Zechariah and Elizabeth

ON SS. ZECHARIAH AND ELIZABETH, PARENTS OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST,

Commentary

Zechariah, parent of St. John the Baptist. (S.)

Elizabeth, parent of St. John the Baptist. (S.)

BY P. P.

CHAPTER ONE

The history of SS. Zechariah and Elizabeth from the Gospel.

[1] The Gospel very little Concerning SS. Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, nothing can be discussed with historical credibility beyond what is read in the Gospel according to Luke, in the first chapter, not so much set forth as sketched. Nor is it expedient in this place to pursue this sacred narrative itself more fully, since it is partly known to all, and partly entangled with questions which it would be long to solve, or even to set out, and foreign to our work. Whoever wishes to be taught these things will of his own accord go to the commentators on Sacred Scripture, and, nor free from difficulty if he is not sent away by them without a fitting answer, he will not hope to find anything more certain in our Acts. Indeed it has seemed more advisable to abstain even from those exegetical disputations which pertain in some special way to the history of St. Zechariah. For there have been those who contended that St. Luke borrowed from some Jewish writer or other the first part of his Gospel, in which the conception and nativity of John the Baptist are set forth [Joh. Hillmann, Die Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu nach Lukas, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, vol. XVII (1891), especially pp. 193–213. That the canonical history of the nativity and first infancy of Christ arose from the Protevangelium of James, Ludwig Conrady sought to demonstrate, first in smaller studies, then in a book of greater bulk which he entitled Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte Jesus' (Göttingen, 1900); which opinion will have to be judged from what will be set out below.]; others, that the first two chapters of the Gospel according to Luke did not first come to light together with the rest of the work, but were afterwards prefixed to it by another writer [For example H. Usener, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, vol. I, Bonn, 1889; P. Corssen, in Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1899, pp. 325–26.]. In the narrative itself, wherever it arose from, different men have rather boldly called different things into doubt. These controversies, and others of the kind, would certainly be judged not foreign to the subject of this commentary of ours, were it not that biblical studies today claim for themselves so many and such great disciplines that only he can pursue them who moves in them as in his own province. Accordingly no one will hold it against us that we have been unwilling to bring into this exposition disputations which would either have led us very far afield or been devoid of all usefulness.

[2] sketched concerning Zechariah Now, to one who reads the Gospel history simply, the following is reported about Zechariah [See Jos. Knabenbauer, Commentarius in quatuor S. Evangelia Domini N. Iesu Christi, Evangelium secundum Lucam (= Cursus scripturae sacrae. Commentariorum in Nov. Test. pars I, in libros historicos, Paris, 1896), p. 39 and following. Historical, philological and other aids to the understanding of the first chapter of the Gospel according to Luke you have excellently collected and arranged in Alf. Plummer, A critical and exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, fourth ed. (Edinburgh, 1905), p. 6 and following.]. He was a Jewish priest, of a condition entirely common to thousands of his contemporaries, although several Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, following an unlearned opinion, enlarged him with the dignity of high priest. It is added that he was ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά Luke 1:5., which was one of the twenty-four classes or orders, each of which twice in the year, each in its own turn, performed the ministry of the temple for a week. Of his homeland, birth and course of life absolutely everything is unknown. It is established only that he was joined in marriage to a woman of priestly race, and Elizabeth, of the daughters of Aaron Ibid., who was in some way related to the Virgin Mother of God; that he lived together with her in conspicuous piety and the most exact observance of the law; and that both of them were already advanced in age before Christ was born. They had no son, nor was one hoped for, when on a certain day, as the priests of Abijah were performing their turn, Zechariah happened to be designated to burn incense on the altar. For ancient custom had established that the priests, while they were assigned to the sacred ministry, should assemble daily before dawn and, lots having been drawn, determine beforehand which of the day's tasks each should carry out. Among these the most excellent was held to be that, at first light, incense should be burned from the censer upon the altar of incense; and therefore this honour fell by lot only to those to whom it had not yet fallen [E. Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, vol. II, third edit. (Leipzig, 1898), p. 296.].

[3] concerning the angel's prophecy, While Zechariah, then, was performing the office conferred on him, the angel Gabriel stood by him at the right side of the altar, bade him, trembling as he was, be of good heart, and told him that a son would be given him by God; whose name he also indicated and whose future praise he described in a magnificent oracle. Then, as Zechariah doubted and questioned distrustfully, as though the holiness of the place and hour did not of itself produce belief, he added at once a sign and a punishment, and announced that he would be mute

until the sayings of God should be fulfilled in their time. Zechariah therefore came out of the sanctuary with his voice shut off, and with signs he quieted the people, who were already in commotion out of wonder at his rather long delay. Then he remained in Jerusalem for some days, although, being bereft of speech, he was kept from the sacred offices Lev. 21:16–23. Cf. Schürer, loc. cit., p. 230, with note 19., until, the time of his ministry having elapsed, he returned home.

[4] concerning the conception of John, What follows is not entirely clear. From what is reported to have happened when John was born, Zechariah seems to have revealed the angel's prophecies to his wife neither in writing nor by any other sign Cf. Luke 1:60–63.. Yet as soon as God's promise began to be fulfilled, Elizabeth, just as if she suspected a mystery about which she did not wish to be questioned, hid herself at home for more than five months. The sixth month was already passing when the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, at the angel's prompting, betook herself to her kinswoman. How she was received by her, the expectation, with what words or canticles the one gave greeting to the other and returned it, all seemed to themselves to know, when not long ago the opinion was introduced, or rather renewed from the works of certain Fathers, by which it is maintained that the canticle Magnificat was placed by the evangelist in the mouth not of Mary but of Elizabeth. To confirm this opinion not a few arguments have been brought forward subtly and learnedly [See A. Harnack, who of all men has most acutely championed this opinion (Das Magnificat der Elisabeth, Sitzungsberichte der königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1900, pp. 538–56). The first, as it seems, to propose this conjecture in passing was A. Loisy (Les Évangiles synoptiques, in the periodical L'Enseignement biblique, 1893); who later, under an assumed name, approved his own opinion and defended it more fully (François Jacobé, L'Origine du Magnificat, Revue d'histoire et de littèrature religieuses, vol. II, 1897, pp. 424–432); cf. A. Loisy, Chronique biblique, ibid., vol. VI, 1901, p. 286.]. Yet I rather think they do not so much outweigh the opposing reasons as stir minds by a certain novelty [Most worthy of note is what P. Ladeuze argued learnedly and wisely for the old opinion (De l'origine du Magnificat, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, vol. IV, 1903, pp. 623–44); in whom see the history of the whole controversy. It is fair that another champion of the same opinion should be named in a place of special honour, the learned O. Bardenhewer (Ist Elisabeth die Sägerin des Magnificat? Biblische Studien, vol. VI, fasc. 1 and 2: Vom Münchener Gelehrten-Kongresse. Biblische Vorträge. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1901, pp. 189–200).]. For the rest, since these matters could neither be reported nor weighed in a few words, we have touched on this whole controversy only so that this part of our history should not seem to have no question at all attached to it.

[5] the nativity, the circumcision. That the Mother of the Lord was present at John's birth is not indeed certain, but it is most probable, unless you prefer to believe that, after she had remained three months in the house of Zechariah, she departed thence just when the most joyful event was at hand, to which the whole kindred was to be called together. At length, when the infant was circumcised, there was imposed upon him by his mother, beyond everyone's expectation, the very name that had been prescribed to his father by the angel; and he, questioned by nods, to the immense wonder of all confirmed the name given to the little infant by Elizabeth. Then at last, the time that had been somewhat obscurely appointed by the angel having run its course, the tongue of Zechariah was loosed, and he began to proclaim the praises of the Lord.

[6] Conjectures of the moderns concerning the canticle "Benedictus" Here again we fall upon a small question that has been disputed by the learned, not without contention, concerning the canticle Benedictus; which, although it is not expedient to treat it deliberately in this place, we cannot omit altogether, since from it arise conclusions which it will be helpful at least to have pointed out. Well then, learned and at the same time partly probable, prudent men Ladeuze, L'Origine du Magnificat, l. c., pp. 641–44. have denied that that song was composed by Zechariah at the circumcision of his son, moved by these reasons: In the canticle Benedictus there are several sentences which not obscurely refer to Christ as already born. Moreover, before Zechariah is brought in prophesying these things, the evangelist has already finished what pertains to the circumcision of John and, having concluded the narrative, turned to other matters. Indeed the sentence which follows the last verse of the canticle, τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανεν καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι καὶ ἦν ἐν ταῖς ἐρήμοις ἕως ἡμέρας ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραὴλ Luke 1:80., is continued with a most apt join onto the narrative which was unexpectedly broken off in the verse immediately before the canticle; so that a place seems to have been prepared here for our song, as it were in someone else's ground, with the sequence of the discourse disjoined. And in very truth, if that same writer who shortly before narrated the nativity of John had been the first to report the prophecy of Zechariah, this prophecy would most fittingly have been recorded in the very place where it is said: ἀνεῴχθη δὲ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ παραχρῆμα καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐλάλει εὐλογῶν τὸν Θεόν Luke 1:64..

[7] partly not likely. No slight indications, then, suggest that the canticle Benedictus was taken from some account which followed out the subsequent times. But that this account was other than the one from which the evangelist drew the rest of the history of the first chapter, let those assert positively who can prove it. Certainly Zechariah in Luke pours out a mind steeped in the old Scripture in a wholly Hebrew style, which differs not a little from the surrounding discourse and especially from the canticle Magnificat. Yet could a Jewish priest who had grown old under the former law have prophesied otherwise? Or what other song ought to have been placed in his mouth by a considerate and careful narrator Harnack, Das Magnificat der Elisabeth, l. c., Excursus II, pp. 552–56.? This being so, I fear that no sufficiently certain indications show what some have persuaded themselves, that among those διηγήσεις which Luke had in hand Cf. Luke 1:1. there were also commentaries or writings that especially concerned the family of the holy Forerunner [See Ladeuze, l. c., pp. 642–43; who himself thinks that the canticle Εὐλογητός was a psalm customarily sung in the churches of the Jewish Christians.].

[8] Concerning the fictitious history of Zechariah And these very few things were to be recorded about the life and genuine history of St. Zechariah. Of his dwelling-place we shall speak briefly when we have to treat deliberately of the places where his cult flourished. When, where and by what end he departed from life is entirely unknown. For many, already in antiquity, supposed gratuitously and without any reason that the father of John the Baptist is that Zechariah son of Barachiah whom Christ in Matthew, inveighing against the Pharisees, said was slain between the temple and the altar [Matt. 23:35. On this Zechariah, see, for example, Eberh. Nestle, Ueber Zacharias in Matth. 23, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. VI (1906), pp. 198–200.]. But this manner of interpretation pertains in some way to the fictitious narratives about which there now arises a question perhaps more difficult than useful; from which, however, the plan of this work does not allow us to abstain.

[9] knowledge still unripe. By an untimely necessity we are compelled to enter upon this rather difficult matter at the very time when the most learned Alexander Berendts is about to publish a corpus of the documents pertaining to it. How much usefulness this book would have brought us, had we it now in hand, is evident even from the fact that we have learned a great many things about the fictitious history of St. Zechariah from two studies with which that same most distinguished man prepared the way for his larger work, first in the year 1895 and again in the year 1904 [A. Berendts, Studien über Zacharias-Apokryphen und Zacharias-Legenden, Leipzig, 1895. Id., Die handschriftliche Ueberlieferung der Zacharias- und Johannes-Apokryphen (Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. vol. XI, fasc. 4, Leipzig, 1904).]. Nor do we so flatter ourselves as not to know that, by the light of his erudition, which we lack, the very things that seem useful to say today will be cast into shadow even before they have been made public. It was fair, therefore, that this satisfaction, or complaint, should be heard by those who come upon this little commentary of ours.

CHAPTER TWO

On the fictitious history of St. Zechariah.

§ I. Uncertain traces of a certain obsolete tradition.

[10] A certain mention of Zechariah That Zechariah, the father of St. John the Baptist, was killed by violence is reported or hinted by by far the most of the writers who have made mention of him, yet not by all. Namely, there has been preserved in a good many copies a compiled interpretation of the Pentateuch, or "catena," composed, or rather rendered, in the Arabic tongue. To this, by way of preface, is prefixed a History of the Book of the Law, in which is woven the series of Jewish high priests or prophets who handed on, one to another in order, the archetype of the law received from Moses. Among their number our Zechariah is placed in these words [P. de Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs, vol. II: ("Liber Genesis cum eius interpretatione"), Leipzig, 1867, p. 3. Cf. Joh. Alb. Fabricus, S. Hippolyti episcopi et martyris opera, vol. II (Hamburg, 1718), p. 35.]:

which (law) Nathan handed on to Simeon the old man, son of Satih: this is he who bore Christ in his arms. And Simeon handed it on to Judah. And Judah handed it on to Zechariah the priest. And Zechariah the priest, father of John the Baptist, handed it on to Joseph the high priest from Sabta (another reading: from his tribe). And Joseph handed it on to Annas and Caiaphas …

[11] excluding his supposed slaying He who, not reporting this from certain monuments but rather inventing at his pleasure, would have Zechariah be the third high priest from Simeon, remembered neither of the histories that have been handed down about his death. For in the one, the slaying of Zechariah was narrated as having happened shortly after the coming of the Magi, and in the other, if the sequence of events is carefully attended to, even before the nativity of Christ, as will be evident to one who reads the various forms of his history. Meanwhile, in place of all, it will suffice to call to witness the Synaxarium of the church of Constantinople Ἐπεὶ δὲ μετ᾽ ὀλίγον παρηκολούθηκεν ἡ γέννησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ (p. 15). and especially St. Cyril of Alexandria [Διὰ τοῦ προφητεύειν αὐτὸν μᾶλλον δὲ ἀποδεικνύναι τὴν Θεοτόκον καὶ τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς τεχθησόμενον Θεὸν καὶ σωτῆρα and what follows (On Luke XI, in Mai, Patrum veterum nova bibliotheca, vol. II, p. 284).]. Here, however, attention must be paid to a certain narrative of Hippolytus of Thebes, who reports that Zechariah perished, overpowered by the Jews, in the year after the baptism of Christ Fr. Diekamp, Hippolytos von Theben (Münster, 1898), p. 2 (cf. p. 11).; which tradition that writer, whoever he is, may have held who for a rather long time after the birth of Christ to the high-priestly

dignity was raised, as he asserted. But was this a tradition? On the contrary, it is plainly established that the authors whom we shall see Hippolytus followed were entirely strangers to that quite singular opinion. When he put it forward, he did not report a rumour spread somewhere, but subordinated to his own reasoning an opinion long since widespread and received, perhaps because he judged that by these words of Christ, ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἄβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου Matt. 23:35., the outermost limits, as it were, of the whole of history were designated.

