Thoughts of Francis Turretin

In Matthew and Luke, Jesus refers to the pair of Abel and Zacharias.

Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

To native English speakers, this may sound like “all from A to Z,” but this is just a coincidence of the English alphabet order - in Greek and Aramaic, Zacharias’ name would not be alphabetically near the end. However, “all … from X to Y,” naturally suggests that X and Y should somehow be book-ending characters.

This mode of speaking is found in a number of places, such as saying “all … from the least … unto the greatest” [FN1] or “all … from one end … to the other end” [FN2]. Sometimes they are more concrete, “all the firstborn … from the firstborn of Pharaoh … unto the firstborn of the maidservant ….” [FN3] or in the form of geographic designations, as in Joshua [FN4].

On other hand, single-ended ranges were also used, such as “all the firstborn … from a month old and upward ….,” “from the first day …,” or “from the beginning” – indeed, in Luke’s account of this very event, Jesus says “all the prophets … from the foundation of the world”.

Thus, while it is clear why Abel is selected as the example of the first “righteous blood,” it is less immediately obvious why there should be any end marker to the set. In other words, why doesn’t Jesus simply say “all the righteous blood that has been shed, from Abel unto now”? Moreover, why is Abel first and not second in the book-ends?

Considering Luke’s text more closely:

Luke 11:45-51

Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they shall slay and persecute: that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Notice that Jesus first gives a single-ended “all the prophets … from the foundation of the world,” but then gives a book-ended “Abel to Zacharias.” Setting aside alphabetical order, the most obvious and expected reason why Abel would be selected as the starting point of a range is if it is a “from beginning to end” range. We may then ask ourselves, Why Zacharias?

From the context, we would expect to find during this period of the “fathers” a prophet named Zacharias who was killed. However, Jesus provides greater specificity by saying that Zacharias perished between the altar and the temple. Moreover, considering that this character serves as a book-end, we would expect him to be in the period of “the fathers” and to be the last prophet to be martyred.

This expectation may disappoint us a little. We find a reference to Zacharias, who was killed in the place Jesus mentioned, but this occurred during the reign of King Joash of Judah (around 800 BC). On the other hand, there were prophets who lived afterward and who (at least according to Jewish legend) were killed. Indeed, it is thought that the reference to a person being “sawn asunder” in Hebrews 11 may be an allusion to the death of Isaiah, which occurred a century or more after the death of Zacharias.

Roman Catholics may be even more disappointed, because the deaths of the Maccabean martyrs is righteous blood that came even after Isaiah’s death, and their death is (to Roman Catholics) more than just a pious legend.

Nevertheless, the context of the death of Zacharias is fairly compelling. Recall the account:

2 Chronicles 24:20-22

And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon [it], and require [it].

This idea of God “requiring” the death of Zechariah to be punished is quite similar to the concept referenced in Genesis of Abel:

Genesis 4:9-12

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Thus, the author of Hebrews personifies Abel’s blood:

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

The same principle is taken up again in Revelation [FN6].

Still, while both Abel and Zacharias are martyrs, and while the blood of each calls out for God’s vengeance, why select Zacharias? To put it differently, in what way is Zacharias last to Abel being first?

The most straightforward answer to this is that Zacharias is last within the Hebrew canon. This is not obvious from the canonical order that we use in the English Bible, where 2 Chronicles is actually fairly early in the list. On the other hand, 2 Chronicles appears toward the end of the historical books of the Hebrew canon, and the remaining historical books (Ezra and Nehemiah) do not record any martyrdoms. Interestingly, for a variety of reasons, 2 Chronicles appears as the last book in some Jewish canon lists.[FN7]

It is not necessary, however, to think that 2 Chronicles was necessarily the last in any official list of Old Testament books at the time of Christ. It could have been that there were official lists with Chronicles last. The Canon List of Baba Bathra (folio 14b) from the Babylonian Talmud, for example, has such a list.[FN8]

However, even if 2 Chronicles was not “officially last,” the Martyrdom of Zechariah is the final martyrdom account within the historical books of the Hebrew canon, although 2 Maccabees (outside the Hebrew canon) contains at least one additional martyrdom account.[FN9]

This is an implicit testimony to the scope of the Old Testament canon. After all, Jesus is not explicitly saying, “2 Chronicles is the last book of the canon.” However, the most natural explanation for Jesus’ “from Abel to Zechariah” is that Jesus is identifying the first and last canonical martyrs of the Old Testament.

Origen is one of the earliest and most influential authors to leave a record of having considered the meaning of Jesus’ statement in a commentary.[FN10] Origen also discusses the question of the meaning of Jesus’ statement in a letter to Africanus [FN11], where he states:

In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture.

From his commentary, we know that Origen was aware of the Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24, because he mentions him as essentially the only Old Testament example of a prophet being killed by the people of Israel in Jerusalem.

Others also quote the section - some without comment on the identity of Zechariah, such as Irenaeus [FN12] or Petilianus the Donatist [FN13] - some with comment, such as Chrysostom [FN14]. The latter writes: “But who is this Zacharias? Some say, the father of John; some, the prophet; some, a priest with two different names, whom the Scripture also calls, the son of Jehoiada.”

