27:3 Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, 27:4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” 27:5 So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself. 27:6 The chief priests took the silver and said, “It is not lawful to put this into the temple treasury, since it is blood money.” 27:7 After consulting together they bought the Potter’s Field with it, as a burial place for foreigners. 27:8 For this reason that field has been called the “Field of Blood” to this day. 27:9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty silver coins, the price of the one whose price had been set by the people of Israel, 27:10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

The quotation appears, at first sight, to come from Zechariah, not from Jeremiah:

Zech 11:12 ‘Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, pay me my wages, but if not, forget it.” So they weighed out my payment—thirty pieces of silver. 11:13 The LORD then said to me, “Throw to the potter that exorbitant sum at which they valued me!” So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the temple of the LORD.’

(a) Some think that there is a clear error here, either on the part of the original author of this Gospel, or a copyist.

Calvin says:

‘How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know, nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah 11:13 for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor anything that even approaches it.’  Calvin clearly thinks that the name of ‘Jeremiah’ has ‘crept in’ as an error of a scribal copyist (see Packer, Selected Short Writings IV, p155).

According to Harper’s Bible Commentary,

‘Matthew ascribes the citation to Jeremiah. Most of it, however, comes from Zech. 11:12–13, though there are slight reminiscences of Jer 32:6–15 and Jer 18:2–3. It was difficult to verify references when there were no chapter and verse numbers and when books were in scroll form.’

(b) Others think that the difficulty, such as it is, may be resolved by a better understanding of how such citations worked.

Carson says:

‘The quotation appears to refer to Jer 19:1–13, along with phraseology drawn mostly from Zec 11:12–13. Such fusing of sources under one “quotation” is not unknown elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Mk 1:2–3). Jeremiah alone is mentioned, perhaps because he is the more important of the two prophets, and perhaps also because Jer 19 is more important as to prophecy and fulfillment.’ (EBC)

According to the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, it was common practice in Jewish writing of the day to allude to two texts, but only to cite one of them (frequently the more obscure one).  Indeed, this is what we see in Mark 1:2 (a combination of Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1, with only the first of these references being mentioned).  The more obvious reference in the present verse is to Zech 11:12f.  But the less obvious allusion is to Jer 32:6-9, although Jer 19 is an alternative, or additional, contender.  (A similar line is followed in the IVP Bible Background Commentary)

Bill Mounce notes the similarities between Matthew and Zechariah – both mention thirty piece of silver, and both mention that the money was thrown in the temple.  But there are difference, too:

‘In Zechariah, there is no mention of a field, and the money was not used to buy anything but was thrown to the potter, not the leaders as in Matthew.’

Moreover, Zechariah and Matthew have different purposes:

‘In Zechariah 11:4–17, the shepherds of Israel (the leaders) failed to do their job, so Zechariah steps in as a “sign–action” and prophecies the coming destruction of the nation. The people paid him 30 pieces of silver for his work, the price of a slave, and Zechariah threw it to the potter in the temple, demonstrating their rejection of God as their shepherd.’

These differences, urges Mounce, should suggest that we are not dealing with a literal prediction/fulfilment.

Various passages in Jeremiah may also be regarded as providing source material for Matthew.

In Jer 18:2-6, the prophet pays a visit to the potter’s house and notes that the potter is free to shape the jar however he pleases:

‘Likewise, the Lord is free to do whatever he wishes to the nation, including destroying them if they do not repent. Judas was destroyed.’

In Jer 19 Jeremiah buys a jar from a potter for 17 sheckels.  He takes some of the religious leaders to the Valley of Ben Hinnom (aka the Valley of Slaughter).  He smashes the jar there, indicating the Lord’s judgement on their sin, and that the valley would become a burying place for the dead.  It is thought that the field that was purchased with Judas’ money was in this same area.

In Jer 32:6f there is mention of the purchasing of a field (this is not mentioned in Zechariah).

Culpepper comments that:

‘Since written texts were scarce, biblical texts were transmitted by memory and oral performance; the texts had no chapter or verse notations, so passages were referred to by key words and phrases. This cluster of related texts from Zechariah and Jeremiah suggests that the early church remembered texts containing elements of the gospel tradition and then shaped the tradition in light of those texts. The conflated quotation was then assigned to the more prominent of the two prophets.’

It is reasonable to conclude, with France and others, that Matthew has given us a ‘mosaic of scriptural motifs’ which a blended together to suit his purpose.  Matthew names Jeremiah because he was the more prominent of the two prophets.

Mark does the same thing, combining prophecies of Isaiah and Malachi and naming the more significant prophet, Isaiah (Mark 1:2, citing Isaiah 43:3 and Malachi 3:1).