[12] seems fairly ancient. Hence someone might conclude that the commentaries from which that Arabic preface was compiled, if not the preface itself, were written before the popular fables about Zechariah began to spread more widely. This is not without a certain appearance of truth. For in the "catena" to which this fictitious history of the sacred book is prefixed, there are read excerpts of a certain Hippolytus, who is called the expositor of the Targum: that he is none other than Hippolytus of Rome was recognized by a judge certainly most expert, H. Achelis [H. Achelis, Hippolytstudien (Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F., vol. I, fasc. 4. Leipzig, 1897), §4, p. 113 and following: Hippolytus der Ausleger des Targums. Fragmente zum Pentateuch; where on p. 114 are indicated the manuscript codices in which this work is contained. I note besides that the "History of the Law" is preserved separately from the catena in question in the Arabic Harleian codex 5475, which is said to have been written in the 14th century, and so preceded by some two hundred years the very oldest of the codices which H. Achelis enumerates (cf. Madden, Catalogus codicum orientalium, qui in Musaeo Britannico asservantur. Pars secunda, codices arabicos complectens, I. Codices christiani. London, 1846, pp. 1–2).]. Whence it is established that the shreds stitched together in this work are in part very ancient. Nor does any reason compel us to exclude that mention of Zechariah from the number of the older fragments.

[13] Its origin. I add some trace or other of a document which is seen in the prologue to have been preserved elsewhere. For Barhebraeus, listing the high priests of the Jews, writes as follows: After Aristobulus, Zechariah, twenty-two years, yet not continuous. But in fact this Zechariah, when (Herod) had allowed him one year, he removed him and in his place substituted Hananael, whom he had sent away, so as to substitute for him the brother of his wife. In this manner, then, he appointed the high priests yearly. After Zechariah, Simon his brother, who is also called Hananael: eight years. After Simon, Caiaphas: one year. After Caiaphas, Hannan: two years. At this time … our Lord was born… [In Syriac in J. B. Abbeloos and Th. J. Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon ecclesiasticum, vol. I (Louvain, 1872), p. 29.]. This series is plainly conjectural, as is evident to all Cf. Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, l. c., pp. 217–18., and therefore it is worthy of note that in it, as in the History of the Law — however unlike that this is — a high priest Zechariah is named around the time of Christ's nativity. Perhaps the writer of the preface, having found him named somewhere, supposed that he was the father of John and transferred his pontificate to somewhat more recent years. Wherever, in the end, he drew his opinion from, it scarcely agrees with the little narratives in which Zechariah was feigned to have been slain.

§ II. The Gnostic fable of the slaying of Zechariah.

[14] That Zechariah was slain the Gnostics If the testimony we have weighed so far is worth anything, there were not lacking those who either did not know or rejected the common opinion about Zechariah's death. But these were certainly very few. Already from the first centuries stories had become widespread in which Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was said to have been carried off by a violent death.

Of these we have said that two principal varieties are noted. Before we discuss them, a certain third narrative must be removed from the Catholic tradition, which, if only external indications were to be followed, could seem the most ancient of all. It is reported by St. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, who writes thus:

Ἄλλα δὲ μυρία παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς πλασθέντα γραφεῖα τετόλμηται. Γένναν μὲν γὰρ Μαρίας βιβλίον τί φασιν εἶναι, ἐν ᾧ δεινά τε καὶ ὀλέθρια ὑποβάλλοντές τινα ἐκεῖσε λέγουσιν. Ἐκ τούτου γάρ φασι τὸν Ζαχαρίαν ἀπεκτάνθαι ἐν τῷ ναῷ, ἐπειδή, φασίν, ὀπτασίαν ἑώρακε, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου θέλων εἰπεῖν τὴν ὀπτασίαν, ἀπεφράγη τὸ στόμα. Εἶδε γάρ, φασίν, ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ θυμιάματός τινα, ὡς ἐθυμία, ἄνθρωπον ἑστῶτα ὄνου μορφὴν ἔχοντα· καὶ ἐξελθόντος, φασί, καὶ θέλοντος εἰπεῖν· &ldquogr;Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, τίνι προσκυνεῖτε;&rdquogr; ἀπέφραξεν αὐτοῦ τὸ στόμα ὁ ὁφθεὶς αὐτῷ ἔνδον ἐν τῷ ναῷ, ἵνα μὴ δύνηται λαλῆσαι. Ὅτε δὲ ἠνοίγη τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ, ἵνα λαλήσῃ, τότε ἀπεκάλυψεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀπέκτειναν αὐτόν. Καὶ οὕτως, φασίν, ἀπέθανε Ζαχαρίας. Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ ἱερεὺς προσετάγη ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ νομοθετήσαντος, φασίν, ἔχειν κώδωνας, ἵν᾽ ὅταν εἰσέρχηται ἱερατεῦσαι, τὸν κτύπον ἀκούων τῶν κωδώνων, κρύπτηται ὁ προσκυνούμενος, ἵνα μὴ φωραθῇ τὸ ἰνδαλ〈μα〉τικὸν αὐτοῦ τῆς μορφῆς πρόσωπον [Epiphanii episcopi Constantiae opera, ed. G. Dindorf, vol. II (Leipzig, 1860), pp. 52–53.].

And countless other writings fabricated among them have been ventured. For they say there is a certain book, the Genna Marias, in which, foisting in terrible and pernicious things, they speak there of certain matters. For from this, they say, Zechariah was slain in the temple, because, they say, he had seen a vision, and when out of fear he wished to tell the vision, his mouth was stopped. For he saw, they say, at the hour of incense, as he was offering incense, a man standing who had the form of an ass; and when he had gone out, they say, and wished to say, "Woe to you, whom are you worshipping?", the one who had appeared to him within in the temple stopped his mouth, so that he could not speak. But when his mouth was opened so that he might speak, then he revealed it to them, and they killed him. And thus, they say, Zechariah died. For this reason, they say, the priest was commanded by the very one who gave the law to have bells, so that when he went in to perform the priestly office, the one worshipped, hearing the sound of the bells, might hide himself, lest the phantasmal face of his form be detected.

[15] did not first invent We take it as self-evident, or certainly as very probable, that the opinion by which St. Zechariah was everywhere believed in all the churches to have undergone martyrdom did not proceed from the hiding-place of some most abject sect among the various dregs of the Gnostics. Indeed, the odious absurdity of the fiction which Epiphanius reported very strongly suggests that it is some depravation of another story which had long since become widespread among Christians. Add that the impious accusation, to confirm which this fable of Zechariah's slaying was invented, did not first appear among the Gnostics but reached them from some ancient origin. For Christians and Jews were repeatedly said to pay cult to an ass as to a deity long before the book on the lineage of Mary was written. but they twisted Who first lied about this we do not know; but that something similar is reported by Tacitus, Plutarch and others is commonplace in the schools. Indeed, shortly after the birth of Christ, Apion, the fiercest assailant of the Jews, following Posidonius and Apollonius Molon, had put forward calumnies of this kind in his book on the Jews [G. Rösch, Caput asininum. Eine historische Studie, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1882, p. 523 and following; Berendts, Studien, p. 36.]: for which Jacques Basnage thinks some handle was given by Jewish doctors whose opinions the Cabbalists reported [J. Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, book VII, ch. 26, vol. V (Rotterdam, 1707), p. 1985 and following.]. Hence too it becomes much less probable, if it was in any way probable, that it occurred to that shameful Gnostic writer to invent a slaying of Zechariah previously unheard of, when he took from elsewhere too the scurrilous accusation which he confirms by that slaying. It is certainly much more likely that he twisted to his own purpose a fact which was already commonly believed among Christians.

[16] already in ancient times That this γένναν Μαρίας is very ancient, everyone will readily grant. Alexander Berendts, moved by reasons which it would be long to weigh one by one, conjectures that it was written about the middle of the second century Studien, pp. 36–37.; which estimate of a prudent man, approved by Adolf Harnack [Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, vol. II, 1: Die Chronologie bis Irenäus (Leipzig, 1897), p. 539; cf. p. 579.], needs no vote of ours. If this is so, and at the same time what we have just set out holds, it is necessary that before that time the report had already prevailed among Christians that Zechariah was carried off by a bloody death.

[17] from Christian tradition. There was a most ready cause for them to be led to this opinion. Whoever that Zechariah son of Barachiah was, whose slaying Christ the Lord reproached the Jews with in Matthew 23:35., it could not fail to happen that many persuaded themselves that the father of the Forerunner was designated in this place. When this came about, it was to be expected that little narratives would spring up which would present the matter more explicitly and more suitably to the mind of the common people. Nor did it happen otherwise, as will presently be evident, although neither of the two stories that have been handed down has an origin certain and ascertained in every respect.

§ III. The Origenian tradition: that Zechariah was slaughtered by the Jews on account of a prophecy uttered concerning the Blessed Virgin.

[18] Origen The most ancient testimony is enjoyed by that little narrative which Origen wove into his commentary on Matthew; where, when in explaining chapter XXIII that most difficult little verse about Zechariah son of Barachiah presented itself, he proposed this solution, which has been found in Greek fragments little agreeing with the old Latin translation:

the history of Zechariah Ὠριγένους Ed. Ὡριγένους. Ζαχαρίαν εὑρίσκομεν ἐν ταῖς Βασιλείαις ἱερέα φονευθέντα ἐγγὺς τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ὑπὸ Ἰωὰς βασιλέως Ἰούδα Ed. Ἱούδα. Ἰώσηπος δὲ ἱστορεῖ τὸν υἱὸν Βαραχίου Ζαχαρίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, vol. II, p. 284, in a note.. Οὐ δύνανται γὰρ Ζαχαρίαν υἱὸν Βαραχίου ἀνηρῃκέναι οἱ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ὀνειδιζόμενοι· εἴρηται γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ματθαίῳ &ldquogr;ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου.&rdquogr; Ἀλλ᾽ εἰκός, καθά Ed. κατὰ. φησιν Ἰώσηπος, Ζαχαρίαν νῦν λέγεσθαι τὸν Ἰωάννου πατέρα· περὶ οὗ ἀπὸ μὲν γραφῶν δεῖξαι οὐκ ἔχομεν, οὔτε ὅτι υἱὸς ἦν Βαραχίου, οὔτε ὅτι οἱ γραμματεῖς ἐν τόπῳ ἱερῷ αὐτὸν ἐφόνευσαν· ἀλλ᾽ ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς τοιαύτη τις παράδοσις ὡς ἄρα ὄντος τινὸς περὶ τὸν ναὸν τόπου, on account of the oracle concerning the Virgin Mother of God ἔνθα ἐξῆν τὰς παρθένους εἰσιέναι καὶ προσκυνεῖν τῷ Θεῷ· τὰς δὲ ἤδη πεπειραμένας κοίτης ἀνδρὸς οὐκ ἐπέτρεπον ἐν ἐκείνῳ. Ἡ οὖν Μαρία μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι τὸν Σωτῆρα ἡμῶν ἐλθοῦσα προσκυνῆσαι, ἔστη ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῶν παρθένων· καὶ κωλυσάντων τῶν εἰδότων αὐτὴν γεννήσασαν, ὁ Ζαχαρίας ἔλεγε τοῖς κωλύουσιν ἄξιαν αὐτὴν εἶναι τοῦ τόπου τῶν παρθένων ἔτι παρθένον οὖσαν. Ὡς οὖν σαφῶς παρανομοῦντα καὶ εἰς τόπον τῶν παρθένων ἐπιτρέποντα γυναῖκα γενέσθαι, ἀπέκτειναν μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ θυσιαστηρίου οἱ τῆς γενεᾶς ἐκείνης [Here there is read in the Latin recension: Yet from those who do not believe a tradition of this kind let us demand an account of how Jesus reproaches them not as their sons …: which words, whether they are Origen's own or the translator's, are not without their weight.]. slain by the Jews Ὀνειδίζονται γοῦν ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος οὐχ ὡς υἱοὶ τῶν τοὺς προφήτας ἀποκτεινάντων καὶ τὸν Ζαχαρίαν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς αὐτοὶ φονεύσαντες. Οὐ θαυμαστὸν δὲ εἰ ἔτυχεν ὥσπερ ὁμώνυμον εἶναι τὸν πατέρα Ἰωάννου Ζαχαρίαν τοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώδεκα, καὶ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ πατρός [Delarue, Origenis opera omnia, vol. III, p. 845. Mai testifies that his copy agrees with this fragment.].

Of Origen. We find in the books of Kingdoms a priest Zechariah slain near the temple and the altar by Joash, king of Judah. But Josephus relates that Zechariah the son of Barachiah was himself the father of the Baptist. For those who are now reproached by the Saviour cannot have killed Zechariah son of Barachiah; for it is said in Matthew, "whom you slew between the temple and the altar." But it is likely, as Josephus says, that the Zechariah now spoken of is the father of John; concerning whom we cannot show from the Scriptures either that he was the son of Barachiah or that the scribes slew him in a holy place; but there has come down to us some such tradition as this: that there was a certain place about the temple where virgins were permitted to enter and worship God, but those who had already had experience of a man's bed they did not allow in it. Mary, then, having come to worship after she had given birth to our Saviour, stood in the place of the virgins; and when those who knew she had given birth tried to prevent her, Zechariah said to those preventing her that she was worthy of the place of the virgins, since she was still a virgin. As one, then, plainly transgressing the law and permitting a woman to be in the place of the virgins, the men of that generation killed him between the temple and the altar. They are reproached, then, by the Saviour not as sons of those who killed the prophets, and Zechariah with the prophets, but as having themselves done the killing. And it is no wonder if it happened that the father of John was, as it were, a namesake of the Zechariah who is among the twelve, and of that one's father's father.

