To view the English translation, please scroll down to the bottom.
「那時，神的靈感動祭司耶何耶大的兒子撒迦利亞，他就站在上面對民說：神如此說：你們為何干犯耶和華的誡命，以致不得亨通呢？因為你們離棄耶和華，所以他也離棄你們。眾民同心謀害撒迦利亞，就照王的吩咐，在耶和華殿的院內用石頭打死他。這樣，約阿施王不想念撒迦利亞的父親耶何耶大向自己所施的恩，殺了他的兒子。撒迦利亞臨死的時候說：願耶和華鑒察伸冤！」（歷代志下24：20- 22）
「叫世上所流義人的血都歸到你們身上，從義人亞伯的血起，直到你們在殿和壇中間所殺的巴拉加的兒子撒迦利亞的血為止 。」（馬太福音23 ：35）
「就是從亞伯的血起，直到被殺在壇和殿中間撒迦利亞的血為止。我實在告訴你們，這都要問在這世代的人身上。」（路加福音 11：51）
請比較以上三處關於撒迦利亞被謀殺的經文：
1. 歷代志下所寫的撒迦利亞是一位祭司，他是耶何耶大的兒子。
2. 馬太福音所寫的撒迦利亞是一位先知，他是巴拉加（註：或譯“比利家”）的兒子。
3. 路加福音沒寫撒迦利亞的職位，也沒寫他是誰的兒子。
所以，到底是哪個撒迦利亞被謀殺了呢？是耶何耶大的兒子？還是巴拉加的兒子？
既然路加福音的撒迦利亞資訊不多，我們只能先針對歷代志下和馬太福音的記載對兩位撒迦利亞做比較：
1.歷代志下所記載的撒迦利亞是大祭司耶何耶大的兒子。他是公元前800年猶大王約阿施時代的人。其實約阿施王和撒迦利亞之間有一個非常特別的關係──撒迦利亞的父親耶何耶大是約阿施王的救命恩人。這個故事又精彩又悲哀：約阿施還在襁褓中時，他的父親猶大王亞哈謝就被殺害了。他的祖母亞他利雅意圖剿滅王室以獨統猶大國，所以計畫把自己所有的孫兒們一併滅絕，包括內孫約阿施。當時要不是約阿施的姑媽約示巴和姑父祭司耶何耶大把約阿施偷出來，在聖殿中秘密的含辛茹苦將他扶養長大，他根本沒有機會存活，更別提會有朝一日成為猶大國之君的可能。在約阿施王當政期間，他的救命恩人耶何耶大死了，他兒子撒迦利亞就繼承了父親祭司的職位。沒想到因爲約阿施王和猶大人民叛逆上帝，撒迦利亞就以祭司的身份對他們譴責（歷代志下 24：20）。撒迦利亞厲聲的斥責激起了約阿施王和人民對他極度的怨恨及不滿，以致於國王下令百姓用石頭把救命恩人的兒子撒迦利亞活活的打死，而且慘死在“耶和華殿的院子裡”（24：21）。約阿施忘恩負義殘忍的舉止在歷代志下 22至24章有詳細的記載。
2. 馬太福音所記載的撒迦利亞則是完全不同的人物。撒迦利亞書1：1說他是「易多的孫子、比利家的兒子」。他是約公元前520年，猶太人被擄期間於巴比倫出生的，也是猶太教徒跟基督教徒所熟悉，十二本小先知書中的第十一位先知。他跟另一位先知哈該屬同時期，都是波斯王國大流一世時代的人。猶太人被擄到巴比倫之後，這位撒迦利亞不斷的勉勵猶太人，還幫助猶太王所羅巴伯率領被擄的選民從巴比倫回歸耶路撒冷，重建神殿（見撒迦利亞書4：9； 8：8-9；以斯拉記 5：1-2；6：14）。
耶穌在馬太福音中提到“在殿和壇中間所殺”的這位撒迦利亞，很明顯是在指歷代志下的那一位祭司，不是撒迦利亞書裡面的那一位先知。雖然基督教聖經是以瑪拉基書做結尾，但若依照猶太人希伯來聖經書卷（註：請參閱部落格“舊約聖經=希伯來聖經=塔納赫？”）順序的排列，歷代志書是擺在他們聖經的最後一卷（註：請參閱部落格“基督教舊約聖經與猶太教聖經比較一覽表”）。如果以希伯來聖經這種排列方式來做結論，祭司撒迦利亞應該是整本舊約裡面的最後一位殉道者；換句話說，在這位撒迦利亞祭司被謀殺之後，就再也沒有其它記載關於任何祭司或先知被謀殺的事件了。以此推論，當耶穌提到撒迦利亞祭司在聖殿被殺的這個事件，最合理的推測應該是在指歷代志下的這位撒迦利亞祭司。
但令人納悶的是，在馬太福音裡，這位被謀殺的撒迦利亞竟然被套上“巴拉加兒子”的身份。如果耶穌指的是在聖殿被謀殺的那一位撒迦利亞，他應該指名“耶何耶大的兒子”，而不是“巴拉加的兒子”才正確。所以我們要釐清，是耶穌把撒迦利亞父親的名字講錯了呢？是馬太福音的作者把耶穌講的話記錄錯誤呢？是抄寫經文的文士擅自更改加添錯誤的名字呢？還是有另外一個同名同姓的撒迦利亞，剛好也在聖殿被謀殺呢？
