Such are the grounds, critical and historical, on which Stahelin rests his defence of the later date of the second portion of the prophet Zechariah. We have given his arguments at length as the ablest and most complete, as well as the most recent, on his side of the controversj'. Some of them, it must be admitted, are full of weight. When critics like Eichhorn maintain that of the whole section ix, 1-x, 17, no explanation is possible, unless we derive it from the history of Alexander the Great; and when De Wette, after having adopted the theory of dif- ferent authors, felt himself obliged to abandon it for reasons already mentioned, and to vindicate the integ- rity of the book, the grounds for a post-exile date must be very strong. Indeed, it is not easy to say which way the weight of evidence preponderates.
(C.) With regard to the quotation in Matthew (xxvii, 9, 10; comp. Zech. xi, 12, 13) there seems no good reason for setting aside the received reading. Jerome observes (Comment, in Ecang. Matth. xxvii, 9, 10),
"This passage is not finind in Jeremiah. But in Zecha- riah, who is nearly the hist of the twelve prophets, some- thiusr like it occurs; and though there is no great differ- ence in the meaning, yet both the orrler and the words are different. I read a short lime since, in a Hebrew vol- ume, which a Hebrew of the sect of the Nazarenes pre- sented to me, an apocryphal hook of Jeremiah, in which I found, the passage word for word. But still I am rather inclined to think that the quotation is made from Zecha- riah, in the usual manner of the evangelists and apoe- tles, who, neglecting the order of the words, only give the general sense of what they cite from the Old Test."
Eusebius {Evangel. Demonstr. lib. x) is of opinion fhat the passage thus quoted stood originally in the prophe- cy of Jeremiah, but was either erased subsequently by the malice of the Jews [a very improbable supposition, it need hardly be said], or that the name of Zechariah was substituted for that of Jeremiah through the care- lessness of copyists. Augustine {De Corns. Ecangel. iii, 30) testifies that the most ancient Greek copies had Jer- emiah, and thinks that the mistake was originally Matthew's, but that this was divinely ordered, and that the evangelist would not correct the error even when pointed out, in order that we might thus infer that all the prophets spake by one Spirit, and that what was the work of one was the work of all (" et singula esse omnium, et omnia singulorum"). Some later writers account for the n<m-appearance of the passage in Jer- emiah by the confusion in the Greek MSS. of his proph- ecies— a confusion, however, it may be remarked, which is not confined to the (Jreek, but which is found no less in our present Hebrew text. Others, again, suggest that in the (iroek autoi;raph of ^latthew. ZPIOY may have been written, .and that copyists may have taken this for IPIOT. But there is no evidence that abbreviations of this kind were in use so early. Epiphanius and some of the Greek fathers seem to have read iv roig Trpo<f>t}ratQ. The most ancient copy of the Latin ver- sion of the Gospels omits the name of Jeremiah, and
has merely dictum est per Prophetam. It has been con- jectured that this represents the original (ireek reading TO pi]^'tv Sia Toi' npo<i>i]Toif, and that some early anno- tator wrote 'Itpe/uov on the margin, whence it crept into the text. The choice lies between this, and a slip of memory on the part of the evangelist, if we admit the integrity of our present book of Zechariah, unless, indeed, we suppose, with Eichhorn, who followS Jerome, that an Apocryphal book of Jeremiah is quoted. The- ophylact proposes to insert a kui, and would read ^id 'lipEfiiov Kai rov Upofijrov — i'lyovv 7ja\npiov. lie argues that the quotation is really a fusion of two pas- sages; that concerning the price paid occurring in Zech. xi, and that concerning the field in Jer. xix. But what New-Test, \yriter would have used such a form of expression "by Jeremy and the Prophet?" Such a mode of quotation is without parallel. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the pas- sage as given in Matthew does not represent exactlv either the Hebrew text of Zechariah or the version of the Sept. The other passages of the prophet quoted in the New Test, are ix, 9 (in Matt, xxi, 5; John xii, 15); xii, 10 (in John xix, 37 ; Rev. 1,7); xiii, 7 (in Matt, xxvi, 31 ; Mark xiv, 27) ; but in no instance is the prophet quoted by name.
(D.) The following writers have discussed the question of the integrity of Zechariah : Mode, Works {hnndt. 1664), p. 7><6. 884 ; Kidder [ Bp.], Demonstration of the Messias (_ibid. 1700), ii, 199; Newcome [Archbp.], i/i??o?-/Vo/)^- ets (ibid. 1785) ; Blayney, New Translation of Zechariah (Oxf. 1797) ; Carpzov, Vindic. Crit. (Lips. 1724) ; Fliigge, Die Weissarpingen. des Proph. Zuch. (Hamb. 1784); Bertholdt, Einleitiing, iv, 1762 sq., 1712 sq.; Eichhorn, Prirpheten, iii. 327-360, 380-392, 415-428, 515-518; id. Einlcitnng (4th ed. 1824), iv, 427 sq, ; Bauer, Einleitvng, p, 510 sq.; Beckhaus, Jntegritdt der proph. Schrift, p. 337 sq. ; Jahn, Einleittmg, ii, 675 sq. ; Koster, Meletemata Exeget. (Getting. 1818); Forberg, Comm. Exeget. (Cob. 1824); Gramberg, Gesch. der Eeligionsideen, ii, 520 sq.; Rosenmliller, Scholia, vii, 4, 254 sq.; Credner, Der Prophet Joel, p. 67 sq. ; Ilengstenberg, Beitrdge, i, 361 sq. ; id. Christologie,\o\. iii; id. Integrity of Zechariah (Edinb. transl. 1848); De Wette, Einleitnng (1st to 3d eds. against the hitegrity, later eds. in favor of it) ; Keil, Einleitung ; Yiavermc^, Einleitnng ; 'Maxxrex, Com- ment, ii, 621 sq.; Ewald, Die Propheten ; id. Gesch. vol. iv ; Bleek, Einleitvng ; id. Zeitalter von Zach., in the Stud, und Krit. 1852, p. 247 sq. ; Stiihelin, Einleitvng, 1862, p. 315 sq.; Hitzig, in Stud, vnd Krit. 1830, p. 25 -sq., .and in Prophet. ; Henderson, Minor Prophets (1830) ; Davidson, in Hornets hitrod. (10th ed. 1856), and more recently in his Introduction to the Old Testament; Bunsen, Bihelwerk, vol. ii, ch. i, pt. ii ; id. Gott in der Geschichte, i, 449; Sandrock, Zach. ah vno Autore (Vratisl. 1856); Ortenberg [disintegratist], £p,«/</«(?- theile des Bvches Sach. ( Stuttg. 1860 ) ; AV right, Bamp- ton Led. for 1878; and the later commentators gener- ally.