Thomas Aquinas, in his Golden Chain [FN15], cites Theophylact as saying “some say was the Zacharias of old time, the son of Jehoiadah the Priest.” He also cites Bede as positively affirming that view and suggesting that the reason for Abel and Zacharias was to affirm people from both classes (laity and priests). He further cites Gregory of Nyssa as noting that “some say that Zacharias, the father of John” (seemingly alluding back to Origen or Origen’s source, the Protoevangelium of James). He also cites a Greek author (Photius?) who offers a different account of Zacharius (father of John the Baptist) death.

A check of Thomas regarding Theophylact confirms that among other theories, Theophylact mentions the 2 Chronicles 24 Zechariah [FN16].

Romanos the Melodist, Hymn 15, vs. 12, seemed at first glance to tacitly indicate that Zechariah is the 2 Chronicles 24 one (by linking him with Abel) [FN17], but on further reflection this may simply be the Protoevangelium account adopted.

Some will say that it cannot be Zechariah from 2 Chronicles 24 because of the Matthew parallel passage, citing at least two reasons that are only applicable to the Matthew parallel and not to the Luke passage itself. Thus, it is worth considering the Matthew account in greater detail:

Matthew 23:29-39

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The first main reason offered for doubting that Zacharias is the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 is that the text says, “ye slew,” but Zechariah was slain 800 years earlier. This is solved by noting that Jesus has lumped in the Pharisees with those who killed Zacharias, not simply genetically but because they will also do the same deeds themselves by killing and persecuting the righteous.

Moreover, Jesus makes this point by saying that they “fill up” the “measure of your fathers” and that they “will” do so by subsequent persecutions. It is then on that basis that they will be held to account for Cain’s murder 4000 years earlier, and Zechariah’s murder 800 years earlier, even though they did not personally commit either one.

A second main reason offered for doubting that Zacharias is the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 is that Jesus refers to him as being “the son of Barachias,” but 2 Chronicles 24 refers to Zechariah as the “son of Jehoiada”[FN17.5]. The minor prophet Zechariah refers to himself as “Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet” (Zechariah 1:1&7). However, this Zechariah lived at the time of Darius during the captivity and return, whereas the 2 Chronicles 24 Zechariah died before the captivity.

There are multiple ways to resolve this apparent inconsistency.

First, it’s not perfectly clear that Zechariah the minor prophet was literally the son of a man named Berechiah. While he uses that term of himself, Ezra calls him simply the son of Iddo:

Ezra 5:1 Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that [were] in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, [even] unto them.

Ezra 6:14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished [it], according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

If “son of Berechiah” is not a literal patronymic, what else could it be? It could be a title, like the negative “son of Belial” used in 1 Samuel 2:12, “Now the sons of Eli [were] sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD,” and numerous other places in the Old Testament [FN18]. If so, the meaning of the title would be presumably linked to the meaning of the name, “Blessed [by] Jah” [FN19].

Another view is that Jesus used the phrase “son of Barachias” to link the 2 Chronicles 24 Zechariah to the minor prophet Zechariah, through a deliberate name conflation. It has been argued that this was a thing that was done, and would not imply any error on Jesus’ part, because it was a known homiletic device of the time [FN20].

A further view is that just as Ezra leaves out Berechiah in calling Zechariah the “son of Iddo,” it is likewise possible that Berechiah was the name of one of the male ancestors of the 2 Chronicles 24 Zechariah. Similar New Testament use of patronymics for other than the direct father include “son of man” (particularly of Jesus), “son of Abraham,” and “son of David.”

More interesting, however, are the uses found in the following examples:

Luke 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

It would, therefore, be completely in character with Jesus and the apostles to refer to Zechariah the son of Jehoidah with an honorary patronymic, “son of Berechiah,” as way of affirming that Zechariah is “Blessed by Yah.”

Moreover, Jesus goes on to quote:

Psalm 118:26 Blessed [be] he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.

Blessed (in this case) is the Hebrew word בָּרוּךְ (Barak) and LORD is the tetragrammaton YHWH, of which a shortened form is Yah, thereby connecting back with “son of Berechiah.”

Regarding the idea that Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 may have had an ancestor named Berechiah, it has been argued that “the only reason you would suggest that is to make the bookends argument work right”[FN21].

On the other hand, John Chrysostom in his Homily 74 on Matthew said, “But who is this Zacharias? Some say, the father of John; some, the prophet; some, a priest with two different names, whom the Scripture also calls, the son of Jehoiada.” We have no record of Chrysostom trying to make a bookends argument work, and in context he makes no such reference.

Likewise, Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew, Book 4, at 23:35-36, states [FN22]:

But we do need to ask who this Zechariah son of Barachiah is. For we read about many Zechariahs. He even removes the possibility of error for us by adding: “whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar.” … I have read diverse things in diverse sources, and I ought to record the opinions of each of these. … Others want this Zechariah to be the one who was killed between the sanctuary and the altar by Joash king of Judea, as the history of Kings narrates. But one should observe that that Zechariah was not the son of Barachiah, but the son of Jehoiada the priest. This is why the Scripture relates: “Joash did not remember the good deeds of Jehoiada his father, which he had done for him.” Since, then, we should also retain Zechariah and the place of the killing is in agreement, we need to ask why he is called the son of Barachiah, and not of Jehoiada. Barachiah means “blessed of the Lord” in our language, and the justice of the priest Jehoiada is shown in the Hebrew language. In the gospel that the Nazarenes use, in place of “son of Barachiah” we have found it written: “son of Jehoiada.”

