἔλαβον τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια …

Yes, 27:9 tells you what subsequently happened to the silver that was returned – but it doesnt quote anything itself saying it was returned. Therefore shouldnt be considered to be quoting Zech.

You are still confusing the accuracy of the quotation with the intent and affirmation that one is providing a direct quote and, as I’ve already repeatedly demonstrated for you, the beginning of Matthew’s direct quotation is indeed very accurate:

Matt: τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· καὶ ἔλαβον τὰτριάκοντα ἀργύρια … 

Thus almost identical to exact words of the old Greek of Zechariah: καὶ ἔλαβον τοὺς τριάκοντα ἀργυροῦς …   

It may look accurate but means two different things.

Matthew’s is “and they took the thirty silvers” whereas Zechariah’s is “and I took the thirty silvers”.

So the only part of the quotation that looks anything like something from Zech isn’t even being used in the same sense.

Robert said

Not really. It is merely a single territory being described in two different ways, synonymous parallelism. 

But if “sea to sea” is the red sea to the Mediterranean how can the river (Euphrates) to the ends of the earth be the same territory described in two different ways?

brenmcg said

Yes, 27:9 tells you what subsequently happened to the silver that was returned – but it doesnt quote anything itself saying it was returned. Therefore shouldnt be considered to be quoting Zech.

Sure it does. It says they took the 30 pieces of silver. It is an exact quote, as I’ve illustrated for you several times now. 

Yes but your question in comment 84 was “What else could he be quoting? Where else does one find the the worth of a man being set at 30 pieces of silver and those thirty pieces of silver being returned to the temple?“

Matthew’s quote in 27:9 makes no mention of the thirty pieces being returned. He tells us earlier that Judas threw the money back into the temple but Mt 27:9 itself begins “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled … ” ie subsequent to the money being returned Jeremiahs prophecy was fulfilled. Zech is about the money being returned, Jeremiah is about what happened to it subsequently.

One priest in Zechariah becomes multiple priests in Matthew’s account, not a major difference, especially since the word is identical in Greek. And this is common in Matthew’s use of the Jewish scriptures. It is oftentimes the case that the literal meaning in the original context is ignored by Matthew in his attempt to apply the indirect ‘prophecies’ to Jesus. (This was also the case in pesher ‘exegesis’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls.) Isaiah wasn’t really talking about a virgin. In the Exodus, God led the entire people out of Egypt, not merely one son. Zechariah wasn’t really talking about a king riding on two animals at the same time. Nazareth isn’t really a branch, etc.   

Its not a priest in Zechariah but the shepherd who took the silver and returned it. In Matthew its the multiple priests that then take the silver. Same wording but two separate consecutive events.

(Isaiah was really talking about a virgin).

Robert said

Both territorial expressions are merely describing the wide expanse of land inhabited by the nations. Don’t take my word for it; see Meyers & Meyers, Yale-Anchor commentary on Zechariah, Volume 2, pp 137-138.

Perhaps separate territories isnt correct but separate boundary points. Its derived from Ex 23:23 “And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river” but where now the second boundary is set to the end of the earth.

Regardless the point is that the text does not force us to conclude “sea to sea” is the same boundary line as “river to the ends of the earth”.

Zechariah (the priest) does describe his taking of 30 pieces of silver and casting them into the House of the Lord, ie, the Temple. 

Although its Zechariah speaking its not obvious that he is the shepherd – the next line 11:14 “Then I broke my second staff called Union, breaking the family bond between Judah and Israel” isn’t Zechariah.

I’m sure you know that the Hebrew of Isaiah 7,14 only speaks of a young woman, already pregnant or about to conceive, who will bear a son in a natural manner and the sign is that she will name him ‘God with us’. There is no indication that this would be a miraculous conception by a virgin, which is the fulfillment interpretation that Matthew takes it to mean. 

‎ הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל׃

Matthew’s interpretation was only possible with a later interpretation of the Greek, which also originally would have merely meant that the ‘young woman’, possibly a virgin prior to the conception, will conceive, but there’s nothing whatsoever about a miraculous virginal conception.

ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ·

Matthew’s story about Mary being with child from the Holy Spirit without having yet slept with Joseph is pure pesher, not at all what Isaiah meant in his context.   

The indication that it is miraculous is that it is a sign from God. God has told Ahaz to ask for a sign whether in the depths or the highest heights.

The other sign given by God in Isaiah 38:8 is clearly miraculous “I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.”

A young woman giving birth to a son is not a sign from God.

Robert said

I think I’ve already tried to explain to you that synonymous parallelism does not require a repetition of exact boundaries, just similar meaning being communicated in multiple parallel expressions. Read the commentary I referred you to, then respond. Otherwise, your assertions fall flat as mere assertions without any rational argument. 

Ok but the point is not about how this should be interpreted but whether the interpretation is forced by the text itself or from outside the text. If one interpreted it as about two separate territories or about two separate boundaries which together form a single territory could one be disproved by the text itself? or does one need to go outside text.

With 9:9 is it only the ridiculous notion of riding on both a donkey and a colt that tells us it should be read as one animal? what if a single saddle was placed on a donkey and a colt – could one be said to be riding upon a donkey and a colt?

I cannot account for everything that is not obvious to you. Who do you propose is speaking here if not Zechariah? 

Zechariah is the prophet revealing the word of god; but the shepherd is the Lord;

Zech 11:7 “So I shepherded the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I shepherded the flock.“

Zech 11:10 “Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations.”

Zech 11:14 “Then I broke my second staff called Union, breaking the family bond between Judah and Israel.”

There’s no reason to assume that every sign or prophetic gesture announced by a prophet in God’s name is miraculous (see, eg, Isa 19,20 20,3 37,30 38,7) and as in those examples there is also zero indication in the text here that this is to be thought of as a miraculous sign, ie, of a miraculous virginal conception. Prior to Matthew’s pesher, no Jew and no Jewish or critical Christian exegete since reads Isaiah this way. If you want to convince a critical reader, you need good reasons to support your assertions.   

But these other signs in Isaiah aren’t given by god. What 7:14 and 38:8 have in common is that the are signs from god that he will fulfill his promise to protect Jerusalem. They are supposed to give hope and comfort to Ahaz and Hezekiah that they should defend the city and not sue for peace, and that eventually deliverance will come.