HistoricalChristian.Faith

Which Zechariah does Jesus name in "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" — and is he the Chronicles figure the "bookends" argument needs?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — the identification with Zechariah son of Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:20–22) is the single most defensible reading, because his murder in the temple court is the only such killing recorded in inspired Scripture; but it is genuinely disputed. Matthew names "Zechariah son of Berechiah," which fits the priest of Chronicles (son of Jehoiada) only by explaining the patronym away, and a large patristic stream (Origen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria) read the figure as the father of John the Baptist instead, with the prophet of Zechariah 1:1 and Josephus' son of Baruch as further candidates. So the identification the bookends argument requires is probable but not secure — and even granted, it establishes only that Jesus named a martyr who happens to stand in the last book of one Hebrew order, not that he was marking the canon's edge · the load-bearing sub-claim of the bookends / canon-demarcation argument (Roger Beckwith, F. F. Bruce, Doug Wilson); weighed here on its own

Related arguments: Abel to Zechariah — see also does "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" delimit the Hebrew OT canon, excluding the Apocrypha? and did the Hebrew canon end with Chronicles in Jesus' day — was that order established and dominant before the first century?

Here the sub-claim is the identification on which the popular "bookends" argument silently depends: that the Zechariah of Luke 11:51 // Matthew 23:35 is Zechariah son of Jehoiada, the priest stoned in the temple court in 2 Chronicles 24 — the last book of the Hebrew order, and so the "Z" the argument needs to make Abel-to-Zechariah a Genesis-to-Chronicles span. If the Zechariah is anyone else, the canon-boundary inference loses its second bookend.

Why the identity matters

The bookends argument runs: Abel's murder opens Genesis, a Zechariah's murder closes Chronicles, so "from the blood of Abel … to the blood of Zechariah" spans the Hebrew canon and excludes the Apocrypha. The second half of that span does its work only if the Zechariah Jesus names is the one in 2 Chronicles 24:20–22 — Zechariah son of Jehoiada, the priest whom King Joash had stoned "in the court of the house of the Lord." He is, on the bookends reading, the last martyr in the last book. Doug Wilson, defending the argument, sees the danger plainly: if the Zechariah is the son of Berechiah and not of Jehoiada, then "the son of Jehoida [sic: Berechiah] was not a Z," and that "would mess with my chronological canonical argument."¹ But Jesus addressed living hearers who knew more than Scripture records, and the church that received his words did not read them with one voice. What Zechariah did they understand him to mean?

The identifying marks

Jesus supplies three clues, and they do not all point the same way:

• Martyred "between the sanctuary and the altar" — in the temple court (both Matt 23:35 and Luke 11:51).
• "Son of Berechiah" / "son of Barachias" — the patronym, given by Matthew only; Luke gives none.
• Possibly a contemporary — "whom ye slew" (Matt) / "which perished" charged on "this generation" (Luke), which some take to require a man of Jesus' own day.

Each candidate satisfies some marks and strains against others. Which Zechariah an interpreter chose depended largely on which mark he treated as decisive.²

The candidates

1. Zechariah son of Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:20–22): a priest, "stoned … in the court of the house of the Lord," who dying said "The Lord look upon it, and require it." He satisfies the place-of-martyrdom mark perfectly and is the only Zechariah whose temple-court killing stands in inspired Scripture. His difficulty is the patronym: he is son of Jehoiada, not Berechiah.³
2. Zechariah the prophet, son of Berechiah (Zech 1:1): his patronym matches Matthew exactly. But no record of his martyrdom exists earlier than a Rabbinic Targum on Lamentations several centuries after Christ — which itself confuses him with the Chronicles priest, calling him "Zechariah son of Iddo, the High Priest."⁴
3. Zechariah son of Jeberechiah (Isa 8:2): "Jeberechiah" is a fuller form of Berechiah, so the patronym fits; but nothing else is known of him — no martyrdom, no temple — so he can be set aside.²
4. Zechariah the father of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5): a contemporary of Jesus' hearers, so he satisfies the "whom ye slew" mark. His martyrdom in the temple is told in the Protoevangelium of James (c. 145) and was taken up by Origen and a line of Greek Fathers; the patronym "son of Berechiah" was supplied for him only by Origen, who attributes it (apparently in error) to Josephus.⁵
5. Zechariah son of Baruch (Josephus, War IV.5.4): "one of the most eminent of the citizens," slain by the Zealots "in the middle of the temple" about AD 67–68. "Baruch" is close to Berechiah, and he was killed in the temple; but he died a generation after Jesus spoke, so the identification requires reading the saying as prophecy in the past tense.⁶

How the church read it

The identification was open from the start, and the Fathers divided along the lines of which mark they weighted.