[19] at first he seems not to have known it. Now, in order to perceive whence this παράδοσις, came, it is helpful to turn attention to what follows. The same Origen in his preceding works had more than once indicated that the Zechariah who was slain between the temple and the altar was the last of the minor prophets. This is evident if only from the fact that in his exposition of the thirty-seventh psalm he placed him midway between Isaiah and Jeremiah Delarue, vol. II, p. 680.. Indeed, writing to Africanus, he even accuses the Jews of having expunged the mention of this slaying from the canonical books, that is, of the Old Testament Delarue, vol. I, p. 21.. In the commentary on Matthew itself, in the tenth book, when he had named Jeremiah and Isaiah, he referred these words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας ἀπέθανον Heb. 11:37., ἐπὶ τὸν Ζαχαρίαν φονευθέντα μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὡς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐδίδαξε μαρτυρῶν, he says, γραφῇ μὴ φερομένῃ μὲν ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημευμένοις βιβλίοις, εἰκὸς δ᾽ ὅτι ἐν ἀποκρύφοις φερομένῃ On Matthew, vol. X, no. 18; Delarue, vol. III, p. 465.. These words, taken by themselves, may seem ambiguous. But let there be compared what he added in the exposition of the twenty-third chapter not long after he had interpreted the Saviour's oracle concerning Zechariah the father of John: It is reported, then, in scriptures that are not manifest, that Isaiah was sawn asunder and Zechariah slain and Ezekiel Delarue, vol. III, p. 848.; where, if the father of the Forerunner were understood, the testimony of Christ would not have been omitted. Again, a few verses later, he continues thus: Nor were more sawn asunder than Isaiah alone, nor were more stoned than only Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, nor by slaughter of the sword than Zechariah the son of Barachiah… Delarue, vol. III, p. 849.. Who, in so great a similarity of sentences, would not recognize that same man of whom there had been talk in the tenth book, in the place just mentioned? To embrace everything briefly: Origen, before he deliberately expounded the little verse Matthew 23:35, had constantly understood it of the prophet Zechariah [Th. Zahn teaches the same, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. II (Erlangen, 1890), p. 776, note 2.]. This interpretation had settled so deeply in his mind that, after he had come to think that the testimony of Christ was to be referred to the other Zechariah, he nonetheless spoke of the slaying of the son of Barachiah, as if he had not often denied that it was proved by any other testimony. The opinion in which he finally rested seems therefore to have been in some way sudden. Wherefore Berendts not undeservedly conjectures that that παράδοσιν had not long been known to Origen, and that on discovering it he was perhaps led to the other opinion Studien, pp. 26–27.. Certainly it is worthy of note that only at the very end of his life, when he was living at Caesarea in Palestine, was the fiction mentioned by him from which he judged some light was brought to a difficulty which had so often troubled his mind. I fear, however, that Berendts does not conclude prudently enough from this that that story was foreign to the church of Alexandria Berendts, l. c., p. 27..

[20] The authors of this opinion Here, then, is the first testimony to our story. The words of Jerome come back to the same thing: Others will have it that Zechariah the father of John is meant, proving from certain dreams of the apocrypha that he was slain because he proclaimed the coming of the Saviour [Commentariorum in evangelium Matthaei, book IV, chap. 23, P. L., vol. XXVII, p. 173.]. For he who declared that the Mother of God had remained a virgin had already in some manner foretold the mystery of the Incarnation. Nor is there so much difference between these two that a distinction of this kind would seem to St. Jerome, writing with his characteristic impetuosity, to need noting accurately Cf. Diekamp, Hippolytos von Theben, p. 77.. The connection of the two opinions appears not obscurely in the commentary of Cyril of Alexandria on Luke, chap. XI, where the holy doctor reported the same story as Origen, and probably from Origen. Since we called this passage to witness in the preceding discussion Above, num. 11, p. 8., it will be helpful to write it out here in full:

Ζαχαρίαν δὲ ὧδε ἀκόλουθόν ἐστι ἐνοεῖν τὸν τοῦ προδρόμου πατέρα, ὃν ἐξ ἀγράφου παραδόσεως ἱστόρηται τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἀνελεῖν μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, διὰ τὸ προφητεύειν αὐτόν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀποδεικνύναι τὴν θεοτόκον καὶ τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς τεχθησόμενον Θεὸν καὶ σωτῆρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, οἷα δή τινα βασιλέα καὶ κύριον ἐπὶ τὸ ἔθνος ἀποσταλήσεσθαι αὐτῶν· καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον κατὰ τὴν ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου σύλληψιν, τοῦ τόπου τῶν παρθένων, τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ὄντος μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, μὴ ἀποστῆσαι καθὰ δὴ γεγαμημένην, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι παρθένον γινώσκειν αὐτὴν καὶ συγχωρεῖν κατὰ τὸν συνήθη τόπον ἱστάναι. Διὰ γοῦν ταῦτα τοὺς ἀκούοντας εἰς ὀργὴν ἐμπεσεῖν, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ὁπλίσαι τὰς χεῖρας, δεδιότας τὸν ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ προφητείας προσδοκώμενον βασιλέα, φόβῳ τοῦ μὴ γενέσθαι βασιλεῖ ὑποχειρίους μέλλοντι καταδυναστεύειν αὐτῶν· τὸν οὖν ταῦτα μαρτυροῦντα περὶ τοῦ τόκου διαχειρίζονται πρὸς αὐτῷ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τὸν ἱερέα ἱερουργήσαντα [Mai, Nova Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. II, pp. 283–85. This passage, however, is absent from the Syriac epitome which R. Payne Smith published: S. Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi commentarii in Lucae evangelium quae supersunt, syriace (Oxford, 1858), the eighty-fifth exposition, pp. 213–14. See also the spurious homily on the holy generation of Christ which is ascribed to St. Basil, P.G., vol. XXXI, pp. 1468–69; where a quite similar opinion is expressed.].

And it follows that Zechariah here is to be understood as the father of the Forerunner, whom, from unwritten tradition, it is related the Jews killed between the temple and the altar, because he prophesied, or rather pointed out, the Mother of God and the God and Saviour Jesus Christ who was to be born of her, as a king and lord who was to be sent over their nation; and because he did not remove the holy virgin herself, after her conception by the Holy Spirit, from the place of the virgins which was in the sanctuary between the temple and the altar, as being a married woman, but recognized her as still a virgin and allowed her to stand in the accustomed place. For these reasons, then, those who heard fell into anger and armed their hands against him, dreading the king expected from his prophecy, for fear of becoming subjects of a king who was going to lord it over them; so they make away with the one who bore this witness about the birth, the priest, as he was performing the sacred rite at the altar itself.

[21] few, and of no great name; The other testimonies which, as time passed, accrued to this tradition are for the most part of doubtful authority and little worthy of note. For they illustrate neither the origin of that fable nor its growth, since it soon withered away in the books. Yet it did not vanish wholly from men's memory. The Synaxarium of the Greek church took it up, in which it has been artfully fused with the more widespread little narrative Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, p. 15.. The same was mentioned, to omit others, in the 11th century by Theophylact Enarratio in evangelium Lucae, c. XI, P.G., vol. CXXIII, p. 872. and in the 12th by Euthymius Zigabenus On Matthew, c. LVI, P.G., vol. CXXIX, p. 600.. You would believe you recognized it, corrupted by new absurdities, even in Hippolytus of Thebes, who reports this in passing about Zechariah Diekamp, Hippolytos von Theben, p. 2, cf. p. 11.:

Ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος αὐτοῦ That is, of Christ; cf. above, num. 11, p. 8. μεχρὶ τῆς Ζαχαρίου λιθοβολίας ἔτος α᾽. Ἐν τῷ γὰρ ἱερατεύειν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸ έθος λιθοβολήσαντες αὐτὸν καὶ κροταφήσαντες ἐπέκτειναν, καὶ σύραντες ἐκρήμνησαν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κοιλάδα τοῦ Ἰωσαφάτ.

And from his baptism until the stoning of Zechariah, one year. For while he was serving as priest according to custom, they stoned him and struck him on the temples and killed him, and dragging him off they threw him down into the valley of Jehoshaphat.

For his saying that Zechariah was overwhelmed with stones seems to correspond rather to this former narrative, in which the slayers are brought in from among the people, than to that other, where we read that armed guards were sent into the temple by king Herod. Yet to one who inspects the matter more carefully it appears that Hippolytus here used some adulterated little book, in which the story of Zechariah son of Jehoiada, who is narrated in the second book of Chronicles to have been overwhelmed with stones by the Jews II Chron. 24:20–22., was transferred to our Zechariah. This change, although it could have been made by one of those who assented to the Origenian παραδόσει, nevertheless seems in fact to have been connected with the other story, of which we must presently treat.

[22] its origin About the origin of this little fable I would rather be silent than speak uncertainties. One thing, however, may be noted without excessive rashness. That Zechariah bore witness to the integrity of the Virgin Mother of God was invented quite congruently with another fiction, whose various offshoots creep far and wide. In the Protevangelium of James, namely, a story of this kind is woven: that the name of Mary was denounced to the high priest, as though Joseph her betrothed, to whom she had been divinely entrusted, had corrupted her; that Joseph and Mary, summoned and questioned by him, were made by solemn rite to drink the water of proving See Num. 5:18–31.; that both came out of the danger unharmed; and that at length they were acquitted by the priest with these words: εἰ κύριος ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἐφανέρωσε τὰ ἁμαρτήματα ὑμῶν, οὐδὲ ἐγὼ κρίνω ὑμᾶς [Protevangelium of James, chap. 16 (Evangelia apocrypha, collected and edited by C. de Tischendorf, second ed., Leipzig, 1876, pp. 30–31).].

[23] probable. To be sure, in the copies, both Greek and Syriac [See the History of the Lady Mary (Protevangelium of James) in Syriac in Agnes Smith Lewis, Apocrypha syriaca (Studia sinaitica No. XI, London, 1902), pp. 13–14.], it is not clear under which high priest these things were done. Not long before, it had been noted: τῷ δὲ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐσίγησεν Ζαχαρίας, καὶ ἐγένετο ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ Σαμουήλ, μέχρις ὅτου ἐλάλησεν Ζαχαρίας Chap. X, Tischendorf, op. cit., p. 21.; nor are the times observed carefully enough by the narrator for it to be possible to conclude whether Zechariah began to perform his office again before or after that trial of Mary. Moreover, his name is nowhere uttered in this whole passage. But what the writer had said ambiguously, others could interpret freely, as in fact happened in the Ethiopic protevangelium, where not just any priest but Zechariah himself is brought in. See the excerpt which Marius Chaine, S.J., recently published [Le cycle de la Vierge dans les apocryphes éthiopiens (Mélanges de la Faculté orientale de l'Université Saint-Joseph à Beyrouth, Beirut, 1905, pp. 191–92).]. Accordingly you might not absurdly conjecture that from this most ancient little narrative arose the opinion by which Zechariah was believed by God's judgement to have foreknown the mystery of the incarnation and to have declared it to his fellow citizens. And after what is said by Christ about the son of Barachiah slain by the Jews between the temple and the altar began to be understood of this same Zechariah, it might easily have occurred to someone to connect the two facts of his own accord. Whoever first narrated the fictitious matter certainly invented it in this or a similar way. Nor is it an obstacle that in the same protevangelium the slaying of Zechariah is reported in an altogether different manner: for this part of the little book was added at a later age, as will presently be indicated.

But enough of these things. Let us leave in the middle a question perhaps of greater difficulty than usefulness.

§ IV. The more common report: that Zechariah was killed by Herod on account of his son John.

[24] Of one slain by the king A greater destiny awaited the other story, whose sum is this: When by Herod's command the infants of Bethlehem were being hurried off to slaughter, Elizabeth, carrying off her son, hid him in a remote place. The king, having searched for John in vain, orders his father to hand him over to him. Zechariah denies that the place is known to him where his wife has taken refuge with the little one.

Demanded again and again, he gives the same answer, until the tyrant, blazing with anger, sends guards into the temple, who kill Zechariah by night and carry off his body. A miracle betrays the hidden slaying, and the blood shed near the altar clings to the pavement as though congealed, in testimony of the crime. that the high priest's blood grew into one with the stone This story, although its origin is very obscure, is nevertheless easier to investigate in one respect, namely that it first had its seat in a certain definite place. Lest with great and empty effort we heap together things partly doubtful and partly very well known, we here draw together in a few words what touches our question more closely.

[25] the Jews invented, The Jews once supposed that the blood of the high priest Zechariah, who was overwhelmed with stones on account of the hatred of king Joash, was not effaced from the floor of the sanctuary until after two hundred and fifty-two years, and that meanwhile it bubbled up continually, as though crying out for vengeance. Rather absurd testimonies to this opinion from the books of the rabbis have been adduced by Lightfoot [John Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae in quatuor evangelistas, second ed. (Leipzig, 1684), pp. 435–36 (on Matt. 23:35), cf. pp. 815–16 (on Luke 11:51).], Berendts [Studien, p. 57, note 2; p. 58, notes 1 and 2. See also E. Nestle, Ueber Zacharias in Matth. 23, l. c., p. 199, and, for example, the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, fol. 93 b, ed. Laz. Goldschmidt (Der Babylonische Talmud, vol. VIII, Berlin, 1902, pp. 417–18). The Muslim writer al-Biruni thought the same fable was told of John the Baptist; see below at num. 114.], and others. Hence the same fable, preserved, as it seems, by the Christians of Palestine, passed on to the faithful of other nations. There was known at Jerusalem a certain rock on which some, after many centuries had already passed, thought they saw traces of the blood of this Zechariah. Tertullian reported it An older form of that opinion is reported by Tertullian, who writes thus: David is harassed, Elijah is put to flight, Jeremiah is stoned, Isaiah is sawn, Zechariah is slaughtered between the altar and the sanctuary, imprinting on the flint-stones the lasting stains of his blood. He himself, the close of the law and the prophets, called not a prophet but an angel, is shamefully beheaded as the fee of a dancing girl [Scorpiace, ed. Aug. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani opera, part I (Vienna, 1890), pp. 160–61.]. For if Tertullian had had our Zechariah in mind, he could most easily have indicated it with a little word, nor would a man, however headlong and hurried in his writing, have omitted this mention so very apt to his purpose, by the addition of which the quite similar fate of father and son would have seemed much more atrocious.