因為這兩處聖經的相互矛盾抵觸，引起了不少基督教聖經學者的辯論。事實上，與其說“辯論”，還不如說是盡全力在為馬太福音作者說辭、辯護，希望能讓這段令人不解的經文合理化。
有一些學者說，耶穌常常用大原則做教導，這包括他對那些死守律法、硬著頸項、殺害義人的猶太人之指責，而馬太福音對撒迦利亞的記載就是其中的一個例子。馬太福音與路加福音這兩處所提的亞伯皆以創世記為背景。創世紀第四章說亞伯是該隱的弟弟，但因為耶和華看重弟弟和他所獻的祭物勝過哥哥，哥哥在憤怒與嫉妒之餘就把弟弟殺了。專家認為耶穌在此是用一種整體性的說法，將亞伯當作希伯來聖經的開始，再將先知撒迦利亞做為結束；也就是說這種寫作手法的用意是要闡述“剛硬的人，從古至今不斷的用無理的方式殺害上帝公義的代言人”，亞伯象徵“古”，撒迦利亞象徵“今”。馬太福音的作者著重的是經節背後的意義，不在於具體的人名，「亞伯」和「撒迦利亞」只是歷史時間點的象徵性人物，因此兩處經文的記錄並沒有衝突。
另一些學者則認為，雖然舊約沒一處說明巴拉加的兒子撒迦利亞先知是如何死的，但是在耶穌時代有個猶太傳說：巴拉加的兒子先知撒迦利亞其實碰巧也是在聖殿裡被殺的。 專家說，其實那個年代“撒迦利亞“是一個非常普遍的名字，因此雖然兩個人相隔300年，又剛好在同個地點被殺，這種巧合其實並不令人驚訝。譬如說要是一位陳牧師跟另一位也姓陳的牧師相隔50年，都先後得到胃癌，也恰巧在同樣一家醫院去世，我們聽了會感到驚訝嗎？因此歷代志下馬太福音 23 章中所記載的沒有任何矛盾。
有些人的解釋更乾脆。他們說，以基督教教義角度而言，這個問題實在無傷大雅。既然路加福音對撒迦利亞的父親是誰都沒提，我們就更不需在這點上鑽牛角尖。
不管專家怎麼說，眾說云云，這兩處的矛盾確實完全不會影響到基督教的中心教義。它只能當作一面鏡子，讓基督徒去正視，如果基督徒今天要選擇接受它的矛盾，就必須接受聖經不是無誤的；反之，如果要選擇辯論這兩處是沒有矛盾的，就要像這些聖經學者一樣，認真繼續去尋找不同的理由來化解這兩段之抵觸。這個決定在於基督徒個人內心的對話，也在於個人願意花多少時間去尋找答案。問題解答的方式其實可以很多，重要的是我們是否願意有彈性，以開放的態度去考量跟自己意見不符合的觀點，甚至去接受我們原本拒絕聆聽的答案，而不一味地否定、拒絕，認為死守傳統留下來千篇一律的教導才是忠心的基督徒。
Zechariah's Murder Case
"At that time, the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, 'This is what God says: Why do you disobey the Lord's commands? You will not prosper because you have forsaken the Lord; he has forsaken you.' But they plotted against him, and by order of the king, they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord's temple. King Joash did not remember the kindness Zechariah's father Jehoiada had shown him but killed his son, who said as he lay dying, 'May the Lord see this and call you to account.'" (2 Chronicles 24:20-22)
"So that on 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)
“…from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all." (Luke 11:51)
Please compare the three passages about the murder of Zechariah mentioned above:
