The follow cite is used by many skeptics, but for now my skeptical model for it is Secular Web denizen Larry Taylor, who, in an effort to take Josh McDowell to the cleaners, writes:

Taylor says that "According to scholars, there does not appear to be a plausible solution other than it was a mistake of some kind -- but of what kind, exactly?" and insists without any justification that his own idea that Matthew made a mistake is the most likely view. Actually there are no less than six possible solutions to this problem, so let's see Taylor explain why none of the following are plausible:

1. The Zechariah referenced is the father of John the Baptist. This suggestion was made by Origen. It would make some sense; Zecharaiah was a priest, and having a son like John the Baptist surely didn't win him any popularity contests. It would also be in line with a theory by Betz [HS.UDS, 209] that John was raised by the Essenes, who according to Josephus did take in young children for education; and if John's father had been killed, and his mother was aged, then it might have been a natural thing to happen. However, if this is who Jesus is referring to, we have no other direct evidence that Zechariah, John's father, was killed in this manner.
2. It is Zechariah the OT prophet. This fits inasmuch Zechariah's father was named Berekiah (Zech. 1:1). There is also an indication in Jewish tradition, in the Targum Yonatan, that this particular prophet was killed in the Temple.

3. It is the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles, and Jehoiada is his grandfather; Berekiah, his unnamed father. The Bible does skip generations in genealogical lists at times; it was customary for the Hebrews to do this in their genealogies.

4. Berekiah is another name for Jehoiada. Several Biblical personalities had dual names - Simon was also called Peter, for example, and Saul switched his name to Paul.

5. Transmission error. added 6/29/06 -- This may have happened, inasmuch as Jerome noted that a Hebrew version of Matthew in his day read differently: "In the Gospel the Nazareans use, we find 'son of Johoiada' instead of 'son of Barachia.'" It could have been an error created by the transition from Matthew's Hebrew/Aramaic original to Greek.
6. The Zechariah in question is simply unknown. This solution is advanced by Albright and Mann in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew's Gospel.

   A question arises, of course, as to why we should accept any of these suppositions as solutions. The answer is that it is always best to give an ancient writer the benefit of the doubt, because we are so limited in what we do know about ancient history - moreover, it avoids the presupposition that the writer was stupid. Really, if the writer of Matthew did make an error of the type suggested, how hard would it have been for pious Jews to discredit him? That there is no evidence that they did is testimony to the veracity of Matthew's account, whichever one of these solutions applies.

   (On the other hand, I agree with Taylor when he says, "Of course, if Jesus was referring to some other, unknown Zechariah, then he could not have been bearing witness to the Old Testament canon -- which was what McDowell was trying to prove." Fine with me, since I carry no torch for McDowell, but now it is easy to see why Taylor wants to insist on his own solution...the McDowell roast is, in some cases, still precedent over accuracy in this neighborhood.)

   ---

   Go Home!