Even though Jerome might have been motivated to make a bookends argument, he does not make this connection in his Matthew commentary.

Both Chrysostom and Jerome, however, are motivated by the detail Jesus gives of the location of Zacharias’ homicide. Thus, they seek to explain the apparent inconsistency: Chrysostom by saying he has two names, and Jerome by suggesting that it is a character appellation (similar to those we saw above, such as Barnabas) or perhaps even a textual variant.

Likewise, as we saw above, even in the case of the minor prophet Zechariah, he is sometimes called “son of Berechiah,” and sometimes “son of Iddo.” Thus, it is hardly surprising for someone to have two such patronymics, with one being “son of Berechiah.”

Furthermore, the name “Berechiah” appears multiple times in Chronicles, prior to the birth of Zechariah [FN23] and even within the tribe of Judah. Moreover, we are not given a detailed genealogy as with some other Biblical men. Thus, it is not at all a stretch to suppose that Jehoiada and Zechariah may have been descendents of Berechiah, such as one of the Berechiahs recorded in Scripture.

Another point that has been raised is the evidence from the Targum

Aramaic Targum to Lamentations 2:20 (Christian M. M. Brady, trans.) [FN24]

See, O Lord, and observe from heaven against whom you have turned. Thus is it right for the daughters of Israel to eat the fruit of their wombs due to starvation, the lovely boys wrapped in fine linen? The Attribute of Justice replied, and said, “Is it right to kill priest and prophet in the Temple of the LORD, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo, the High Priest and faithful prophet in the Temple of the Lord on the Day of Atonement because he admonished you not to do evil before the Lord?”

However, both from the context that Lamentations 2:20 is before death of the minor prophet Zechariah, and from other Targum [FN25], it appears that this may simply be a name conflation in the opposite direction (i.e. calling Zechariah the son of Johoaida the son of Iddo, though he was not). This does, however, raise the possibility that it was potentially a Jewish custom to link the two (Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 and the minor prophet) and to treat them as though they were the same.

Another option that has been offered, as may be gleaned from the sources discussed above, is the idea that John the Baptist’s father, Zacharias, could be the Zacharias that Jesus had in mind.

On the positive side for this view, the death of Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, could have been much more recent. However, the primary account that ties Zacharias’ death to the temple is a wholly unreliable tradition from the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James.[FN26]

Some have argued (see here for example) that Luke must be referring to Zacharias the father of John, because he does not clarify which Zacharias he was mentioning. This seems to be an argument in search of support. While it is true that Zacharias the father of John is mentioned in chapter 1 and then again in chapter 3, it is not clear why Jesus' readers would need clarification if a different person was intended. After all, there is no hint in Luke's gospel that Zacharias the father of the forerunner met any unnatural end. Moreover, the clarification of which Zacharias is provided by Jesus' own explanation, "which perished between the altar and the temple," of which there was exactly one such Zacharias in the canonical books.

Likewise, from the same video, some have argued that it must be Zacharias because it must be someone that had been personally killed by those present. Of course, Luke's version of Jesus' statement does not include this identification of the lawyers as the killers. Moreover, it is Jesus' point -- not to say that the lawyers were personally killers, but that they endorsed the killing:

Luke 11:47-48 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

In context, then, the deeds of which Jesus is complaining are from the time of "the fathers" not the current time.

A final objection that is sometimes raised is that this theory is new, having only arisen in the 1700s and possibly as a response to the canon order found in printed Hebrew Old Testaments. While this may be correct, it's partly because there was not a lot of thought expended on the question: why did Jesus select these two specific examples? So, it's not as though a traditional interpretation was overthrown, but rather an overlooked aspect of the text was brought out, one that was consistent with (not contradictory to) the previous traditional interpretations.

FN1:

[Jer 31:34 KJV] 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

[Jer 42:1, 8 KJV] 1 Then all the captains of the forces, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people from the least even unto the greatest, came near, ... 8 Then called he Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces which [were] with him, and all the people from the least even to the greatest,

[Jer 44:12 KJV] 12 And I will take the remnant of Judah, that have set their faces to go into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, and they shall all be consumed, [and] fall in the land of Egypt; they shall [even] be consumed by the sword [and] by the famine: they shall die, from the least even unto the greatest, by the sword and by the famine: and they shall be an execration, [and] an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach.

[Act 8:10 KJV] 10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.

[Heb 8:11 KJV] 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

FN2:

[Jer 12:12 KJV] 12 The spoilers are come upon all high places through the wilderness: for the sword of the LORD shall devour from the [one] end of the land even to the [other] end of the land: no flesh shall have peace.

[Deu 28:64 KJV] 64 And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, [even] wood and stone.