[26] and Jerome; The Jewish origin of that fable shines through also in St. Jerome, where he mocks those simpler brethren who, pointing out red stones among the ruins of the temple and the altar, or at the outlets of the gates that lead to Siloam, think they have been stained with the blood of Zechariah On Matthew, l. c., p. 174.. By the name of Zechariah there must surely be understood here the same man whom Jerome just before decided was the son of Jehoiada. Was this, however, the common opinion of the people? For the fact that Jerome indulges the error of the credulous common folk, because, he says, it comes down from hatred of the Jews…, is an ambiguous indication. At any rate, all the narratives in which the portent of the clinging blood has been transferred to Zechariah the father of John ascribe his slaying not to the Jews but to Herod alone. others But a little above, Jerome himself mentioned and hissed off the wavering conjectures of those who, to extricate themselves from Christ's oracle on the slaying of Zechariah son of Barachiah, imagined that either Zechariah, the eleventh of the minor prophets, or the father of John had been killed See above, num. 20.. This diversity of opinions suggests of itself that those simpler brethren knew neither with certain nor with constant judgement whose bloody traces they were superstitiously venerating. Although Jerome seems, by a certain inconsiderate anticipation, to have enlisted them all indiscriminately for his own conclusion, as happened to him elsewhere too, when his discourse pours out in too swift a stream.

[27] to our Zechariah On the other hand, I think that Zechariah the father of John is already designated in the Bordeaux Itinerary: … In the very sanctuary where the temple stood which Solomon built, on the marble before the altar you would say that the blood of Zechariah was shed there today; there also appear the traces of the nails of the soldiers who killed him, throughout the whole area, so that you would think it was fixed in wax Ed. P. Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana (Vienna, 1898), pp. 21–22.. Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was not killed by soldiers but overwhelmed by a rioting mob; what, therefore, the Bordeaux pilgrim heard in this place from the custodians or others seems to have referred to our Zechariah.

[28] adapted the fable. However one may dispute about these and other testimonies, no wise man will think that the little Christian narrative arose without the memory of that Jewish tradition, in which a portent was feigned quite similar to the one that had long been narrated in the same city about another man of the same name. The thing is self-evident. While the veneration of the same place was preserved, certain of the faithful transferred the same story from the ancient Zechariah to his namesake. Hence by a sort of downhill path it was bound to happen that new fictions would be devised in keeping with the obscured, or rather changed, story of the place. For the Christians had not learned this from the abstruse and at the same time very odious books of the Jews, but had it only set out before their eyes in a rough monument. But after they had persuaded themselves that upon this hallowed stone not the ancient high priest had been killed by the ancient king but the father of the Forerunner by Herod, the question arose of itself what cause had won him the king's hatred. The answer was given by the little narrative which is now under discussion.

[29] in little books too Moreover, the ignorant persuasion of the common people was connived at, indeed favoured, by the fraud of certain writers. In the little book on the Lives of the Prophets which circulates under the name of St. Epiphanius, there is an elogium of the prophet Zechariah, who is ineptly thought to be the son of Jehoiada. In an uncorrupted codex (Vatic. 2125) the following is read:

Ζαχαρίας ἐξ Ἱερουσαλὴμ υἱὸς Ἰωδαὲ τοῦ ἱερέως, ὃν ἀπέκτεινεν Ἰωὰς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰούδα ἐχόμενα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ ἐξέχεεν τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ὁ οἶκος Δαυὶδ ἀνὰ μέσον ἐπὶ τοῦ αἰλάμ· καὶ λαβόντες αὐτὸν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ· ἔκτοτε ἐγένοντο τέρατα ἐν τῷ ναῷ φαντασίας καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυον οἱ ἱερεῖς ἰδεῖν ὀπτασίαν ἁγγέλων Θεοῦ οὔτε δοῦναι χρησμοὺς ἐκ τοῦ δαβεὶρ οὔτε ἐπωτῆσαι ἐν τῷ ἐφοὺδ οὔτε διὰ δήλων ἀποκριθῆναι τῷ λαῷ ὡς τὸ πρίν [Eb. Nestle, Die dem Epiphanius zugeschriebenen Vitae Prophetarum (Tübingen, 1893), p. 34.].

Zechariah, from Jerusalem, son of Jehoiada the priest, whom Joash the king of Judah killed close by the altar, and the house of David poured out his blood in the midst, at the porch; and the priests took him and buried him with his father. From that time there were portents in the temple, apparitions, and the priests were not able to see a vision of angels of God, nor to give oracles from the debir, nor to inquire by the ephod, nor to answer the people through the Urim as before.

[30] corrupted to this end. A certain shameless copyist did not hesitate to adulterate the same narrative into this form (cod. Paris. 2951):

Ζαχαρίας ἄλλος προφήτης καὶ ἱερεύς· οὗτος ἦν υἱὸς Ἰωδαὲ ἱερέως, πατὴρ δὲ Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ· τοῦτον ἀπέκτεινεν Ἡρῴδης ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐχόμενα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τοῦ οἴκου Κυρίου. Οὗτος δὲ ἦν ἐξ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐξ οἴκου Δαυίδ. Ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἐλὰμ ἐξ οἴκου Κυρίου, οὗτος ἐπροφήτευσε Codex ἐπροεφήτευσε περὶ Χριστοῦ γέννας. Ἐκεῖ οὖν αὐτὸν ἔθαψαν ἐν οἶκῳ Θεοῦ ἐχόμενα ναοῦ Κυρίου· ἔκτοτε ἐγίνοντο τέρατα πολλὰ ἐν τῷ ναῷ καὶ φαντασίαι, καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυον οἱ ἱερεῖς ἰδεῖν οὐκέτι ὀπτασίαν ἀγγέλων, οὐδὲ δοῦναι χρησμοὺς τῷ λαῷ ἐν δαβείρ, οὔτε ἐρωτῆσαι ἐν τῷ ἐφούδ, οὔτε διὰ τῶν δήλων ἀποκριθῆναι, ὡς Ed. ἕως τὸ πρίν, ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης Ibid., p. 35..

Zechariah, another prophet and priest: he was the son of Jehoiada the priest, and the father of John the Baptist; him Herod the king killed close by the altar and the house of the Lord. He was from Jerusalem, of the house of David. In the midst of the porch of the house of the Lord, he prophesied concerning the birth of Christ. There, then, they buried him in the house of God close by the temple of the Lord; from that time many portents and apparitions took place in the temple, and the priests were no longer able to see a vision of angels, nor to give oracles to the people in the debir, nor to inquire by the ephod, nor to answer through the Urim, as before, until that day.

This trick, however, could not precede the popular fiction; on the contrary, it seems to have had this end, to adapt the older little book to the widespread superstition. Whether the deceiver used some other document is uncertain, nor is it necessary to know at present. However the matter stands, these things sufficiently show in what stock the tradition into which we are now inquiring was first grafted.

[31] The authors of this opinion: Now let us search out the older forms of our story. Let the first place be held for a while, by right of prior possession, by the narrative of the protevangelium. Its sum is what we indicated above Above, num. 24, p. 11..

The Protevangelium of James, Γνοὺς δὲ Ἡρώδης ὅτι ἐνεπαίχθη ὑπὸ τῶν μάγων, ὀργισθεὶς ἔπεμψεν φονευτὰς λέγων αὐτοῖς· &ldquogr;Τὰ βρέφη ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω ἀποκτείνατε.&rdquogr; Καὶ ἀκούσασα Μαριὰμ ὅτι ἀναιροῦνται τὰ βρέφη, φοβηθεῖσα ἔλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸ καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐν φάτνη βοῶν. Ἡ δὲ Ἐλισάβετ, ἀκούσασα ὅτι Ἰωάννης ζητεῖται, λαβοῦσα αὐτὸν ἀνέβη εἰς τὴν ὀρεινήν, καὶ περιεβλέπετο ποῦ αὐτὸν κρύψει· καὶ οὐκ ἦν τόπος ἀποκρυφῆς. Καὶ στενάξασα ἡ Ἐλισάβετ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγει· &ldquogr;Ὄρος Θεοῦ, δέξαι μητέρα μετὰ τέκνου&rdquogr;· οὐ γὰρ ἠδύνατο ἀναβῆναι ἡ Ἐλισάβετ. Καὶ παραχρῆμα ἐδιχάσθη τὸ ὄρος καὶ ἐδέξατο αὐτήν. Καὶ ἦν διαφαῖνον αὐτοῖς φῶς· ἄγγελος γὰρ Κυρίου ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, διαφυλάσσων αὐτούς. Ὁ δὲ Ἡρώδης ἐζήτει τὸν Ἰωάννην, καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ὑπηρέτας πρὸς Ζαχαρίαν λέγων· &ldquogr;Ποῦ ἀπέκρυψας τὸν υἱόν σου;&rdquogr; Ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων αὐτοῖς· &ldquogr;Ἐγὼ λειτουργὸς ὑπάρχω τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ προσεδρεύω τῷ ναῷ Κυρίου, οὐκ οἶδα ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου.&rdquogr;

But Herod, learning that he had been mocked by the Magi, was angered and sent murderers, saying to them, "Kill the infants from two years old and under." And Mary, hearing that the infants were being slain, was afraid, and took the child and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger of oxen. But Elizabeth, hearing that John was being sought, took him and went up into the hill country, and looked about for where she might hide him; and there was no place of hiding. And Elizabeth, groaning with a loud voice, says, "Mountain of God, receive a mother with her child"; for Elizabeth was not able to go up. And immediately the mountain was divided and received her. And a light was shining through for them; for an angel of the Lord was with them, guarding them. But Herod was seeking John, and he sent officers to Zechariah, saying, "Where have you hidden your son?" And he answered, saying to them, "I am a minister of God, and I attend constantly upon the temple of the Lord; I do not know where my son is."

Καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται, καὶ ἀνήγγειλαν τῷ Ἡρώδῃ ταῦτα πάντα. Καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ Ἡρώδης εἶπεν· &ldquogr;Ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ μέλλει βασιλεύειν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.&rdquogr; Καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν πάλιν λέγων· &ldquogr;Εἰπὲ τὸ ἀληθές· ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός σου; οἶδας γὰρ ὅτι τὸ αἷμά σου ὑπὸ τὴν χεῖρά μού ἐστιν.&rdquogr; Καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν αὐτῷ ταῦτα πάντα καὶ εἶπε Ζαχαρίας· &ldquogr;Μάρτυς εἰμὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰ ἐκχέεις μου τὸ αἷμα· τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμά μου ὁ δεσπότης δέξεται, ὅτι αἷμα ἀθῶον ἐκχέεις εἰς τὰ πρόθυρα τοῦ ναοῦ Κυρίου.&rdquogr; Καὶ περὶ τὸ διάφαυμα ἐφονεύθη Ζαχαρίας. Καὶ οὐκ ᾔδεισαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ὅτι ἐφονεύθη. Ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ἱερεῖς εἰς τὴν ὥραν τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἀπήντησεν αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὸ ἔθος ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ζαχαρίου. Καὶ ἔστησαν οἱ ἱερεῖς προσδοκῶντες τὸν Ζαχαρίαν τοῦ ἀσπάσασθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ εὐχῇ καὶ δοξάσαι τὸν ὕψιστον.

And the officers went away and reported all these things to Herod. And Herod was angered and said, "His son is going to reign over Israel." And he sent to him again, saying, "Tell the truth: where is your son? For you know that your blood is under my hand." And the officers went away and reported all these things to him, and Zechariah said, "I am a martyr of God, if you shed my blood; for the Master will receive my spirit, because you are shedding innocent blood at the forecourts of the temple of the Lord." And about daybreak Zechariah was slain. And the sons of Israel did not know that he had been slain. But the priests went in at the hour of the salutation, and the blessing of Zechariah did not meet them according to custom. And the priests stood waiting for Zechariah, to greet him in prayer and to glorify the Most High.

Χρονίσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐφοβήθησαν ἅπαντες· ἀποτολμήσας δὲ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν εἰσῆλθεν, καὶ εἶδε παρὰ τὸ θυσιαστήριον αἷμα πεπηγὸς καὶ φωνὴν λέγουσαν· &ldquogr;Ζαχαρίας πεφόνευται, καὶ οὐκ ἐξαλειφθήσεται τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ ἔκδικος αὐτοῦ.&rdquogr; Καὶ ἀκούσας τὸν λόγον ἐφοβήθη, καὶ ἐξῆλθε, καὶ ἀνήγγειλε τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν. Καὶ τολμήσαντες εἰσῆλθον καὶ εἶδον τὸ γεγονός, καὶ τὰ φατνώματα τοῦ ναοῦ ὀλόλυξαν, καὶ αὐτοὶ περιεσχίσαντο ἀπὸ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω. Καὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ οὐχ εὗρον, ἀλλ᾽ εὗρον τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ λίθον γεγενημένον. Καὶ φοβηθέντες ἐξῆλθον, καὶ ἀνήγγειλαν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ ὅτι Ζαχαρίας πεφόνευται. Καὶ ἤκουσαν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ ἐπένθησαν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκόψαντο τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ

But as he delayed, they were all afraid; and one of them, venturing, went in, and saw beside the altar congealed blood, and a voice saying, "Zechariah has been slain, and his blood shall not be wiped away until his avenger comes." And hearing the word he was afraid, and went out, and reported it to the priests. And venturing, they went in and saw what had happened; and the panelled ceilings of the temple wailed, and they rent their garments from top to bottom. And his body they did not find, but they found his blood turned to stone. And being afraid they went out and reported to all the people that Zechariah had been slain. And all the tribes of the people heard, and they mourned him and lamented him three days and

τρεῖς νύκτας. Μετὰ δὲ τὰς τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐβουλεύσαντο οἱ ἱερεῖς τίνα ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ στήσουσιν, καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ κλῆρος ἐπὶ Συμεών· οὗτος γὰρ ἦν ὁ χρηματισθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον ἕως ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκί Protevangelium of James, chap. XXII–XXIV, Tischendorf, op. cit., pp. 42–49.

three nights. And after the three days the priests took counsel whom they should set up in his place, and the lot came up upon Simeon; for he it was who had been told by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh.

[32] a Coptic little book of unknown origin, To this we join the narrative woven into a certain Coptic homily of an uncertain writer, of which only fragments survive.

From the codex which has been called "Lord Crawford's Sahidic MS. No. 36," p. [ ] [On this codex, which recently passed into the Rylands Library (Manchester), see J. Armitage Robinson, Coptic apocryphal Gospels (Texts and Studies, vol. IV, No. 2), Cambridge, 1896, pp. XXII–XXIII. Cf. W. E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1905), cod. No. 257, p. 114.].