The father-of-the-Baptist stream. The most influential early reading is Origen's (c. 240), who, holding "whom ye slew" as decisive, took the Zechariah to be the father of John the Baptist, killed in the temple for defending the Virgin's place after the Nativity — a tradition drawn from the Protoevangelium of James 23. Origen frankly concedes the gap: "Of [him] we have no scriptural evidence, neither that he was the son of Berechiah, nor that the scribes and Pharisees killed him between the temple and the altar … But it is from tradition." He even traces the patronym to a conflation, supposing Josephus had called this Zechariah "son of Barachiah."⁵ The reading became standard among the Greeks: Basil of Caesarea (c. 379), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 390), and Cyril of Alexandria (c. 430) all repeat it, each making Zechariah the Baptist's father martyred for testifying to Mary's perpetual virginity.⁷

The son-of-Jehoiada stream. Jerome (c. 398) canvasses all the opinions and settles, with reservation, on the Chronicles priest, because his murder "between the sanctuary and the altar" is the one Scripture actually records: "that Zechariah was not the son of Barachiah, but the son of Jehoiada the priest." On the patronym he offers a guess he marks as a guess — "Barachiah means 'blessed of the Lord' … and the justice of the priest Jehoiada is shown" — and notes that the Jewish-Christian "Gospel that the Nazarenes use" read "son of Jehoiada" in the place of "son of Barachiah."⁸ Bede (c. 730) follows Jerome, taking the figure to be "Zechariah … whose son they stoned … between the temple and the altar," the son of the high priest Jehoiada.⁹ At the Reformation and after, the learned Hebraists converged here: John Calvin (1555) judges that "the sacred history relates what agrees perfectly with this passage" — Jehoiada's son, stoned in the temple porch — and dismisses the prophet (whose murder "we nowhere read"); John Lightfoot (1675) and J. D. Michaelis (1750) agree, noting that Scripture records a cry "for vengeance" only over Abel and this Zechariah, which is why Jesus paired the two.¹⁰

The agnostics. John Chrysostom (c. 407) simply lists the field — "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" — and declines to decide, taking the point to be "a holy man slain in a holy place." Remigius (c. 533) reads the pairing typologically — Abel a layman, Zechariah a priest, "all holy martyrs, both of lay and priestly order." Thomas Aquinas (c. 1270) gathers Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Remigius in the Catena Aurea without arbitrating, and in his lectura on Matthew lays out the three named Zechariahs and grants that for the son of Jehoiada "the place agrees, but the name disagrees."¹¹ Earliest of all, Tertullian (c. 220) names "Zacharias butchered between the altar and the temple" in a catalogue of martyrs running to John the Baptist, without identifying which Zechariah he means.¹²

Adversarial assessment

Weighing the candidate the bookends argument needs — Zechariah son of Jehoiada — against the field, on each identifying mark in turn.

1. The place of martyrdom favors the son of Jehoiada — decisively, among the candidates with any Scriptural footing. Of the five, only Zechariah son of Jehoiada is recorded in inspired Scripture as killed in the temple court, and the match to "between the sanctuary and the altar" is exact (2 Chron 24:21, "in the court of the house of the Lord"). The prophet's martyrdom rests only on a late Targum that itself confuses him with the Chronicles priest; the Baptist's father's rests on the second-century Protoevangelium of James, a work even its patristic users (Origen, Jerome) flag as non-canonical "tradition"; Josephus' son of Baruch is firmly attested but died decades after Jesus spoke. If the place of death is the controlling mark — and it is the one mark Jesus states in both Gospels — the Chronicles priest is far and away the best-evidenced answer. This is why the most exacting Hebraists (Jerome, Calvin, Lightfoot, Michaelis) settled on him, and why modern critical commentary broadly agrees the Chronicles figure is the most probable referent.³

