Two theologians (contemporaries of one another and probably writing within the same decade or so) commented on Matthew 23:35 "Zacharias, the son of Barachias". John Chrysostom, providing a homily, addresses the issue in a very summary way.
John Chrysostom (c. 347 - 407), Homily 74 on Matthew (390-397):
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.
By contrast, Jerome, writing a commentary, dives into much greater depth (footnotes are from the Fathers of the Church series)
Jerome (c. 347 - 420), Commentary on Matthew (398), Book Four, at 23:35-36 (pp. 266-68)
23.35-36. “That upon you may come all the just blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of just Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, who was murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Amen I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” There is no doubt that Abel is the one killed by his brother Cain.[FN40] He is acknowledged as just not only by the Lord’s judgment, but by the testimony of Genesis, where his gifts are described as having been accepted by God.[FN41] 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. Some[FN42] say that Zechariah son of Barachiah is the eleventh of the twelve prophets. The name of his father is in agreement with this,[FN43] but the Scripture does not say when he was killed between the sanctuary and the altar, chiefly since in his time there were scarcely even ruins of the Temple. Others[FN44] want this Zechariah to be understood as the father of John.[FN45] They approve of certain daydreams from apocryphal writings that say that he was killed because he had predicted the Savior’s advent.[FN46] Since this view does not have the authority of the Scriptures, it is rejected with the same facility with which it is approved. Others[FN47] 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.[FN48] But one should observe that that Zechariah was not the son of Barachiah, but the son of Jehoiada the priest.[FN49] This is why the Scripture relates: “Joash did not remember the good deeds of Jehoiada his father, which he had done for him.”[FN50] 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.[FN51] In the gospel that the Nazarenes use,[FN52] in place of “son of Barachiah” we have found it written: “son of Jehoiada.” Rather simple brothers point out reddish stones among the ruins of the sanctuary and the altar, or at the exits of the gates which lead to Siloam. They think that these were stained by the blood of Zechariah. We should not condemn their error, because it arises from their pious faith and from the malice of the Jews. We should briefly explain what he means when he says that the blood of just Abel until Zechariah son of Barachiah is required from this generation, seeing that [this generation] has put neither of them to death. The pattern of the Scriptures is to record two [kinds of] generations, [namely,] those who are good or those who are evil; that is, each generation is noted for the one or the other. Let us consider examples of the good: “Who ascends on the mountain of the Lord, or who rests on his holy mountain?”[FN53] And since he has described very many who would ascend the mountain of the Lord, who lived in various ages, afterward he adds: “This is the generation of those who seek the Lord, of those who seek the face of the God of Jacob.”[FN54] And in another passage it speaks of all the saints: “The generation of the just will be blessed.”[FN55] But of the evil it speaks as in the present passage: “A generation of vipers,” and “all things will be required of this generation.” And in Ezekiel, when he had described the sins of the land, the prophetic words added: “If Noah and Job and Daniel were found there, I would not forgive the sins of this land.”[FN56] By Noah, Job, and Daniel, he wants all the just to be understood, who are like them in their virtues. Therefore, even those who committed deeds against the apostles similar to [those of] Cain and Joash are referred to as being of a single generation.
Footnotes:
40. Cf. Gn 4.8.
41. Cf. Gn 4.5.
42. Cf. Origen, In Matth. comm. series, 25.
43. Cf. Zec 1.1.
44. Cf. Origen, In Matth. comm. series, 25.
45. Cf. Lk 1.5, 13.
46. Cf. Origen, In Matth. comm. series, 25; Epiphanius, Haer. 26.12.1-4. The apocryphal writing in question is the Genna Marias or “Birth of Mary,” also called The Protevangeliwm of James, which records that Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was murdered by the same Herod who ordered the slaughter of the babies at Bethlehem. Probably this legend was suggested by the reference in Matthew’s text. See Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NTA 1, 344-45; ANF 8, 366.
47. Cf. Origen, In Matth comm. series, 25.
48. Cf. 2 Chr 24.22.
49. Cf. 2 Chr 24.20. H. Ridderbos, Matthew, Bible Student's Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 433, thinks that the best explanation is to assume that the name of the prophet Zechariah's father was added later by an uninformed copyist.
50. 2 Chr 24.22.
51. Cf. De interpr. hebr. nom., p. 60 and p. 39.
52. See Pref., n. 6. It is interesting that immediately above this Jerome can condemn Origen (anonymously) for citing an apocryphal writing with approval, and then shortly thereafter cite one himself.
53. Ps 24.3.
54. Ps 24.6.
55. Ps 112.2.
56. Ezek 14.14.
***
TurretinFan's comments:
Regarding footnote 54, it is less clear to me than to Thomas P. Scheck (the translator of the text and, I presume, author of the footnote) that Jerome is endorsing an apocryphal gospel, namely the Gospel of the Nazarenes. Indeed, it seems that the majority of our information about this document comes from Jerome's references.
Regarding footnote 46, I agree with Scheck that Origen is likely the one in Jerome's sights for this error, and that both Origen and Tatian (who presumably influenced Epiphanius later) seem to have been influenced by the Protoevangelium of James.
Regarding footnote 49, it is interesting to note that one of the oldest copies of Matthew (codex Sinaiticus) omitted "son of Barachias" (although it was added to the margin by a corrector):
My main reservations about this theory that the surname was added later by an uninformed copyist is that we appear to have multiple independent second-century attestation to the longer reading via Origen (c. 185 – c. 253)(Letter to Africanus), Tatian (c. 120 – c. 180 AD)(Diatesseron), Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD)(Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 14)
4 comments:
Its rather obvious that "son of Barachias" is a scribal gloss that got subsumed into the text of Matthew early on, 2nd century perhaps.
As a side note the interpretation of Abel to Zachariah as refering to the Old Testament canon dates from 1780 when Johann Eichhorn invented that interpretation.
See the article by Edmon Gallagher on academia "The Blood from Abel to Zechariah in the History of Interpretation," New Testament Studies 60 (2014)
Some people will say, "invented that interpretation," others will say, "noticed that aspect of the text." It is interesting that the observation has been around for 250 years without much rebuttal.
I guess obviousness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
Post a Comment