But Herod persuaded himself that John the son of Zechariah the priest was the one on whose account the Magi had come. He therefore sent (messengers) into the temple to Zechariah the priest, thinking that he would perhaps get possession of the little John, and he did not find him. Those who had been sent by Herod therefore questioned him (Zechariah) about the little boy, saying, "Where is your son?" Zechariah announced (this) to them: "His mother took him, fled into the wilderness and hid him." Herod was angered and sent assassins, who killed Zechariah while he was pouring out prayers to God; and, taking up his body, they buried it that very night, and no one of men saw his blood. But Herod, angered as he was, sent (guards) into the regions of Bethlehem and its neighbourhood. They seized the infants two years old and under and brought them to Herod. He ordered them to be killed in his presence. But John was hidden, and Herod did not get possession of him so as to kill him with the little ones whose throats he had cut. And the bodies of the infants were buried with the body of Zechariah the priest [The relics of St. Zechariah were venerated at Constantinople together with the relics of the Holy Innocents. See below, num. 87.]. O how great was this grief and lamentation! The laps of the mothers bereft of their children were loosed… [The same passage has been translated into English by J. Armitage Robinson, op. cit., p. 236.].

[33] James of Edessa, A third form of the same story is presented to us by the rescript of James, bishop of Edessa, given at the end of the seventh century "to the eighteen questions of Joshua the Stylite" [Published in Syriac by W. Wright, Two epistles of Mâr Iacob, Bishop of Edessa, Journal of Sacred literature, 1867, pp. 15–17 of the Syriac text: ]. We have translated it from the Syriac tongue insofar as it pertains to our question.

Your seventh question asked who that Zechariah is who was slain between the sanctuary and the altar, and what was the cause of his death. The one slain was not Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest, who was killed in the time of Joash king of Judah, but Zechariah son of Barachiah, who is the father of John the Baptist. The cause of his slaying, to speak briefly, was of this kind. When the Magi had come into Judaea at the time when Christ was born, and all Jerusalem had been stirred, as is written in the Gospel, Herod also summoned them and, having conferred with them, dismissed them, saying, "Go and search. And when you have found him, return to me." But they, going away, left him and did not return to him. He, roused to anger because he had been mocked by them, again inquired both of the priests and of each one where the Christ was to be born. And when on this account he was raging and growing hot with fury, one of those who stood before him said to him: "In our neighbourhood, where I live, in this city, before this year a certain infant was born of priestly race. Moreover, I have heard many who said that this is the Messiah." Herod asked whose son this was. He answered that he was the son of Zechariah the priest. When Herod, therefore, having sent a messenger, had summoned Zechariah, he asked him: "Where," he said, "is your son?" He answered: "The infant is in my house with his mother." And he (Herod), sending armed guards together with Zechariah, said to him: "Go, and bring your son here to me; if you do not bring him at once, you will die an evil death." But when one of those who stood by and heard what was said had understood the matter, he hastened to Elizabeth and informed her of the whole business. She at once took the little John in her arms and, withdrawing from her house and indeed from the city of Jerusalem, carried him into the wilderness of Ziph Near the city of the same name, to the south of Hebron.. There both remained hidden, there she died, and there John was brought up. But after Zechariah had come to his house with the soldiers who had been sent with him by Herod, he found neither his son nor his mother; and, fearing the death that had been threatened against him, he fled into the sanctuary. But when Herod learned this, having sent (guards), he killed him between the sanctuary and the altar, in the place where he was standing, as is written in the Gospel. This was the cause why Zechariah the priest, son of Barachiah, was killed. At the same time as Zechariah was slain, (Herod) in his anger also pronounced the sentence of death upon those infants who were in Bethlehem.

[34] Solomon of Basra, The fourth form, which Solomon, the Nestorian bishop of Basra, inserted in the work which he entitled (The Bee), betrays a very ancient origin neither by its appearance nor by the age of its author (c. the year 1222). Yet since it has retained the native likeness of the Jewish archetype much better than any other, it seems that it should not be omitted in this place [Ern. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Bee (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic series, Vol. I, Part II), Oxford, 1886, p. 95 of the Syriac text (in English, p. 86).]:

The number of the infants whom (Herod) killed was two thousand; there are also those who say one thousand eight hundred. And when John the son of Zechariah was being sought, his father, carrying him off, brought him before the altar, laid his hand on him and handed on to him the priesthood. Then he sent him away into the midst of the wilderness. And so, when they did not find John, they killed Zechariah his father between the porch and the altar. They say that from the day on which Zechariah was killed his blood bubbled up, until Titus the son of Vespasian came; by whom three hundred thousand men were slaughtered at Jerusalem; then the seething of that blood subsided. Nathanael too, an infant, was rescued by his father, who wrapped him up and laid him under a fig tree…

[35] The Alexandrian synaxarium. It is worthy of note that a not dissimilar story has been taken up into the Alexandrian synaxarium, whence it passed also into the Ethiopic Cod. aethiop. Bibl. Nat. Paris., No. 126, fol. 10.. In both it is appended to the other narrative as a kind of singular opinion [In Arabic and French, in R. Basset, Le Synaxaire arabe jacobite (Patrologia orientalis, vol. I, fasc. 3), pp. 247–248. Also published in Arabic by J. Forget, Synaxarium alexandrinum (Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, Scriptores arabici, Textus, third series, vol. XVIII, 1905), p. 13.]:

They say too that one of the Jews said to Herod, after he had killed the infants: "A son has been born to Zechariah the priest, an angel having foretold it by God's will. Perhaps this is the Messiah." He therefore sent soldiers to kill the boy. Zechariah said to them: "This boy I received from somewhere; come with me and take him from there." They followed him until he had entered the temple. But he set him (John) down upon the summit (the pinnacle) of the temple, where he had been announced to him. And an angel carried him off into the wilderness of Ziphata. And so, when the soldiers had not got possession of him, they killed Zechariah his father. For which cause the Lord said to the Jews: "There shall come upon you the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you slew between the temple and the altar; for you were the cause of his slaying."

[36] The fables differently by different men Now when we consider this many-shaped variety of one and the same story, the following seems probable at first sight.

In the narrative of Solomon of Basra there are mixed absurdities which could only have arisen at a later age. Joseph Assemani, a man most learned beyond all others in Oriental letters, in reporting it testifies that the common tradition of the Syrians is presented in it Bibliotheca orientalis, vol. III, 1, p. 317.. Many, however, will hardly bring themselves to admit this without discrimination. The high priesthood conferred on the little John at six months James of Edessa either did not hear of or did not believe; nor does he agree with the popular opinion that Zechariah was high priest. It would be helpful to find out whether the bishop of Basra added this from the same book, following which he imitated so openly the fables of the rabbis about the blood of Zechariah son of Jehoiada. But that in the rest of the narrative the Nestorian writer and the synaxaria of the Monophysites come closer together is certainly not without cause and reason. Perhaps one and the same document was abridged differently by each.

[37] increased or changed The Edessene, on the other hand, follows out the widespread story in a freer style. He added deeds or sayings which would present the matter more vividly to the minds of readers; whether of his own or from elsewhere is uncertain. That Zechariah out of fear took refuge at the altar is read also in the Menologion of Basil, and therefore seems to have been drawn from a Greek source See below, num. 59.. Nor, without a marvellous chance, would James, with no one preceding him, have devised that the name of John was reported to Herod by a certain Jew; which same thing the bishop of Basra found in another monument. A slighter matter, and obvious in itself, could easily creep into some recension of the older story.

[38] As for the Coptic narrative, it differs from the protevangelium only by errors of the kind which Coptic scribes especially, reporting the opinions of others piecemeal, do not usually guard against very carefully. Nor should it move us that it is said by the writer that Zechariah's blood was seen by no one. For this only indicates that in his exemplar there was mentioned the portent of the blood turned into stone; with which mention our Egyptian, the whole tradition opposing him, ineptly conflated the words which were added immediately afterwards about the corpse of Zechariah: τὸ δὲ σῶμα αὐτοῦ οὐδαμοῦ εὑρέθη, or something similar.

[39] a source foreign to the Protevangelium, This being so, all the indications tend to this, that all the written narratives which pursue the same subject, some in one way and some in another, seem to have proceeded from that form which is found in the protevangelium. Beware, however, of concluding from this that what they call the literary tradition first flowed from this work; for our story neither belongs to the older part of the protevangelium, nor was it invented, as it were by deliberate design, to be added to it. And in very truth, that the whole of that part in which the family of the Forerunner is set forth was absent from the structure of the protevangelium which Origen knew is clearer than daylight

Berendts has demonstrated [Studien, pp. 37–54; cf. 106–107; with whom A. Harnack agreed, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, vol. II, 1, pp. 600–602.]. Ludwig Conrady, however, retained the contrary opinion for consistency's sake Who defended it in the work indicated above.; notwithstanding a passage of Origen but he alone, as it seems, retained it. Nor would it be worth the trouble to linger longer on a settled question, had not the learned E. Klostermann Theologisches Literaturblatt, vol. XVIII (1897), col. 504. pointed out a fragment of Origen from which some difficulty arises. For thus he is said to have expounded the little verse Luke 11:54 [In Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, vol. XIV (Venice, 1781), appendix p. 103. From a Venetian codex.]:

Διὸ τῆς Ἐλισάβετ καὶ τοῦ παιδὸς ἀποτυχόντες οἱ δήμιοι κατὰ Codex καὶ. τοῦ Ζαχαρίου τὸν θυμὸν ἀφιᾶσιν, ὡς λόγος· κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο γοῦν καὶ διὰ τὴν παρθένον Μαρίαν μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν· ἐλθοῦσα γὰρ προσκυνῆσαι, ἕστη ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῶν παρθένων, καὶ κωλυόντων τῶν εἰδότων αὐτὴν γεννήσασαν, ὁ Ζαχαρίας ἔλεγε τοῖς κωλύουσιν ἀξίαν αὐτὴν εἶναι τοῦ τόπου τῶν παρθένων, ἔτι παρθένον οὖσαν· ὡς οὖν σαφῶς παρανομοῦντα ἀπέκτειναν μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λειτουργοῦντα καὶ θύοντα τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἀναμιγνύουσι τὸ αἷμα τῷ αἵματι.

Wherefore the executioners, having failed to get Elizabeth and the child, let loose their fury against Zechariah, as the story goes; and at the same time also on account of the Virgin Mary, after she had given birth to our Saviour; for having come to worship, she stood in the place of the virgins, and when those who knew she had given birth tried to prevent her, Zechariah said to those preventing her that she was worthy of the place of the virgins, being still a virgin; as one, then, plainly transgressing the law, they killed him between the temple and the altar as he was ministering and sacrificing to God, and they mingle blood with blood.

[40] a spurious passage, But this testimony may be rejected without any suspicion of obstinacy. For a Latin paraphrase translated from John Geometres contains the same sentence in almost the same words [B. Corderius, Catena graecorum Patrum in Lucam (Antwerp, 1627), p. 331. Cf. Berendts, Studien, pp. 107–108; where he somewhat too hastily counts Geometres among those who sought to fit together the narrative of the protevangelium with the Origenian tradition. John Geometres, who was also surnamed Kyriotes, is thought to have written towards the end of the 10th century.]. Nor did Geometres purloin it from Origen, since Origen could never have written anything of the kind. Namely, everyone perceives that the first lines, on which alone the argument rests, are very badly connected with the rest of the discourse. For what cause would there have been for pursuing John with his mother, because Zechariah had admitted Mary the Mother of God into the place of the virgins? Or by what sudden change of persons did there succeed to τοῖς δημίοις, who avenge John's flight with Zechariah's blood, zealots who should slaughter Zechariah as he performed the sacred rites, λειτουργοῦντα καὶ θύοντα τῷ Θεῷ? At length all doubt is resolved if you compare with the first and last lines of this pericope the Greek copy of the same passage of John Geometres: διὸ τῆς Ἐλισάβετ καὶ τοῦ παιδὸς ἀποτυχόντες οἱ δήμιοι κατὰ τοῦ Ζαχαρίου τὸν θυμὸν ἀφιᾶσιν, ὡς λόγος, καὶ πρὸς αὐτῷ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ λειτουργοῦντα καὶ θύοντα τῷ θεῷ, θύουσι καὶ ἀναμιγνύουσι τὸ αἷμα τῷ αἵματι [In Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, vol. IX, Συναγωγὴ ἐξηγήσεων εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, p. 682.].

Wherefore the executioners, having failed to get Elizabeth and the child, let loose their fury against Zechariah, as the story goes, and at the very altar, as he was ministering and sacrificing to God, they sacrifice him and mingle blood with blood.

Into this sentence, arranging the joins as best he could, some unknown forger inserted a fragment of Origen's commentary on Matthew, taken from the very place that was cited above Num. 20, p. 10.. Some schoolman or other, or copyist, having found this fragment in florilegia or wherever, together with the words of Geometres onto which it had been sewn, recognized whose it was, and by a very easy error inscribed with Origen's name also those dissimilar lines by which the interpolated fragment was continued. To anyone whom an explanation of this kind does not please, many others are ready at hand; but the most difficult of all is for us to believe that Origen mixed up his commentary so ineptly with another opinion about which he had been entirely silent where it was most opportune to mention it.

[41] indeed older than the protevangelium Now if the story of Zechariah is not native to the protevangelium but adventitious, it could also have been taken from a work which had previously existed separately. Although this has been tacitly denied by several learned men, who, as if from a preconceived opinion, supposed that as many of the ancient writers as mention this story used the protevangelium [H. Gelzer, Sextus Iulius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie, vol. II (Leipzig, 1885), p. 327 and following; M. N. Speranskij, (Evangelia slavonica apocrypha), in , 1890, vol. II (Moscow, 1895), p. 163; C. Frick, Chronica minora, vol. I (Leipzig, 1892), p. CCVIII; cf. pp. 337, 339, 341, 343, 345, 347.], no slight indications now suggest that the narrative of the protevangelium flowed from another, older one. Since this question is not of the greatest importance to ours, it will be enough to have touched on very few points here.

[42] is demonstrated From the documents which Berendts collected with wonderful erudition Studien, pp. 38–44; cf. pp. 106–107., it appears that before the fifth century no writer of certain date can be brought forward who seems to have drawn the story of Zechariah from the protevangelium. The first of all to mention it was Peter of Alexandria in his canonical epistle, whose broken members have been buried in the commentaries of Zonaras and Balsamon — the worst of storehouses! P.G., vol. XVIII, p. 504.. But Peter is not found elsewhere to have used the protevangelium, nor does he set out the matter in such a way that the narrative of Pseudo-James can be recognized by any peculiar likeness. Yet his saying that Zechariah was slain μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, when nothing of the kind is found in the protevangelium is of itself of no great weight On this addition Berendts argues otherwise, l. c., p. 39.. For you would believe these words were inserted from the Gospel of Matthew, were not the same addition found in other sources to which Peter could have had recourse.

