Above is a video by Jewish apologist Rabbi Tovia Singer. He points out a supposed error in the New Testament. Now, I don’t want to pick on Rabbi Singer but he’s not the only one who likes to bring this up. Muslims and liberal NT “scholars” like to point this out.
Basically the argument is that Matthew 23:35 talks about the killing of Zechariah the son of Berekiah when it’s actually another Zechariah. There are many Zechariah’s in the OT so either Matthew or Jesus got sloppy and made a mistake. Or did they?
There is a little something called context and that is what I tend on exploring. Here is the verse in question.
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
– Matthew 23:35
Does this imply that Berekiah is the biological father of Zechariah? Let’s look at a few other places in the Gospel of Matthew. Remember that this is in the first century CE which was a very different world.
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham
– Matthew 1:1
This is the first sentence of the book of Matthew. Jesus is referred to as the son of David and the son of Abraham. How is this possible? Well, if you keep reading, it gives a genealogy and David and Abraham are both the ancestors of Jesus Christ. That is why Jesus can be called son of David and Son of Abraham and not just son of Joseph. In fact, Joseph is described as the Son of David in Matthew 1:20.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
– Matthew 1:20
Now, is Joseph the biological son of someone who lived a thousand years before him? Of course not. David is his ancestor. Anyone in the first century would know what this means.
Let’s look at on more example in Matthew. In Matthew 21, when Jesus Christ makes his triumphant entry, the crowd shouts the following:
The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
“Hosanna to the Son of David!”
– Matthew 21:9
Obviously they knew that Jesus was a descendant of David. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to use the context of Matthew 1 and 21 with Matthew 23? In other words when we see Zechariah son of Berekiah, we realize Berekiah could be referring to either a biological father or ancestor. Since Rabbi Tovia Singer correctly pointed out that Berekiah was not his father, then the obvious answer is an ancestor. This phraseology is used multiple times in the book of Matthew and no reason why it shouldn’t be thought of here. Therefore this argument against the Gospel of Matthew fails.
If you want a true theological chuckle at Islamic attempts at Christian doctrinal history, I would highly recommend “Muslims before Muhammad ﷺ | Arianism the untold history of the world”on youtube. It is at once very funny and utterly exasperating.
Yours in Christ
Tobias
I don’t think your argument makes sense! I agree that are are dealing with two Zecharias:
high priest Zechariah son of Jehoiada, who was murdered by stoning in approximately 800 BC (see 2 Chron. 24:21);
and Zechariah son of Berekiah, who is the author of the Book of Zechariah (see Zech.:1:1) and lived in the post-exilic period (say about 520 BC). This Zechariah does not appear to have been murdered.
So here’s the problem: If Jesus was referring to the martyred high priest, Zechariah son of Jehoiada, then this martyr could not reasonably be called a son of Zechariah son of Berekiah, for the simple reason that Zechariah son of Jehoiada lived centuries before Zechariah son of Berekiah. Zechariah son of Jehoiada was the ANCESTOR of the other Zechariah, so not a descendant of the other.
Jesus, by contrast, COULD BE called the son of Abraham or of David, because he came after them. David or Abraham could not of course correctly be called the son of Jesus, even metaphorically, despite their sharing the same lineage.
I’m saying that Zechariah the Son of Jehoiada had a an ancestor named Berekiah just like Jesus had an ancestor named David. The other Zechariah isn’t a part of this at all.
O.K. thanks for your clarification. But there is no record of an ancestor of Zechariah son of Jehoiada, who was called Berekiah (certainly not in Chronicles) , so I presume that the people listening to Jesus would be left scratching their heads.
Bible commentator Adam Clarke beautifully puts it this way….. the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah. It is likely that our Lord refers to the murder of Zachariah, mentioned 2 Chronicles 24:20, who said to the people, Why transgress ye the commandments of God, so that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath forsaken you. And they conspired against him and stoned him – at the commandment of the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon and require it: 2 Chronicles 24:21, 2 Chronicles 24:22.
But it is objected, that this Zachariah was called the son of Jehoiada, and our Lord calls this one the son of Barachiah. Let it be observed,
1. That double names were frequent among the Jews; and sometimes the person was called by one, sometimes by the other. Compare 1 Samuel 9:1, with 1 Chronicles 8:33, where it appears that the father of Kish had two names, Abiel and Ner. So Matthew is called Levi; compare Matthew 9:9, with Mark 2:14. So Peter was also called Simon, and Lebbeus was called Thaddeus. Matthew 10:2, Matthew 10:3.
2. That Jerome says that, in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, it was Jehoiada, instead of Barachiah.
3. That Jehoiada and Barachiah have the very same meaning, the praise or blessing of Jehovah.
4. That as the Lord required the blood of Zachariah so fully that in a year all the princes of Judah and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Syrians, and Joash, who commanded the murder, slain by his own servants, 2 Chronicles 24:23-25, and their state grew worse and worse, till at last the temple was burned, and the people carried into captivity by Nebuzaradan: – so it should also be with the present race. The Lord would, after the crucifixion of Christ, visit upon them the murder of all those righteous men, that their state should grow worse and worse, till at last the temple should be destroyed, and they finally ruined by the Romans. See this prediction in the next chapter: and see Dr. Whitby concerning Zachariah, the son of Barachiah.
Some think that our Lord refers, in the spirit of prophecy, to the murder of Zacharias, son of Baruch, a rich Jew, who was judged, condemned, and massacred in the temple by Idumean zealots, because he was rich, a lover of liberty, and a hater of wickedness. They gave him a mock trial; and, when no evidence could be brought against him of his being guilty of the crime they laid to his charge, viz. a design to betray the city to the Romans, and his judges had pronounced him innocent, two of the stoutest of the zealots fell upon him and slew him in the middle of the temple. See Josephus, War, b. iv. chap. 5. s. 5. See Crevier, vol. vi. p. 172, History of the Roman Emperors. Others imagine that Zachariah, one of the minor prophets, is meant, who might have been massacred by the Jews; for, though the account is not come down to us, our Lord might have it from a well known tradition in those times. But the former opinion is every way the most probable.
Between the temple and the altar – That is, between the sanctuary and the altar of burnt-offerings.
CE? Anno Domini surely.
A rare lapse Allan. Content appreciated, as ever.