1. The Zechariah written in 2 Chronicles is a priest, and he is the son of Jehoiada.
2. The Zechariah written in the Gospel of Matthew is a prophet, and he is the son of Berekiah.
3. The Gospel of Luke does not mention Zechariah's occupation or specify whose son he is.
So, which Zechariah was actually murdered? Was it the son of Jehoiada or the son of Berekiah?
Since the Gospel of Luke provides limited information about Zechariah, let's first compare the accounts of the two Zechariahs mentioned in 2 Chronicles and the Gospel of Matthew:
1.The Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles was the son of the high priest Jehoiada. He lived during the time of King Joash of Judah around 800 BCE. There is a remarkable and tragic story behind the relationship between King Joash and Zechariah. Zechariah's father, Jehoiada, had saved Joash's life when he was just an infant. The story is both captivating and sorrowful. When Joash was a baby, his father, King Ahaziah of Judah, was killed. His grandmother, Athaliah, sought to eliminate the royal family to take control of Judah. She planned to have all her grandchildren, including Joash, killed. If it hadn't been for Joash's aunt Jehosheba and her husband, the priest Jehoiada, who secretly rescued Joash and raised him in the temple, he wouldn't have had a chance to survive, let alone become the king of Judah one day. During the reign of King Joash, his savior Jehoiada died, Jehoiada's son Zechariah succeeded his father in the position of priest. However, due to Joash's rebellion against God and the people of Judah, Zechariah, in his role as a priest, rebuked them (2 Chronicles 24:20). Zechariah's strong condemnation stirred up extreme resentment and anger in King Joash and the people. This ultimately led to a terrible event where the king ordered the people to stone Zechariah, the son of his savior, to death. Zechariah tragically died in the courtyard of the Lord's temple (2 Chronicles 24:21). Joash's ungrateful and cruel actions are detailed in 2 Chronicles chapters 22 to 24.
2. The Zechariah mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew is an entirely different individual. Zechariah 1:1 describes him as the "son of Berechiah, son of Iddo." He was born in Babylon during the Jewish exile around 520 BC. He is familiar to both Jewish and Christian traditions as the eleventh prophet among the twelve Minor Prophets. He lived during the same period as another prophet, Haggai, during the reign of the Persian king Darius the Great. After the Jewish people were exiled to Babylon, this Zechariah continuously encouraged them and played a role in helping the Jewish leader Zerubbabel lead the exiles back from Babylon to Jerusalem for the purpose of rebuilding the temple of God. This can be found in passages like Zechariah 4:9, 8:8-9, Ezra 5:1-2, and Ezra 6:14.