[43] by more certain witnesses. There follow other spurious works, likewise of uncertain date, all of which Berendts excludes to a man, and not wrongly. The most learned man thinks he first recognizes the narrative of Pseudo-James in that unknown chronographer of the end of the fifth century who has been called the Barbarus Scaligeri L. c., p. 44.. But for my part I would doubt that very thing. For the brief mention of Zechariah which is read in the Barbarus bears no mark that is proper to the false James; indeed, in the order of narration it stands closer to other documents of which traces survive. So that it may be compared with them, we copy here the few lines of the Barbarus which pertain to our story.

The Barbarus Scaligeri But Herod, hearing from the Magi that a king had been born, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And seeing that he had been mocked by the Magi, he sent his murderers, saying to them: "Kill all the boys from two years old and under." But Herod was seeking John and sent officers before the altar to Zechariah, saying to him: "Where have you hidden your son? Or do you not know that I have power to kill you, and your blood is in my hands?" And Zechariah said: "I am a witness of the living God. You shed my blood, but the Lord will receive my spirit." And at dawn Zechariah was slain… But Elizabeth, learning that John was being sought, took hold of him and went up into the hill country and looked about for where she might hide him, and there was no place of hiding. Then Elizabeth, sighing, cried out, saying: "Mountain of God, receive me, a mother with her son." And at once the mountain was split and received them [Th. Mommsen, Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII, vol. I (MG., Auctores antiquissimi vol. IX, Berlin, 1892), pp. 278–79; Frick, op. cit., pp. 338–40.].

[44] used not the protevangelium but another little book, Moreover, of all the other passages of the Barbarus which Carl Frick in his most accurate edition compared with the protevangelium At the places just indicated, note 3., there is none that could not have been transferred from elsewhere. Indeed it is all but evidently established that the Barbarus used some little book other than the work of the false James, in which the story of Zechariah was also contained. Let this absurd sentence serve as an example: "… our Lord Jesus Christ was born under Augustus, on the 8th day before the kalends of January; he was born in the desert of a certain man named Fuusdu, which is Eusebius's…" Mommsen, l. c., p. 278; Frick, p. 338, cf. p. 339, note 12.. With this we are bidden to compare Protev. ch. XVIII, 1: καὶ εὗρεν σπήλαιον (ὁ Ἰωσὴφ) καὶ εἰσήγαγεν αὐτήν, that is, Mary. Yet who would deny that there is much difference between the two sentences? But that Coptic homily, of which we gave an excerpt earlier See num. 32, p. 12., has this on the same subject: "There was a desert place, in which near the road there was a tomb (). whose traces Hither Joseph brought the Virgin…" See Robinson, Coptic apocryphal Gospels, p. 196.. You might not ineptly suppose that in the archetype which our Egyptian copied there was named here the man whose monument this was. On the other hand it is plainly absurd for the owner of a desert place to be designated by name. Shall we then believe that this name Fuusdu was added by the Barbarus, copying the protevangelium, without cause, gratuitously and of his own accord? Certainly it is much more likely that he had at hand some little book such as that Coptic discourse shows to have existed; in abridging which, the mention of the tomb, among very many other things, dropped out under his hurrying pen. Nor do we assume this rashly: for it is established from elsewhere that certain Alexandrian chronicles were plundered by the Barbarus See Frick, p. CCIX..

[45] preserved elsewhere too From the same source seems to have flowed another Coptic composition, which is entitled (The Passion of the holy lord Zechariah the priest, on the eighth day of the month Thout. In the peace of God). Of its fragments, which are contained in some torn leaves of the Paris codex 129/17, fol. 11v, most have been published by Eugène Revillout [La sage-femme Salome, Journal asiatique, 10th series, vol. V (1905), pp. 456–59. Cf. E. Revillout, Les Apocryphes coptes, I (Patrologia orientalis, vol. II, fasc. 2), p. 165, note.]. It must be seen, however, whether this discourse, on account of the empty eloquence which manifest indications betray, should be relegated among the amplified Acts of St. Zechariah.

[46] betray an Alexandrian origin. What we have so far attained, partly doubtful and partly certain, let us now embrace in summary:

a) The portent of the bloodied rock, which was repeatedly said to have occurred under the kings of Judah at the slaying of Zechariah son of Jehoiada, the simpler Christians, as is the way of the common people, transferred to the Zechariah better known to them, whom they had persuaded themselves beyond doubt, from a certain oracle of Christ, had been slain in the temple. And now, the subject of the old fable having been interpolated, it began to be narrated how Herod had slaughtered the father of John upon that reddening stone. — b) Written traces of the renewed story are first seen in Peter of Alexandria, who mentioned it in passing as something already known to his readers from elsewhere. This mention was necessarily preceded by some little book other than that narrative which at a later time was joined to the protevangelium. — c) The same story was first

reported, after Peter of Alexandria, with some two hundred years intervening, by a writer especially versed in Alexandrian matters. He too seems to have had in hand not the protevangelium, but some little book not unlike the one whose outlines are recognized in a certain Coptic discourse. — Whoever, weighing all these things, at the same time remembers that this other fable about Zechariah escaped Origen, as it seems, will perhaps judge with probability that this story was first committed to writing at Alexandria towards the end of the third century. And let these things, as in a very obscure matter, be taken as said with hesitation.

§ V. On the amplified Passions of St. Zechariah.

[47] Of the Acts which have so far become known, We should now have to speak of the augmented or interpolated Passions, had not the distinguished Alexander Berendts, by whom, as we have just said, a corpus of them is shortly to be published, explored this forest so long and with such zeal that, with him alone not leading the way, no prudent man would now dare to enter it. Even if we could contend with him in erudition, we should still think it unfair to forage in another's province. Let us be forgiven, then, if, having been deterred for the most just reasons from preparing an edition of these Acts, we have judged it inept to discourse about them as if by guesswork. What can so far be brought forward without rashness is neither much nor of great moment.

[48] a fourfold variety. Most of the Greek little books in which the life and end of Zechariah are set forth are inscribed not with his name but with that of his son John. Of these Berendts collected a fairly ample multitude, which he reviews in a fourfold distribution [Die handschriftliche Ueberlieferung, pp. 1–15. The fifth class, which the most distinguished man set out on pp. 15–17 (Die dem Marcus zugeschriebene Erzählung), we omit, as it seems to pertain to John the Baptist alone.]. The first class The first form is presented by codex 1007 of the public library of Athens (a paper codex, 17th century, 372 fols., 0.21 × 0.13) [A. Sakkelion, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς ἐθνικῆς βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Athens, 1892), p. 180.]. In it there is found (fols. 210–213v) Γέννησις καὶ τελείωσις τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ προδρόμου καὶ βαπτιστοῦ καὶ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ζαχαρίου. The codex of Athens Of this document some specimens were given by Alexander Kirpichnikov , vol. I (1894), pp. 185–86.. To this form Berendts referred the text of the Messina manuscript 30, which, however, he knew only from our catalogue of the Greek hagiographical codices of the Monastery of St. Saviour Analecta Bollandiana, vol. XXIII, p. 42.: and of Messina Μαρτύριον καὶ τελείωσις τοῦ ἁγίου προφήτου Ζαχαρίου τοῦ πατρὸς Προδρόμου.

That this conjecture of the learned man is not unskilled is shown us by a transcript of the same Messina copy, which S. Rossi very kindly prepared for the Bollandist work.

[49] to be compared with the Slavonic transcripts. The part of this narrative which pertains to Zechariah has been received into both recensions of the Menaea of the church of Moscow written in the Slavonic tongue, at the fifth day of September [ 1–13 (, St. Petersburg, 1868), cols. 278–81. Which elogium has been transcribed in italic letters and translated into German by Berendts, Studien, pp. 71–80.]. Besides the printed edition of the Menaea which are called the Great Menaea and were composed by the metropolitan Macarius, Berendts examined a great many manuscript codices and compared them most diligently with one another and with the Greek codex of Athens. From the variant readings which he noted it is plainly established that the Slavonic versions flowed from a Greek archetype other than the Athens copy. Whether all arose from the same Greek narrative cannot be determined. Nor, as the matter now stands, is it free of danger to divine which discrepancies were first introduced by the Slavic copyists and which already existed in that Greek archetype. Let two errors of the Athens codex serve as an example, which Berendts thinks were first corrected by the Slavic translator Die Ueberlieferung, pp. 42–43.; for we see that they are absent from the Greek codex of Messina.

[50] Eurippius This too departs not a little from the Slavonic versions, although in some things it stands closer to them than the Athens codex. Since, moreover, each is defiled by the foulest barbarism, it would be a premature undertaking at present to wish to restore the text to its pristine form. This narrative was written by an unknown man who falsely claims to have been a disciple of John the Baptist, Eurippius by name, or Herpius (Ἕρπιος), if you prefer the corrupt spelling of the Athens codex.

[51] the fiction of the baptism of Zechariah Omitting the rest, which add scarcely anything to the older tradition, we copy here the portentous little narrative in which Christ is feigned to have baptized Zechariah, raised for a little while from the dead (Athens codex, in Kirpichnikov) L. c., p. 186..

Γενομένου δὲ τοῦ Ἰωάννου ἡμέρας μ᾽ ὁ Κύριος ἐλθὼν ἀπὸ Αἰγύπτου σὺν Γαβριὴλ τῷ ἀρχαγγέλῳ Codex τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου. ἐν Βηθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ προσέταξεν τῷ Οὐριὴλ Θυριήλ. καὶ ἤγαγεν ἐκεῖσε ἐκεῖσαι. τὸν Ἰωάννην νύκτα· καὶ ἐλθόν[των] αὐτῶν ἀμετρήτων οἱ δ᾽ δυνατοὶ Μιχαήλ, Γαβριήλ. Οὐριὴλ καὶ Ῥαφαήλ, ἐν οἷς που ἦν ἔνε. ὁ Κύριος, καὶ ἤγαγον τὸ σκήνωμα Ζαχαρίου, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν αὐτῷ πρὸς ζωὴν ὁ Κύριος καὶ ἀνάσταντες πρὸς λειτουργίαν λειτουργίας. ἐτρέποντο καὶ προσέταξεν ὁ Κύριος καὶ ἐξέβλυσεν πηγὴ ὕδατος, ὅπου τὰ ἅγια ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ ἐβάπτισεν ἐκεῖ τὸν Πρόδρομον Ἰωάννην καὶ τότε βαπτίζει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ Ζαχαρίαν Ζαχαρία., καὶ ἔκραξαν οἱ ἄγγελοι· &ldquogr;ἀμήν· ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης· ὅτι τὸ δόγμα τοῦτο τοῦτον. ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων φωνῶν. ἐστὶν καὶ τὸ τοῦ. λουτρὸν οὐράνιον.&rdquogr; Καὶ πάλιν πάλλιν. εἶπεν· &ldquogr;ἀμήν.&rdquogr; Τότε προσέταξεν ὁ Κύριος καὶ κηδεύουσιν οἱ ἄγγελοι τὸ σῶμα Ζαχαρίου καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑποκάτω τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου· καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ Κύριος 〈σὺν τῷ〉 Γαβριὴλ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Ἰωάννης σὺν τῷ Οὐριὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ὅτι ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἐκείνῃ ἐγένοντο τὰ μεγάλα ταῦτα.

And when John was forty days old, the Lord, coming from Egypt with Gabriel the archangel to Bethlehem of Judaea, into the sanctuary of God, commanded Uriel, and he brought John there by night; and when they had come, countless of them, the four mighty ones, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael, among whom the Lord was, they brought the tabernacle of Zechariah, and the Lord breathed into him unto life, and rising up they turned to the liturgy; and the Lord commanded, and a spring of water gushed out where the holy things are in the temple of God; and he baptized there the Forerunner John, and then he baptizes his father Zechariah; and the angels cried out: "Amen; holy, holy, holy is God who sits upon the throne of glory; for this decree is from the Father of lights, and the heavenly washing." And again he said: "Amen." Then the Lord commanded, and the angels lay out the body of Zechariah, and they buried it in the temple of God beneath the altar; and in that same hour the Lord departed with Gabriel into Egypt, and John with Uriel into the wilderness, for in a moment of time, in that night, these great things came to pass.

The codex of Messina:

Γενομένου δὲ τοῦ Ἰωάννου ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ μηνῶν τεσσάρων Codex τεστάρων. ἦλθεν ἧλθεν. ὁ Κύριος ἀπὸ τῆς Αἰγύπτου σὺν τῷ ἀρχαγγέλῳ ἐν Βεθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ νυκτός· καὶ ἐξελθόντες οἱ τέσσαροι ἄγγελοι Μιχαήλ, Γαβριήλ, Οὐριήλ, Ῥαφαὴλ ἐν οἷς παρῆν καὶ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ τὸ τῷ. σκήνωμα Ζαχαρίου. Καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζωῆς καὶ ἀναστάντες πάντες πρὸς λειτουργίαν λυτρυγίαν. ἐτρέποντο ἐτέρποντο.. Προσέταξεν δὲ ὁ Σωτὴρ καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ ὅπου τὰ ἅγια ἁγία. τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ ναῷ πηγὴ ἀθανασίας. Καὶ ἐβάπτισεν ἐκεῖ πρῶτον τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ εἶθ᾽ οὕτως βαπτίζει βαπτίξει. τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ Ζαχαρίαν· καὶ ἔκραξαν οἱ ἄγγελοι τὸ ἀμήν ἁμὴν. Καὶ πάλιν ἔκραξαν· &ldquogr;ἅγιος, ἅγιος ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ· ὅτι τὸ δόγμα τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων φότων. ἐστὶν καὶ λουτρὸν οὐράνιον ὁ ύιον(?). ". Καὶ πάλιν εἶπον τὸ ἀμήν. Τότε προσέταξεν πρὸς ἔταξεν. ὁ Κύριος τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκήδευσαν τὸ σῶμα Ζαχαρίου καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸ αὐτῶ. ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑποκάτω τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. Κἀκεῖθεν ἀπῆλθεν κακεῖθεν ἀπῆλθην. ὁ Κύριος σὺν τῷ Γαβριὴλ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης σὺν τῷ Οὐριὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ πρὸς τὴν Ἐλισάβετ. Ἡ δὲ Μαρία ἦν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἡ Ἐλισάβετ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐρέμῳ.. Τοῦτο δὲ συνέβη ἐν σταθμῷ ὥρας ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἐκείνῃ. Καὶ ταῦτα τὰ μεγαλεῖα ἐγένοντο.