FN3:

[Exo 11:5 KJV] 5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that [is] behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

FN4:

[Jos 12:1 KJV] 1 Now these [are] the kings of the land, which the children of Israel smote, and possessed their land on the other side Jordan toward the rising of the sun, from the river Arnon unto mount Hermon, and all the plain on the east:

[Jos 13:4-5, 9 KJV] 4 From the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that [is] beside the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the borders of the Amorites: 5 And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath. ... 9 From Aroer, that [is] upon the bank of the river Arnon, and the city that [is] in the midst of the river, and all the plain of Medeba unto Dibon;

[Jos 15:46 KJV] 46 From Ekron even unto the sea, all that [lay] near Ashdod, with their villages:

FN5:

[Num 3:40 KJV] 40 And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

[Act 20:18 KJV] 18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,

[Act 15:18 KJV] 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

[Luk 11:50 KJV] 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

FN6:

The martyrs in Revelation make a similar demand for justice:

Revelation 6:9-11

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

This demand is met in Revelation 15-16:

Revelation 15:1-16:7 KJV] And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God. And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of Nations. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened: And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles. And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever. And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. … And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead [man]: and every living soul died in the sea. And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, O Holy One! because thou hast judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

I’ve corrected “and shalt be” to “O Holy One!” in Revelation 16:5 and similarly “Saints” to “Nations” in Revelation 15:3.

FN7:

For example, the Jewish encyclopedia states: “The Jewish canon comprises twenty-four books, the five of the Pentateuch, eight books of the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets), and eleven Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther,Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles).” https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon

FN8:

https://sanctushieronymus.blogspot.com/2012/02/canon-list-of-baba-bathra-14b.html

FN9:

2 Maccabees 7 https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2maccabees/7

Origen’s commentary on Luke 11 seems to have been lost, but his commentary on Matthew remains, at least in a Latin translation. Origen The Commentary Of Origen On The Gospel Of St Matthew, vol. 1, p. 29: “There is an ancient Latin translation of the latter portion of the Commentary on Matthew, done perhaps in the sixth century by an unknown translator.”

https://archive.org/details/origen-the-commentary-of-origen-on-the-gospel-of-st-matthew-2/Origen%20-%20The%20Commentary%20of%20Origen%20on%20the%20Gospel%20of%20St%20Matthew%201/page/29/mode/2up

From The Series Commentariorum (On Matthew 22:34-27:66), volume 2 of Origen The Commentary Of Origen On The Gospel Of St Matthew.

(pp. 575-76)

Section 25:

But those who were reproached by Christ could not have killed “Zachariah son of Barachiah, one of the twelve prophets, whose writings we have in hand.[FN] But he means ‘Zachariah’ father of John, of whom we cannot show by the canonical Scriptures that he was either the son of ‘Barachiah’ or that the scribes and Pharisees killed him ‘between the temple and the altar. But a certain tradition has come to us that there is some place in the temple where virgins were permitted to stop and pray to God, but women who had experienced the bed of a man were not permitted to stop in that place. And after Mary had given birth to the Saviour, she entered and stopped to worship in that place of the virgins, and when those who knew that she had given birth to a son forbid her, Zachariah stopped and said to those forbidding her that she was worthy of the place of the virgins since she was still a virgin. Therefore, as ‘Zachariah’ was very clearly acting against the law and permitting a wife to stand in the place of the virgins, the men of that generation killed him “between the temple and the altar. Moreover, let us demand that those who do not accept a tradition of this kind provide an explanation of how Jesus reproached them because of Zachariah, not as the sons of those who killed “Zachariah immediately after the prophets, but as those who themselves killed Zachariah “between the temple and the altar’ If, therefore, the word Christ addressed to the Pharisees and scribes who were present at that time is true, ‘whom you killed between the temple and the altar} it is not possible to understand that ‘Zachariah’ who is one of the twelve prophets. Nor furthermore is it strange if it turns out that each ‘Zachariah and their fathers have the same name.

[FN The following is a parallel to this discussion in an anonymous Greek fragment in the Scholia Commentary of Peter of Laodicea: ‘For those now reproached by the Saviour could not have killed Zachariah the son of Barachiah who was numbered among the twelve prophets, but it is likely [as Joseppus says] that the Zachariah now mentioned was the father of John, of whom we are able to show from the Scriptures neither that he was the son of Barachiah nor that the scribes and Pharisees killed him “between the temple and the altar”. But some such tradition has reached us that at that time there was some place in the temple where virgins were permitted to enter and worship God, and those who had already experienced intercourse with a man were not permitted in that place. Mary, therefore, after giving birth to [our] Saviour went to worship and stood in the place of the virgins. And when those who knew she had given birth were forbidding her, Zachariah said to those forbidding her that she was worthy of the place of the virgins since she was still a virgin. Since, therefore, he was clearly contradicting the law and permitting a wife to be in the place of the virgins, those of that generation killed him “between the temple and the altar”. They are reproached by the Saviour, therefore, not as the sons of those who killed the prophets and Zachariah after the prophets, but as themselves having killed him. And it is not strange if it turns out that Zachariah, the father of John, has the same name as the one among the twelve prophets. So too the father of the father’.]

(p. 580)

Section 27

In this way, they also pour out the blood ‘of Zachariah, which means ‘Remembrance of God: For everyone who is eager to destroy the remembrance of God in those whom they cause to stumble is seen to pour out the blood ‘of Zachariah the son of Barachiah, whose name also means ‘the praising of God. For by the praising of God we are mindful of God. … The impious kill the remembrance of God ‘between the temple and the altar’ when the lewd corrupt the ‘temple’ of God, and its altar is polluted by the carelessness of disgraceful prayers, when the prayer of someone becomes his sin, as also it is said of the prayer of Judah, ‘Let his prayer be counted as his sin.

