Hi marcpgangmei, welcome to the forum. +1 for a good question
The issue with Mt 27:9 is not so much the Jeremiah/Zechariah attribution of the prophecy as the fact that neither prophet has the exact same words "quoted" in Matthew's gospel.
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.
4“I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me"
Mt 27:3-10 NIV
Judas throws the thirty pieces of silver into the temple. According to their tradition ("blood money") the chief priests couldn't leave it there so they use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.
I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
13And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord.
Zech 11:12-13 NIV
The context of this passage is quite difficult, involving a symbolic shepherding of sheep. The pay is for being a shepherd but note that, although this passage refers to thirty shekels, a potter and the temple - there is no mention of any field being bought. In the Zechariah passage the "potter" is used to emphasise the unworthiness of the amount of thirty shekels being used for the manufacture of lesser (not metallic) vessels despite the shepherd having shepherded the flock "marked for slaughter" i.e. Israel.
Jeremiah said, “The word of the Lord came to me: 7Hanamel son of Shallum your uncle is going to come to you and say,
‘Buy my field at Anathoth, because as nearest relative it is your right and duty to buy it.’
8“Then, just as the Lord had said, my cousin Hanamel came to me in the courtyard of the guard and said,
‘Buy my field at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. Since it is your right to redeem it and possess it, buy it for yourself.’
“I knew that this was the word of the Lord; 9so I bought the field at Anathoth from my cousin Hanamel and weighed out for him seventeen shekels of silver.
Jer 32:7-9 NIV
Here Jeremiah buys a field despite the on-going siege of Jerusalem by superior Babylonian forces. Jeremiah is showing he is trusting God for a future restoration (buying low in a bear market!)
So, apparently, Matthew has followed contemporary rabbinic practice to create a composite quotation (gezerah shavah
) of more than one Scripture, but refers to only one of the sources by name. Mark does the same in Mk 1:2. Matthew may have also had Jer 19 in mind. This is best thought of as typology rather than strict fulfilment of prophecy.
Now whether this type of prophecy fulfilment passage is fair is a subject of much discussion.
Recent texts on this are: "Handbook of the NT use of the OT" by G K Beale and the monumental (i.e. physically heavy) "Commentary on the NT use of the OT". Each have extensive bibliographies for different views on the subject.