And when John had been four months in the wilderness, the Lord came from Egypt with the archangel to Bethlehem of Judaea, into the sanctuary, by night; and the four angels came forth, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael, among whom God too was present, and the tabernacle of Zechariah. And the Lord breathed into him and gave him the spirit of life, and all, rising up, turned to the liturgy. And the Saviour commanded, and water came forth where the holy of holies is in the temple, a spring of immortality. And he baptized there first John, and then in this way he baptizes his father Zechariah; and the angels cried out the Amen. And again they cried out: "Holy, holy, holy is God, who sits upon the throne of his glory; for this decree is from the Father of lights, and a heavenly washing." And again they said the Amen. Then the Lord commanded his angels, and they laid out the body of Zechariah and buried it in the temple of God beneath the altar. And from there the Lord departed with Gabriel into Egypt, and John with Uriel into the wilderness to Elizabeth. And Mary was in Egypt and Elizabeth in the wilderness. And this happened in the space of an hour in that night. And these mighty works came to pass.

[52] he fetched from elsewhere; That other fables of the same kind preceded this absurd one was not inappropriately noted by A. Kirpichnikov [L. c., p. 186, third note. On the baptism of the Virgin Mary and of the apostles Franz Diekamp argues learnedly, Hippolytos von Theben, pp. 118–23.], who bids us compare the little book τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις θεοδορίτου ἐπισκόπου Τύρου (sic) περὶ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων καὶ τῆς Θεοτόκου, published among the selections illustrating the Chronicon paschale by Ludwig Dindorf Chronicon paschale, vol. II (Bonn, 1832), p. 144.. Moreover, that John was baptized by Christ the author, whoever he was, of the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum had already read manifestly written … in the more secret books [Among the works of St. John Chrysostom, Montfaucon, second edit., vol. VI, p. 773. See Berendts, Studien, p. 68, with note 4.]. A baptism conferred by the Lord Saviour on Zechariah and John is also mentioned in a fragment of a Syriac palimpsest codex which Friedrich Schulthess published and Berendts annotated [Christlich-Palästinische Fragmente aus der Omajjaden-Moschee zu Damaskus, Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, N. F., vol. VIII, p. 94.]. Besides, Vasily Istrin has brought to light a pericope of a sort of Slavonic catechism on the genuine and at the same time unknown books of Genesis, where, the question being put "by whom, when and where Zechariah and John the forerunner were baptized," the answer is given from our story [, in , vol. CCCVIII (1896), pp. 27–28. From the Berlin codex of the Royal Library, Karadžič, no. 45, fol. 353v.335. Other examples seem to be known to the learned man; cf. l. c., p. 27.]. That some Greek copy preceded this Berendts prudently conjectures Die Ueberlieferung, p. 35., although the ἐρωταποκρίσεις, that have so far been unearthed do not embrace this question.

[53] said that Zechariah was slain before the doors of the temple. Finally, it is pleasing to excerpt from the narrative now under discussion a passage which, to remove a difficulty, I am surprised to find was devised by that inept writer who believed that the temple was situated in the city of Bethlehem. For, narrating the slaying of Zechariah, he adds this: Καὶ ἐπάταξαν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἐκείνῃ πρὸ τῶν πυλῶν Athens codex in Kirpichnikov, l. c., p. 186, n. 1: πρὸς τῶν πυλῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ· αὐτὸς δὲ ἦλθεν ἕρπων πλησίον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐκενώθη τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ.

And they struck him in that night before the gates of the sanctuary of God; but he came crawling near the altar, and there his blood was poured out.

[54] The second class; The second class is that whose type is presented by the μαρτύριον εἰς τὴν ἀποτομὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ προδρόμου, which Alexander Vasiliev published from a codex of Monte Cassino Anecdota graeco-byzantina, first part (Moscow, 1893), pp. 1–4.. Of this too Berendts collected many examples, both Greek and Slavic, and examined them in his most diligent manner; concluding this review, he asserts that this second recension was abridged from the former, the portents being toned down or even removed, and above all that fabulous baptism of Zechariah Die Ueberlieferung, p. 5.. Let the best of judges be believed: to us

nevertheless, if an opinion had to be given from the indications now available, we should judge that the former was drawn out of this narrative. Unless, indeed, some copyist or other by whom the fuller little book was abridged, while cutting away the adventitious absurdities, by fortuitous chance reduced the subject of the story to the same sum which it embraced from the old tradition before it was augmented by the counterfeit Eurippius. But whatever in the end shall seem truer, it is already now plainly certain that the masked narrator who here calls himself Eurippus, the second disciple of John, is one person under three names with that Eurippius or Herpius of the former fable.

[55] the third; Of the third class some notice or other is meanwhile supplied by the Latin translation of a certain Greek little book which Lipomanus published Tomus sextus Vitarum sanctorum priscorum Patrum (Rome, 1558), fols. 199–203., and again Surius Vitae sanctorum, edit. 1618, vol. VIII, pp. 318–22.: who without any appearance of truth inscribed on this work the name of Symeon Metaphrastes. Besides, from transcripts formerly prepared by a certain colleague we have come to know the ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὸν ἅγιον προφήτην καὶ πρόδρομον ἀπόστολόν τε καὶ μάρτυρα Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν which is found in codex 1474 of the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, fols. 174v–191, and the last part of the same work as it exists in the Greek codex 1475 of the same Library, fols. 136v–151v. But besides these, so many other copies lie hidden in the corners of the remotest lands that the genuine form of this little book cannot be sketched without immense labour. We, for our part, in view of the very narrow bounds within which this little commentary has been confined, abstain from so great an undertaking with all the better right, because in this third class the story of Zechariah seems to have been augmented by words and rhetorical ornaments rather than by facts or inventions. It must not, however, be passed over, as Vasily Istrin observed, that into several Slavonic recensions of this work — which are many and various — the fiction of Zechariah's baptism by Christ has crept , l. c., 28. Cf. Berendts, Die Ueberlieferung, p. 13.. It would indeed have been a wonder if two traditions most celebrated in Slavonic letters had not flowed together in some way.

[56] the fourth. Finally, in the Coislin codex 296 [In the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris; see Catalogus codicum Graecorum Parisiensium, p. 309.] there is contained a shorter narrative which Al. Berendts placed in the third position, and thinks is altogether singular and related to no other Die Ueberlieferung, p. 12.. Yet we do not doubt that of the same origin is the Arabic discourse which in the Arabic codex 262 of the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris [A paper codex, written by various hands, 15th century, 250 fols.; 0.21 × 0.15 m. See the catalogue of William de Slane, pp. 71–72. We have for the most part supplied or corrected the diacritical points. From this manuscript, which Joseph Ascari in a prefixed note calls "very badly written," and not wrongly, I. Broydé published a commentary on the overthrow of the city of Jerusalem by the Persians, in Couret, La prise de Jérusalem par les Perses, en 614, Revue de l'Orient chrétien, vol. II (1897), pp. 147–54.] is most falsely inscribed with the name of John Chrysostom; except that this follows the series of events somewhat further. For this reason it too may be of use, if at some time new documents give the opportunity of exploring this question more deeply. And if it lacks any greater usefulness, let it be accepted in this place as an epitome of the greater Passions which are excluded from our little commentary.

With the help of God and the grace of his aid we begin to write the discourse which John Chrysostom delivered on the story of Elizabeth and her son and on the rock which was opened to them both.

In those days, when John had been born, Herod the king sought to kill him, and, sending (a messenger) to Zechariah his father, he said to him: "Hand over to me John your son." But Elizabeth, having secretly taken John, had fled into the mountainous region, because she dreaded Herod. Zechariah said to the guard whom Herod had sent to him: "I do not know where my son is; for I am the servant of the Lord my God, and I have not just now turned aside to my house." But Herod said to him: "Where have you hidden your son? Send him to me. Or do you not know that your blood is under my most powerful hand?" Zechariah answered him, saying: "As the Lord (fol. 99) my God lives! I do not know where my son is: for I am the servant of the Lord my God. I do not know where my son is." Then Herod blazed with anger and was filled with envy and indignation, and fury changed his countenance, and he commanded that Zechariah be killed while he was ministering at the altar of God. Going in, (the guards) killed him between the temple and the altar. Then the anger and envy of Herod grew stronger; and he sent an army into all parts of his region to seize John.

But Elizabeth was seen by the soldiers on the mountain, carrying John her son and fleeing as fast as she could. They therefore strove to get possession of her. She cried out, saying: "Mountain of God, save a mother with her son, unjustly harassed." And when she had said these words, there appeared to her and her son an angel of the Lord, who placed them both in safety in the inner parts of the mountain, as though they were hidden in the gardens of Paradise in a very great light. And the angel (fol. 99v) of the Lord was with them both. But the soldiers, having seen the portent that had befallen the two of them, turned aside and fled to the king; to whom they announced the portent that had come about on account of Elizabeth and her son. When these things had been reported to Herod, he was afraid and no longer sent men to search for the two of them; because terror and immense wonder had seized him when he heard how great and how marvellous a portent had happened. Namely, the angel…

〈Then the angel〉 of the Lord showed Elizabeth in the inner mountain a spring of living water leaping up, and a great abundance of loaves, and wild honey which dripped from the rock. And he said to her: "Wean your son from the breast, and do not give him nourishment from bread, but see that he is fed with honey." Elizabeth therefore did as the angel of God had commanded her, and weaned her son from the breast and gave him food of honey. Elizabeth did not yet know of the slaying of Zechariah her husband. And the angel (fol. 100) of the Lord said to her: "Elizabeth!" She said: "What do you command, lord?" He said to her: "Herod the king has killed Zechariah, the father of this boy. But you, rise quickly; take your son and go to the house of your father and be there until your son John has grown up." Then he gave her a vessel full of wild honey, saying: "Feed this infant with this, because he is to be a great prophet in Israel." And he led her out of the mountain and showed her the way she should keep, and departed from her. Elizabeth therefore went away into the house of her father, and in bringing up her son she used the method which the angel of the Lord had commanded her Here the Coislin codex ends..

And the boy grew and came to manhood, and dwelt in the desert until he showed himself to (the people of) Israel. His food was locusts and wild honey, 〈and he was〉 clothed in the skin and hair of a camel, and (fol. 100v) he did not drink strong drink. And in those days the spirit of the Lord came upon him to preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And multitudes came to him from (the city of) Jerusalem and from the land of Judaea, confessing their sins. And he baptized them in the river Jordan. And he saw the Lord Christ coming to him with the crowds, to be baptized by him, and he said: "Behold the lamb of God, who bears the sins of the world." And after the Lord had been baptized, while he was in the water, (John) saw the heaven opened, and the Holy Spirit settled upon him like a dove, and the voice of the Father cried out, saying: "This is my most dear son, in whom I am well pleased: obey him." To whom be the kingdom and power and dignity and adoration and praise, now and always and unto the eternity of ages. Amen.

§ VI. Synaxaria and Menologia.

[57] They chant the customary story, for the most part After we have set out the various fables by which the story of Zechariah was either augmented or adulterated, and have followed their origins, growth and offshoots as far as the condition of this work allowed, it is not worth the trouble to examine more deeply the testimonies collected from the hagiographical books, which are nothing but the last receptacles of these narratives. It will suffice, then, to have mentioned them in very few words.

[58] The Synaxarium of Constantinople, The Synaxarium of the church of Constantinople Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, pp. 15–16. artfully fused the old παράδοσιν which we learned from Origen and the other fable which grew together with the Protevangelium. For it feigns that the Jews, angered with Zechariah because he had placed the Mother of God in the rank of the virgins, did not indeed lay hands on him at once, but, awaiting their opportunity, roused Herod against Zechariah when he was decreeing the slaughter of the infants; and that at his command Zechariah was dragged by his fellow citizens to the place where he had set Mary after her childbirth, and there shed his blood. The elogium is concluded in almost the same words that are read in the book on the Lives of the Prophets: Ὃν λαβόντες οἱ ἱερεῖς ἔθαψαν and what follows See num. 29, p. 12..

[59] The Menologion of Basil The Menologion of Basil is entirely silent about the Origenian little narrative. Of the other it has this: Ἀκούσασα δὲ ἡ μήτηρ Ἰωάννου ὅτι μέλλει Ἡρώδης ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων βασιλεὺς φονεύειν τὰ ἐν Βηθλεὲμ βρέφη, βουλόμενος καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς φονεύειν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τότε μετὰ μῆνας ἓξ τῆς αὐτοῦ κυήσεως, ἔκρυψεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. Ἐπιζητήσας δὲ τοῦτον ὁ Ἡρώδης καὶ μὴ εὑρών, προσέταξε σφαγῆναι τὸν πατέρρα αὐτοῦ Ζαχαρίαν μέσον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὅτι ἐκεῖ προσέφυγε φοβηθείς [Let what was noted above about James of Edessa (num. 33, p. 13) be recalled here.], καὶ χεθῆναι τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν ναόν. Ἐσφάγη οὖν, καὶ ἔρριψαν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ κρημνῷ. Οἱ δὲ συγγενεῖς αὐτοῦ ἀναλαβόμενοι τὸ λείψανον αὐτοῦ κατέθεντο ἐν τῷ τάφῳ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ Menologium Graecorum, part I (Urbino, 1727), p. 16.

But the mother of John, hearing that Herod, the king of the Jews, was about to slay the infants in Bethlehem, wishing to slay together with them our Lord Jesus Christ too, then, six months after his conception, hid him in the cave beyond the Jordan. And Herod, having sought him and not found him, ordered his father Zechariah to be slaughtered in the midst of the altar, because he had fled there in fear, and his blood to be poured out in the temple. He was slaughtered, then, and they threw him over the precipice. And his kinsmen, taking up his remains, laid them in the tomb of his fathers.

[60] and the Armenian Synaxarium; The Armenian Synaxarium (Constantinople, 1834), vol. II, p. 116. I could not obtain another copy. first relates the Gospel history briefly, no differently from the two books just mentioned. Then it continues thus:

But Herod, when he was slaughtering the infants of Bethlehem, decided to kill John too. And so Elizabeth, taking up the boy, fled into the wilderness; the guards, having overtaken (them), wished to kill them. But, God protecting them, the boy together with his mother was saved, lying hidden in the caves of the mountains () until the guards returned to Herod with empty hands. Then John was brought up among the shepherds in the wilderness, while Elizabeth, having returned home

completed the days of her life in peace. But Zechariah, handed over into the hands of Herod the king, was killed between the temple and the altar, and his body was thrown into some ditch (). Pious men carried it out and buried it in the tomb of his fathers; some also collected his blood in little flasks and linen cloths. There follows a testimony about these relics, which we shall report below.