(pp. 580-81)

Section 28

It is worth investigating why, when the Saviour was speaking before hearers who included the scribes and Pharisees who boasted that they knew precisely what things belonged to the law and the prophets,'*" he said ‘Jerusalem’ had killed ‘the prophets’ and stoned ‘those sent’ to it when not much history of this kind is prophesied in the old Scriptures that are read in their synagogues. We read that Jeremiah was thrown into a cistern of mud;'*? he was not, however, killed in Jerusalem. But neither do we read that Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or any of the prophets suffered any such thing, so far as my memory recalls. But examining the second book of Chronicles, where many things are written about the illustrious prophets, I discovered that Asa, angered at the prophet Hanani who censured him, put him in jail, but he did nothing more against him.'** But also Ahab ordered Micaiah, who prophesied against him, to be imprisoned and to eat the bread of tribulation, but he did not kill him.'** But we read of one who was stoned, ‘Zechariah, son of the priest Jehoiada, when he censured the people.'** We do not, therefore, find more prophets killed in Jerusalem, or stoned (other than I mentioned) who had been sent to Jerusalem.

For this reason, we must see if perhaps we must explain the word of Christ from books that are more secret which are current among the Jews, and not only the word of Christ, but also that of his disciples, Stephen the first martyr, and Paul the apostle. For Stephen spoke as follows: ‘O stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit, just as your fathers did, so also you. For which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced the coming of the Just One, of whom you are now his betrayers and murderers’; and after this ‘they cast him out of the city and they stoned Stephen, calling out and saying.’** And Paul says the following about the killing of the prophets in the first letter to the Thessalonians: ‘For you have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judaea in Christ Jesus, because you yourselves have suffered the same things from your countrymen as they too from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and have persecuted us, and are not pleasing to God?**” And to the Hebrews as follows: “They were stoned, they were sawn in pieces, they were tempted, killed by the sword, they wandered in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in need, restricted, afflicted with pains, of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts, in mountains, in caves, and in pits of the earth.'** It is related, therefore, in unclear Scriptures that Isaiah was sawn in pieces and Zechariah and Ezekiel killed. And I think that Elijah, who wandered in the desert and in mountains, went around in sheepskins and goatskins. But assume that someone denies that the Epistle to the Hebrews is by Paul, and also denies the secret book of Isaiah; but what will he do with the words cited of Stephen, or Paul to the Thessalonians about prophets who were killed, or of our Lord himself? Or how will he deny that which Paul mentioned to Timothy, saying, ‘Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so also those resist the truth’?**? And if he should also look at what is related in the first letter to the Corinthians, ‘What eye has not seen, or ear heard, how will anyone be able to deny all these things?**°

We have said all these things discussing the remark, not unaware that there are many fabrications of secrets by the impious who speak ‘iniquity against the height:?*! The followers of Hypythianus’*? use certain fabrications, and those who are followers of Basilides use others. We must, therefore, give careful consideration so that we not accept all secret books that are passed off in the name of saints, because of the Jews who, to confirm false doctrines, have perhaps fabricated certain works to destroy the truth of our Scriptures; we must also be careful not to deny all works that relate to the explanation of our Scriptures. It is the mark of a great person to hear and do what is said: ‘Prove all things; hold on to what is good?!5? Nevertheless, because of those who are not able, as money-changers,’** to discern whether words are true or false, and are not able themselves to guard carefully that they hold the true in themselves, ‘let them abstain from every evil appearance.’** No one ought to use books outside the canonical Scriptures to confirm doctrines.

Nevertheless, if someone accepts the “To the Hebrews’ as an epistle of Paul, he will say that we ought not use the plural at all in many references. For not many were sawn in pieces, but Isaiah alone; nor were many stoned but only Zechariah, son of Jehoiada; and only Zechariah son of Barachiah was killed by the sword; so also Elijah went about in sheepskins and goatskins; and other similar examples.’*° But further, let us investigate what is written in Luke when the Lord says, ‘Because it is not possible that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem:’*” If, therefore, ‘it is not possible that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem; that is, be killed, you will ask if no one was a prophet after the destruction of Jerusalem, lest perhaps a prophet killed ‘outside Jerusalem’ prove Christ’s word false. And if the Scriptures, on account of Agabus and the daughters of Philip the evangelist (not because of the false prophets of Phrygia'**) compel us, let us ask whether every just person is perhaps in Jerusalem and is not ‘outside Jerusalem, because ‘it is not possible’ for one who is outside Jerusalem to be afflicted with sufferings for the sake of the Word.

https://archive.org/details/origen-the-commentary-of-origen-on-the-gospel-of-st-matthew-2/Origen%20-%20The%20Commentary%20of%20Origen%20on%20the%20Gospel%20of%20St%20Matthew%202/page/580/mode/2up

FN11:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0414.htm

FN12:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103514.htm

In like manner, too, did the Lord say to those who should afterwards shed His blood, All righteous blood shall be required which is shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. He thus points out the recapitulation that should take place in his own person of the effusion of blood from the beginning, of all the righteous men and of the prophets, and that by means of Himself there should be a requisition of their blood. Now this [blood] could not be required unless it also had the capability of being saved; nor would the Lord have summed up these things in Himself, unless He had Himself been made flesh and blood after the way of the original formation [of man], saving in his own person at the end that which had in the beginning perished in Adam.