2. The patronym cuts the other way, and the rescues are each strained. Matthew writes "Zechariah son of Berechiah" (Matt 23:35), and the Chronicles priest is son of Jehoiada. Four routes are offered to close the gap, none clean. (a) "Berechiah" was a second name for Jehoiada — Jerome's proposal, which he presents as an etymological guess ("Barachiah means 'blessed of the Lord'"), unsupported by any text. (b) A scribal gloss or error in Matthew — the reading favored by Michaelis and attractive to those who note that the Jewish-Christian Gospel of the Nazarenes read "son of Jehoiada"; but every major critical edition of the Greek New Testament prints υἱοῦ Βαραχίου, "son of Berechiah," as original, so this rescues the identification only by amending the text against the manuscripts. (c) "Son of Jehoiada" means "descendant of Jehoiada" — possible in principle (Zechariah the prophet is "son of Iddo" in Ezra 5:1 though grandson in Zech 1:1), but 2 Chronicles 24:22 states the relation flatly — "Jehoiada his father … slew his son" — leaving no room for a generation's slack. (d) A rabbinic name-conflation, blending two righteous men to heighten praise — a real device in later rabbinic homiletics, but whose currency in or before Jesus' day is unproven; the stock proofs (Mark 2:26 naming Abiathar where 1 Samuel 21 has Ahimelech; Psalm 34's title calling Achish "Abimelech") each have plainer explanations and do not establish the method as available to Jesus. So the patronym is a genuine cost, not a footnote: every path to the Chronicles figure must pay it.⁸

3. "Whom ye slew" is not as strong a contemporary-marker as the father-of-the-Baptist reading needs. Origen's case rests on taking "whom ye murdered" to demand a man of Jesus' own generation. But the second-person indictment is corporate throughout the woes — "ye build the tombs of the prophets … whom your fathers killed" (Matt 23:30–31) — and Jesus immediately charges "this generation" with "all the righteous blood shed … from … Abel," blood spilled across the whole sweep of sacred history, not within living memory. So the contemporary reading is not forced, and the father-of-the-Baptist identification it underwrites depends on an apocryphal martyrdom-story that Jerome rightly says "is rejected with the same facility with which it is approved." Origen's own derivation of the patronym — ascribing "son of Barachiah" to Josephus — appears to be a confusion of sources; modern scholarship notes simply that we are nowhere told the name of the Baptist's father's father.⁵

4. What this does — and does not — settle for the bookends argument. Put the marks together and the Chronicles priest is the most probable single referent: he alone has the temple-court martyrdom in Scripture, the patronym is a soluble (if costly) difficulty, and the weightiest interpreters land there. That much is a real result, and it means the bookends argument's identification is defensible rather than arbitrary. But two things keep it from delivering what the canon-argument wants. First, the identification is contested, not secure: a major patristic stream and the exact patronym point elsewhere, so one cannot simply assume the Chronicles figure as the bookends argument does. Second — and decisively — even granting the Chronicles Zechariah, the identification establishes only that Jesus named a martyr who happens to appear in a book that stands last in one Hebrew ordering. It does not show that Jesus invoked that ordering, or meant the man's book-position rather than his martyrdom; the whole church for seventeen centuries read the pairing as first-and-last martyr, never first-and-last book. The identity question can be won and the canon-demarcation inference still fail — which is exactly the verdict reached on the bookends argument itself.¹

Assessment

Contested. Which Zechariah Jesus names in Luke 11:51 // Matthew 23:35 was disputed in the early church and remains genuinely open, though not evenly balanced. Zechariah son of Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:20–22) is the most defensible answer and the probable one: his stoning in the temple court is the only such martyrdom in inspired Scripture, it matches "between the sanctuary and the altar" exactly, and the most rigorous interpreters — Jerome, Calvin, Lightfoot, Michaelis, and the weight of modern commentary — settle on him. But the identification is not secure. Matthew's "son of Berechiah" fits the priest of Chronicles only by an unattested second name, a textual emendation against every critical edition, an over-loose "descendant," or a name-conflation device whose use in Jesus' day is unproven; and a strong patristic line (Origen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria) identified the figure instead with the father of John the Baptist, with the prophet of Zechariah 1:1 and Josephus' son of Baruch as further live candidates. For the bookends argument the upshot is twofold: the sub-claim it rests on is probable but contested, so it cannot be assumed; and even granted in full, identifying the Chronicles Zechariah shows only that Jesus named a martyr who stands in the last book of one Hebrew order — not that he was tracing the canon's edge. The most likely identification, established, still does not carry the canon-demarcation inference it was enlisted to support.

Sources