In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus mentions the killing "between the temple and the altar," it seems to be referring to the priest Zechariah mentioned in the Book of Chronicles, not the Zechariah from the Book of Zechariah. Although the Christian Bible concludes with the Book of Malachi, if we follow the order of the Hebrew Bible's books (Please refer to my blog post "What is the Difference between the Old Testament, the Tanakh, and the Hebrew Bible?"), the Book of Chronicles is placed last in their Scriptures (Please refer to my blog post "Comparison of the Books & Orders between Christian Old Testament and Tenakh"). Using this arrangement, the priest Zechariah would be the last martyr mentioned in the entire Old Testament. In other words, after the killing of this priest Zechariah, there are no further recorded events of any priests or prophets being murdered. Based on this reasoning, when Jesus refers to the killing of Zechariah the priest in the temple, it's most likely a reference to the Zechariah in the Book of Chronicles.
But what is puzzling is that in the Gospel of Matthew, this murdered Zechariah is associated with being the "son of Berechiah." If Jesus was referring to the Zechariah who was murdered in the temple, he should have mentioned "son of Jehoiada" instead of "son of Berechiah" to be accurate. So, we need to clarify, did Jesus make a mistake in mentioning Zechariah's father's name? Did the author of the Gospel of Matthew record Jesus' words incorrectly? Did scribes copying the scripture wrongly change or add the name? Or could there be another Zechariah with the same name who was also killed in the temple?
Because of the contradiction and conflict between these two passages in the Bible, it has sparked much debate among Christian biblical scholars. In fact, rather than calling it a "debate," it's more like making every effort to explain and defend the statements made by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, hoping to rationalize this perplexing passage.
Some scholars argue that Jesus often taught using broad principles, including his condemnation of the Jewish people who rigidly adhered to the law and persecuted the righteous. The account of Zechariah in the Gospel of Matthew is seen as an example of this. Both Matthew and Luke's Gospels refer to Abel, with a background in Genesis. Genesis 4 tells the story of Abel as the younger brother of Cain, and due to God's favor towards Abel's offering, Cain, in jealousy and anger, killed his brother. Experts suggest that Jesus here is using a holistic approach, presenting Abel as the beginning of the Hebrew Bible and Zechariah as the end. In other words, this literary technique is meant to illustrate the idea that stubborn individuals have continually, from ancient times to the present, used unjust means to persecute God's righteous spokespeople. Abel symbolizes the ancient, and Zechariah symbolizes the contemporary. The emphasis of the author of the Gospel of Matthew is on the underlying meaning of the verses, not on specific names. Abel and Zechariah are symbolic figures representing historical time points, so there is no contradiction in the accounts of these two passages.
On the other hand, some scholars believe that even though the Old Testament doesn't specify how the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, died, there was a Jewish legend during the time of Jesus. This legend suggested that the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, coincidentally met his death in the temple as well. Experts argue that during that era, "Zechariah" was a very common name, so the fact that two individuals with the same name, separated by 300 years, happened to be killed in the same location is not necessarily surprising. For instance, if one Reverend Chen and another Reverend Chen, unrelated and separated by 50 years, both happened to develop gastric cancer and coincidentally passed away in the same hospital, would we find that astonishing? Therefore, there is no contradiction between the accounts in 2 Chronicles and Matthew 23 regarding Zechariah.
Some people's explanations are more straightforward. They say that from the perspective of Christian doctrine, this issue isn't a significant concern. Since the Gospel of Luke doesn't mention who Zechariah's father was, there's no need to dwell on this point.
Regardless of how experts interpret it, with various opinions and explanations, these contradictions in the two passages don't affect the central teachings of Christianity. They can serve as a mirror for Christians to introspect. If Christians today choose to accept these contradictions, they must accept that the Bible is not without error. Conversely, if they choose to argue that there are no contradictions in these two passages, they need to diligently search for different reasons to reconcile the discrepancies, similar to what these biblical scholars are doing. This decision lies in the personal dialogue within the hearts of Christians and how much time they are willing to invest in seeking answers. There are various ways to address these questions, but what matters most is whether we are open to different perspectives that may not align with our own views and whether we are willing to accept answers we initially rejected, rather than simply denying and refusing, believing that rigidly adhering to tradition is the only faithful path for a Christian.
Comments