FN13:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14092.htm

Petilianus said: "In the third place, also, He calls the madness of persecutors in like manner by this name, ‘You generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar.' Matthew 23:33-35 Are they then really the sons of vipers according to the flesh, and not rather serpents in mind, and three-tongued malice, and deadliness of touch, and burning with the spirit of poison? They have truly become vipers, who by their bites have vomited forth death against the innocent people."

FN14:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200174.htm

FN15:

Thomas Aquinas, Golden Chain, https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/CALuke.htm#11

THEOPHYL. But our Lord shows that the Jews have inherited the malice of Cain, since he adds, From the blood of Abel, to the blood of Zacharias, &c. Abel, inasmuch as he was slain by Cain; but Zacharias, whom they slew between the temple and the altar, some say was the Zacharias of old time, the son of Jehoiadah the Priest. BEDE; Why He begins from the blood of Abel, who was the first martyr, we need not wonder; but why, to the blood, of Zacharias, is a question, since many were slain after him even up to our Lord’s birth, and soon after His birth the Innocents, unless perhaps it was because Abel was a shepherd, Zacharias a Priest. And the one was killed in the field, the other in the court of the temple, martyrs of each class, that is, under their names are shadowed both laymen, and those engaged in the office of the altar.

GREG NYSS. But some say that Zacharias, the father of John, by the spirit of prophecy forecasting the mystery of the immaculate virginity of the mother of God, in no wise separated her from the part of the temple set apart for virgins, wishing to show that it was in the power of the Creator of all things to manifest a new birth, while he did not deprive the mother of the glory of her virginity. Now this part was between the altar and the temple, in which was placed the brazen altar, where for this reason they slew him. It is said also, that when they heard the King of the world was about to come, form fear of subjection they designedly attacked him who bore witness to His coming, and slew the priest in the temple.

GREEK EX. But others give another reason for the destruction of Zacharias. For at the murder of the children the blessed John was to be slain with the rest of the same age, but Elizabeth, snatching up her son from the midst of the slaughter, sought the desert. And so when Herod’s soldiers could not find Elisabeth and the child, they turn their wrath against Zacharias, killing him as he was ministering in the temple.

FN16:

On the Matthew passage, Theophylact writes:

But of which Zechariah is he here making mention? Some say of the one numbered among the twelve prophets; others, of the father of the Forerunner. For a tradition has been handed down to us that there was a certain place in the temple where the virgins stood. Now Zechariah, being a high priest, after the birth of Christ placed the Mother of God in the place of the virgins. The Jews, becoming angry at this, killed him, as having assigned a woman who had given birth to a place among virgins. And it is not surprising if even the father of the Forerunner had a father named Barachiah, just as the one among the twelve prophets is called the son of Barachiah; for it is likely that just as their names coincided, so also did those of their fathers.

Ποίου δὲ Ζαχαρίου ἐνταῦθα μέμνηται; Οἱ μὲν τοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώδεκα προφήταις φασὶ συναριθμουμένου· οἱ δέ, τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Προδρόμου· λόγος γὰρ ἔχει παραδοθεὶς ἡμῖν, ὅτι τόπος τις ἦν ἐν τῷ ναῷ, ἐν ᾧ ἵσταντο αἱ παρθένοι. Ὁ τοίνυν Ζαχαρίας ἀρχιερεὺς ὤν, καὶ μετὰ τὸ τεκεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν τὴν Θεοτόκον ἔστησεν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῶν παρθένων· ἀγανακτήσαντες δὲ ἐπὶ τούτῳ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, ἀπέκτειναν αὐτόν, ὡς μετὰ τῶν παρθένων τάξαντα γυναῖκα γεννήσασαν· οὐδὲν δὲ θαυμαστόν, εἰ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ Προδρόμου εἶχε πατέρα Βαραχίαν ὀνόματι, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ἐν τοῖς δώδεκα προφήταις Βαραχίου λέγεται υἱός· εἰκὸς γὰρ ὥσπερ τὰ τούτων ὀνόματα συνέδραμον, οὕτω καὶ τὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν.

On the Luke passage, Theophylact writes:

Who, then, was this Zechariah whom they killed between the temple and the altar? Some say it was the ancient Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, whom they stoned, as can be learned from the Book of Kings. But others say it was the father of the Forerunner (John the Baptist), because he placed the Theotokos among the virgins after she had given birth to Christ, positioning her in the place where they stood; this place was between the temple and the outer bronze altar. Therefore, they killed him. For since certain people expected Christ to be their king, yet did not wish to be ruled, they murdered this holy man, because he affirmed that a virgin had given birth, and that Christ, the one who would become their king—something they rejected—had been born; for they wished to remain kingless.

Τίς δὲ ἦν ἄρα Ζαχαρίας, ὃν ἐφόνευσαν μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου; Οἱ μὲν λέγουσι τὸν ἀρχαῖον Ζαχαρίαν τὸν τοῦ Ἰωάδε, καὶ ὃν ἐλιθοβόλησαν, ὡς ἔστι μαθεῖν ἐκ τῆς βίβλου τῶν Βασιλειῶν· οἱ δὲ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ Προδρόμου, τοῦτον γὰρ τάξαντα τὴν Θεοτόκον μετὰ τῶν παρθένων μετὰ τὸ τεκεῖν τὸν Χριστόν, καὶ στήσαντα ταύτην ἐν τῷ τόπῳ ἐν ᾧ ἐκεῖναι ἵσταντο· ὁ δὲ τόπος ἦν μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ ἔξω τοῦ χαλκοῦ. Διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ἐφόνευσαν αὐτόν. Ἐπεὶ γὰρ προσεδόκων τινὲς τὸν Χριστὸν βασιλέα αὑτῶν ἐσόμενον, οὐκ ἤθελον δὲ βασιλευθῆναι, τούτου ἕνεκα ἐφόνευσαν τὸν ἅγιον, ὡς βεβαιοῦντα ὅτι παρθένος ἔτεκεν, καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐγεννήθη ὁ μέλλων αὐτῶν βασιλεύειν, ὅπερ ἀπεστρέφοντο· ἀβασίλευτοι γὰρ ἤθελον εἶναι.

FN17:

Romanos the Melodist, Hymn 15, vs. 12:

As the lawless ones sprinkle innocent blood

of the harmless infants, it was necessary to remember

Abel, who offered a sacrifice to God pure and undefiled,

and to comfort him; for he too was slain.

And again, it was necessary to look upon Zechariah,

how he there will bring an accusation before God

against those who killed him. For always the Jews

and their rulers are insolent and lawless,

murderers and senseless and transgressors of the Law;

they rejected Moses, and once even sawed Isaiah in half;

and now they slaughter Rachel’s infants; therefore she also laments

Ῥαινόντων τῶν ἀνόμων ἀθῷον αἷμα

τῶν ἀκάκων νηπίων, ἔδει μνησθῆναι

Ἄβελ τοῦ προσάξαντος τὴν θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ καθαρὰν καὶ ἀμόλυντον,

καὶ παραμυθηθῆναι· κἀκεῖνος γὰρ ἐκτάνθη.

Καὶ πάλιν Ζαχαρίαν ἐχρῆν κατιδεῖν,

ὡς τῷ Θεῷ ἐκεῖ κατηγορίαν προσάξει

κατὰ τῶν τοῦτον ἀποκτεινάντων· ἀεὶ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι

καὶ οἱ τούτων ἀνάσσοντες ὑβρισταὶ καὶ παράνομοι,

φονευταὶ καὶ ἀσυνετοὶ καὶ νόμον παραβαίνοντες·

τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἠθέτησαν, Ἠσαΐαν δὲ αὐτοὶ μέσον ἔπρισάν ποτε·

καὶ τὰ βρέφη τῆς Ῥαχὴλ κατασφάττουσι νῦν· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ θρηνοῦν

<ὅτι τὸ κράτος αὐτοῦ καθαιρεῖται ταχύ.>

Abel is the first martyr in the Hebrew canon and Zacharias is the final martyr in the Hebrew canon.

FN17.5:

Interestingly, it is possible that the “son of Jehoiada” should be taken in some honorary way. After all, the location of killing of Zechariah is reminiscent of an account from the life of Jehoiada:

2 Chronicles 23:12-15

Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people into the house of the LORD: And she looked, and, behold, the king stood at his pillar at the entering in, and the princes and the trumpets by the king: and all the people of the land rejoiced, and sounded with trumpets, also the singers with instruments of musick, and such as taught to sing praise. Then Athaliah rent her clothes, and said, Treason, Treason. Then Jehoiada the priest brought out the captains of hundreds that were set over the host, and said unto them, Have her forth of the ranges: and whoso followeth her, let him be slain with the sword. For the priest said, Slay her not in the house of the LORD. So they laid hands on her; and when she was come to the entering of the horse gate by the king's house, they slew her there.

However, the wording of account of the death of Zechariah is most naturally taken as referring to his natural son, particularly because of the use of “Jehoiada his father”:

2 Chronicles 24:15-22

But Jehoiada waxed old, and was full of days when he died; an hundred and thirty years old [was he] when he died. And they buried him in the city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, both toward God, and toward his house. Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them. And they left the house of the LORD God of their fathers, and served groves and idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their trespass. Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the LORD; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear. And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon [it], and require [it].

FN18:

[Deu 13:13 KJV] 13 [Certain] men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

[Jdg 19:22 KJV] 22 [Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

[Jdg 20:13 KJV] 13 Now therefore deliver [us] the men, the children of Belial, which [are] in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel:

[1Sa 1:16 KJV] 16 Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial: for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto.

[1Sa 2:12 KJV] 12 Now the sons of Eli [were] sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD.

[1Sa 10:27 KJV] 27 But the children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? And they despised him, and brought him no presents. But he held his peace.

[1Sa 25:17, 25 KJV] 17 Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he [is such] a son of Belial, that [a man] cannot speak to him. ... 25 Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, [even] Nabal: for as his name [is], so [is] he; Nabal [is] his name, and folly [is] with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send.

[1Sa 30:22 KJV] 22 Then answered all the wicked men and [men] of Belial, of those that went with David, and said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them [ought] of the spoil that we have recovered, save to every man his wife and his children, that they may lead [them] away, and depart.

[2Sa 16:7 KJV] 7 And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial:

[2Sa 20:1 KJV] 1 And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name [was] Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel.

[2Sa 23:6 KJV] 6 But [the sons] of Belial [shall be] all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands:

[1Ki 21:10, 13 KJV] 10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And [then] carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. ... 13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, [even] against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.

[2Ch 13:7 KJV] 7 And there are gathered unto him vain men, the children of Belial, and have strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and tenderhearted, and could not withstand them.

FN19:

Genesius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h1296/kjv/wlc/0-1/

FN20:

[Incomplete] p. 219 of Roger T. Beckwith, “The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its background in Early Judaism.”

FN21:

“Is the Canonical Bookends Argument Solid? (Lk 11:49-51; Mt 23:34-36),” Apocrypha Apocalypse channel, Gary Michuta, 10:12 into the video: https://youtu.be/vM85w_SF2gk?t=612

FN22:

https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2025/04/john-chrysostom-and-jerome-on-zechariah.html

FN23:

Among the list of Solomon’s sons:

[1Ch 3:20 KJV] 20 And Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushabhesed, five.

As a Levite:

[1Ch 9:16 KJV] 16 And Obadiah the son of Shemaiah, the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun, and Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah, that dwelt in the villages of the Netophathites.

As Levites (specifically at the time of David):

[1Ch 15:17, 23 KJV] 17 So the Levites appointed Heman the son of Joel; and of his brethren, Asaph the son of Berechiah; and of the sons of Merari their brethren, Ethan the son of Kushaiah; ... 23 And Berechiah and Elkanah [were] doorkeepers for the ark.

FN24:

Aramaic Targum to Lamentations 2:20 (Christian M. M. Brady, trans.) [FN24] https://www.sefaria.org/Aramaic_Targum_to_Lamentations.2?lang=bi

FN25:

Multiple Targumim describe the martyrdom of Zechariah:

Gittin 57b:3; The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.57b.3?lang=bi

Nebuzaradan said to them: If you tell me whose blood this is, it will be well for you. But if not, I will comb your flesh with iron combs. They said to him: What shall we say to you? He was a prophet among us, who used to rebuke us about heavenly matters, and we rose up against him, and killed him (II Chronicles 24:20–22), and for many years now his blood has not settled.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 4:5:17; Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015 https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Taanit.4.5.17?lang=bi

Rebbi Joḥanan said, 80’000 young priests were slaughtered for the blood of Zachariah. Rebbi Yudan asked Rebbi Aḥa, where did they kill Zachariah? In the women’s courtyard or in Israel’s courtyard? He said to him, neither in Israel’s courtyard nor in the women’s courtyard but in the priests’ courtyard. They treated his blood neither as ram’s blood nor as gazelle’s blood. There is written, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust. But here, for its blood was in its midst, on a bare rock he put it. Why all this? To arise rage, to avenge vengeance, I put its blood on a bare rock, without being covered. Seven sins did Israel commit on that day. They killed a priest, prophet, and judge, spilled innocent blood, defiled the Temple courtyard, and it was a Sabbath and Day of Atonement. When Nebuzaraddan came here and saw the blood bubbling, he asked them, what is the matter with this? They told him, it is the blood of bulls, sheep, and rams, which we were sacrificing on the altar. Immediately he brought bulls, rams, and sheep and slaughtered them on it, but the blood still was bubbling. Since they did not confess, he hung them on gallows. They said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, wants to ask for his blood from us, they told him, it is the blood of a priest, prophet, and judge who was prophesying for us [all that you are doing to us.] We conspired against him and killed him. Immediately he brought 80’000 young priests and slaughtered them on it, but the blood was still bubbling. At this moment he got angry with him, and said to him, do you want to destroy your entire people because of you? Immediately the Holy One, praise to Him, was filled with mercy and said, if this one who is flesh and blood, and cruel, is filled with mercy for My children, I, where it is written about Me, for a compassionate power is the Eternal, your God, He will not destroy you nor forget the covenant of your forefathers, not so much more? Immediately he indicated to the blood and it was absorbed on its place.

Sanhedrin 96b:5; The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.96b.5?lang=bi

When he reached the Sanctuary, he saw the blood of Zechariah the priest boiling. It had not calmed since he was killed in the Temple (see II Chronicles 24:20–22). Nebuzaradan said to the priests there: What is this? They said to him: It is the blood of offerings that was spilled. Nebuzaradan said to them: Bring animals and I will test to determine if the blood of the animals is similar to the blood that is boiling. He slaughtered the animals and their blood was not similar to the boiling blood. Nebuzaradan said to the priests: Reveal the source of that blood to me, and if not I will comb your flesh with an iron comb.

FN26:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

For the question of reliability, see here: https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/08/protoevangelium-of-james-question-of.html

Saturday, May 10, 2025

God Doesn't Just Try to Save

Tuesday, May 06, 2025

Did Jesus Bookend the Canon in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51?

"Followers" of this Blog

Early Church Fathers (plus some Medievals) with Conciliar Documents

Responses to (some of) Rome's Apologists

Ancient Voices

Blog Archive

Folks who have kindly linked to my blog

About Me

Copyright Notice - (C) 2006-2025 TurretinFan

Label Cloud