[61] the Alexandrian We have already said that in the Coptic synaxarium two elogia of our Zechariah follow one another Num. 35, p. 14.. The latter of these has been written out in the place cited. Of the other, the beginning is recited from the Gospel; afterwards the fable well known to us is set out in this manner:

After Christ the Lord was born, the Magi came to adore him. Herod, disturbed, feared for his kingdom: for which reason he sent (assassins) and killed all the infants of Bethlehem of two years and not yet two years, thinking that among their number Christ the Lord would be killed. But an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream: and so Joseph the carpenter, taking Christ the Lord and Mary his mother, went away into Egypt. And Elizabeth his mother took John and went out into the mountain, (where), remaining six years, she brought up the boy: then she died. The boy remained in the wilderness until he showed himself to the Israelites. And when the infants were being killed, Herod, fearing also that John might be the Messiah, sent (messengers) to demand him from his father Zechariah. He said to him: "Where the boy and his mother are I do not know." Then (Herod) threatened him with death. But he was not at all frightened by him. And so (Herod) commanded the soldiers to kill him. And he was slain between the temple and the altar. But the Lord hid his body; and his blood, congealing, became as it were a stone. Moreover, when the people and the priests had come to him and did not find him, as they were accustomed, at prayer and sacrifice, one of the priests went to the altar and found his blood become like a stone. And a voice was heard in the temple crying: "Zechariah the son of Barachiah has been slain; whose blood shall cry out until his avenger comes." — This is not the Zechariah son of Barachiah who is numbered among the twelve minor prophets. For that one was not slain, but died in the land of Uraianus , another reading Uzaianus, Ulanus, Uratus: , where his body was found whole and incorrupt, and a church was built in his name. But the body of this Zechariah was never found, but only the blood which was the testimony of his slaying…

[62] and the Ethiopian The Abyssinian would differ not at all from the Coptic synaxarium, if the Ethiopians could have been ignorant of the hiding-place in which John was concealed. It is said among them that Elizabeth fled with her son into the wilderness of Sinai, and died there after the seventh year From cod. Bibl. Nat. Paris. aethiop. no. 126, fols. 9v–10.:

And (Elizabeth) fled into the waste of Sinai, and remained there nursing the boy seven years. Then, when his mother had died, the boy was left alone in the desert until he showed himself to the people of Israel.

[63] concerning the death of Elizabeth Two things here are worth noting.

a) In the little narratives we have so far collected, we do not read that Elizabeth died in the wilderness where she had hidden her son, except in James of Edessa Above, num. 33, p. 13.. That fiction, however, was not peculiar to James. Namely, in the encomium of John the Baptist which Francesco Rossi published in Sahidic [Trascrizione di tre manoscritti copti del museo Egizio di Torino, Memorie della reale Accademia delle scienze di Torino, second series, vol. XXXVII (1886), p. 124, a.], Elizabeth is brought in addressing her son in these words:

Herod sought the Christ; he killed all the little ones who were in Bethlehem. And I fled with you into the wilderness, when you were a little one. On your account your father was slain. Nor did I cease to be a fugitive with you in the wilderness, until I went out of the body…

they report a Greek fiction; The last words are mutilated; yet they scarcely admit another interpretation [What F. Rossi adds, divining rather than interpreting, e tu mi hai seppellito and you buried me (p. 165), is most uncertain.]. However that may be, Cedrenus speaks most openly: Μετὰ δὲ δύο ἔτη ἐποίησε τὴν βρεφοκτονίαν Ἡρώδης καὶ τὸν Ζαχαρίαν ἔσωθεν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἀνεῖλε λειτουργοῦντα. Ἡ δὲ Ἐλισάβετ λαβοῦσα τὸν Ἰωάννην ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον καὶ ἐκρύβη ἐν σπηλαίῳ ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν. Ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ὁδηγηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ ἀνατραφεὶς ἔμεινεν ἕως τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναδείξεως Historiarum compendium, ed. Bekker, vol. I (Bonn, 1838), pp. 328–29..

And after two years Herod carried out the slaughter of the infants, and slew Zechariah within the altar as he was ministering. And Elizabeth, taking John, went out into the desert and hid in a cave forty days, and died. And John, guided in the desert by the angel and brought up in it, remained until the showing forth of the Lord.

Not to say much, there is not the least doubt that to the many-shaped variety of narratives which we already know, other many-coloured fables would have to be added, had not time worn them away.

[64] they interpolate the story of another Zechariah, b) The mention of the prophet Zechariah which crept into the elogium of the Coptic synaxarium can scarcely be anything other than a rather inept depravation of the story which is read in Sozomen [Historia ecclesiastica, book IX, chap. 17, ed. R. Hussey (Oxford, 1860), pp. 917–19.]. The name of the place from which the sacred body is said to have been dug up differs, indeed, and the son of Barachiah has been substituted for the son of Jehoiada. But dissimilarities of this kind are trifling in the style of the Alexandrian synaxarium and do not obscure the origin of the testimony in question, as will appear more clearly a little later Num. 83, p. 23..

[65] They commemorate St. Elizabeth on a proper day. A particular memory of St. Elizabeth is held in the Coptic synaxarium at the sixteenth day of the month Amshir and in the Ethiopic at the same day (17 Yakatit). The writer of the elogium, after a few prefatory words about the holy woman's lineage, pursues with oratorical eloquence the subject taken from the Gospel. Of the fictitious history of Elizabeth, which he himself had reported elsewhere, he does not say even a word [This part of the Coptic synaxarium is so far unpublished. See meanwhile F. Wüstenfeld, Synaxarium das ist Heiligen-Kalender der Coptischen Christen (Gotha, 1879), pp. 303–304. We have read and written out the Ethiopic synaxarium from cod. Bibl. Nat. Paris. aethiop. 126, fol. 185v, col. 3 – fol. 186, col. 2.].

§ VII. Various mentions of SS. Zechariah and Elizabeth.

[66] Of SS. Zechariah and Elizabeth We heap together here the scattered testimonies about SS. Zechariah and Elizabeth which occur in various places. Whoever is able to work this dust and make something useful out of it, him we congratulate from the heart.

[67] they invented the lineage On the lineage of Zechariah and Elizabeth and their kinship with the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph. Since the Gospel had kept silent on these, different men devised them for themselves in different ways. Let the account of Andrew of Crete serve as an example.

Andrew of Crete, Εἰκοστὸς τρίτος ἀπὸ γένους Δαυῒδ καὶ Σολομῶντος εὑρίσκεται ὁ Ματθάν· ὃς ἔγημε Μαρίαν ἐκ τῆς Ἰούδα φυλῆς καὶ ἐγέννησεν Ἰακὼβ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ τέκτονος καὶ θυγατέρας τρεῖς· Μαρίαν, Σοβὴ καὶ Ἄνναν. Καὶ ἡ μὲν Μαρία γεννᾷ Σαλώμην τὴν μαίαν· ἡ δὲ Σοβὴ γεννᾷ Ἐλισάβετ· ἡ δὲ Ἄννα γεννᾷ τὴν θεοτόκον· ὡς εἶναι τὴν θεοτόκον ἑγγόνην Ματθὰν καὶ Μαρίας τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ, τὴν δὲ Ἐλισάβετ καὶ τὴν Σαλώμην ἀνεψιὰς μὲν τῆς Ἄννης, ἐξαδελφὰς δὲ τῆς θεοτόκου P. G., vol. XCVII, p. 1325; cf. Diekamp, Hyppolytos von Theben, pp. 41–42..

Twenty-third from the line of David and Solomon is found Matthan; who married Mary of the tribe of Judah and begot Jacob, the father of the carpenter, and three daughters: Mary, Sobe and Anna. And Mary bears Salome the midwife; and Sobe bears Elizabeth; and Anna bears the Mother of God; so that the Mother of God is the granddaughter of Matthan and of Mary his wife, while Elizabeth and Salome are nieces of Anna and first cousins of the Mother of God.

The same pedigree, augmented with other inventions, is read in Cosmas Vestitor, and in a quite similar form, under the name of Hippolytus of Thebes, in the Ὑπομνηστικῷ of Joseph, in the hundred and sixth chapter; which Franz Diekamp contends is spurious L. c., pp. LVI, 150–51..

[68] Hippolytus of Thebes, Otherwise Hippolytus of Thebes: Ἰάκωβος δὲ ὁ γεγονὼς ἐπίσκοπος πρῶτος ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἀδελφὸς μὲν τοῦ Κυρίου κατὰ σάρκα λέγεται εἶναι, υἱὸς δὲ τοῦ τέκτονος Ἰωσήφ ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς βιωτικῆς αὐτοῦ γυναικός, ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Ἰωσῆ. Τέσσαρας γὰρ υἱοὺς ἔσχεν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ δύο θυγατέρας, τήν τε Ἐσθὴρ καὶ τὴν Μάρθαν ἐκ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ τῆς Σαλώμης, θυγατρὸς Ἀγγαίου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἱερέως, τοῦ πατρὸς Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ, υἱοῦ Βαραχίου τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἀβιᾶ τοῦ ἱερέως (καὶ τότε ἐχήρευσεν Ἰωσήφ)· ὠς εἶναι τὴν Σαλώμην καὶ τὸν βαπτιστὴν Ἰωάννην ἀδελφῶν τέκνα ἀρρενικῶν. Ὁ γὰρ Ἀγγαῖος υἱὸς Βαραχίου, θεῖος δὲ Ἰωάννου. Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ Ζαχαρίας ἀδελφὸς Ἀγγαίου, θεῖος δὲ Σαλώμης τῆς γυναικὸς Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ τέκτονος. Σαλώμην δέ φημι οὐ τὴν μαίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ τέκτονος Ἰωσήφ. Ἡ γὰρ μαία ἀπὸ Βηθλεὲμ ἐτύγχανεν, ἀνεψιὰ καὶ αὐτὴ οὖσα τῆς Ἐλισάβετ καὶ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου Μαρίας· καὶ δηλοῖ τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν. εὐαγγέλιον.

James, who became the first bishop at the hands of the apostles, is said to be the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, but he is the son of Joseph the carpenter by his wife in ordinary life, brother of Simon and Judas and Joses. For Joseph had four sons and two daughters, Esther and Martha, by his wife Salome, daughter of Haggai, the brother of Zechariah the priest, the father of John the Baptist, son of Barachiah, son of Abijah the priest (and then Joseph was widowed); so that Salome and John the Baptist are children of brothers. For Haggai was the son of Barachiah and the uncle of John. Likewise Zechariah too was the brother of Haggai and the uncle of Salome, the wife of Joseph the carpenter. And I mean Salome not the midwife, but the wife of Joseph the carpenter. For the midwife happened to be from Bethlehem, being herself also a niece of Elizabeth and of the holy Virgin Mary; and the Gospel according to Luke shows it.

Τρεῖς γὰρ ἦσαν ἀδελφαὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλεὲμ θυγατέρες Ματθὰν τοῦ ἱερέως καὶ Μαρίας τῆς αὐτοῦ γυναικός, ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας κλεοπάτρας καὶ Σώπαρος τοῦ Πέρσου, πρὸ τῆς βασιλείας Ἡρῴδου υἱοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου. Ὄνομα τῇ πρώτῃ Μαριάμ, καὶ ὄνομα τῇ δευτέρᾳ Σοββή, καὶ ὄνομα τῇ τρίτῃ Ἄννα. Ἔγημέν τε ἡ πρώτη ἐν Βηθλεὲμ καὶ ἔτεκεν Σαλώμην τὴν μαίαν. Ἔγημεν καὶ ἡ δευτέρα ἐν Βηθλεὲμ καὶ ἔτεκεν τὴν Ἐλισάβετ. Ἔγημεν δὲ καὶ ἡ τρίτη εἰς τὴν γῆν τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐγγέννησεν Μαρίαν τὴν θεοτόκον. Ὡς εἶναι τήν τε Σαλώμην καὶ τὴν Ἐλισάβετ καὶ τὴν ἁγίαν Μαρίαν τὴν θεοτόκον θυγατέρας ἀδελφῶν τριῶν θηλειῶν. Ἐντεῦθεν οὖν ὁ βαπτιστὴς Ἰωάννης καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ἀνεψιοὶ λέγονται εἶναι. Υἱὸς δὲ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ λέγεται, ἐπειδὴ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γυναικὸς ἀδελφός ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς συναναστροφῆς καὶ τῆς συγγενείας τοῦ Ἀγγαίου ἀδελφοῦ Ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἱερέως Diekamp, l. c., pp. 7–10; cf. pp. 14–15..

For there were three sisters from Bethlehem, daughters of Matthan the priest and of Mary his wife, in the reign of Cleopatra and Soparos the Persian, before the reign of Herod son of Antipater. The name of the first was Mariam, and the name of the second Sobbe, and the name of the third Anna. And the first married in Bethlehem and bore Salome the midwife. The second also married in Bethlehem and bore Elizabeth. And the third married into the land of Galilee and bore Mary the Mother of God. So that Salome and Elizabeth and holy Mary the Mother of God are daughters of three sisters. Hence, then, John the Baptist and our Lord are said to be cousins. And he is called the son of Joseph, since he is the brother of his sons by his first wife, through the association and the kinship of Haggai, the brother of Zechariah the priest.

[69] the synaxarists, With these let us compare the synaxaria. See that of Constantinople at the eighth day of September, on the nativity of the Mother of God.

The Alexandrian synaxarium on the feast of St. Elizabeth Wüstenfeld, l. c., pp. 303–304.:

This saint was from the city of Jerusalem. The name of her mother was Sophia. And her father was called Mathat, son of Levi, son of Malchi, of the stock of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi. She was a kinswoman of the Lady, the mother of our God. For Mathat son of Levi had three daughters. The eldest, Mary by name, was the mother of Salome, who was present as midwife, as it were, to our Lady at the most wonderful nativity (of Christ). The second, Sophia by name, was the mother of this St. Elizabeth. The youngest, Anna by name, bore the holy Lady Mary. And so Salome, Elizabeth and Mary each had as her mother the maternal aunt of the others.

The Ethiopian wrote this out in his usual manner (l. c.).

[70] Isho'dad the Syrian, Isho'dad of Merv, in his commentary on the New

Testament, which Margaret Dunlop Gibson is shortly to publish, set up another pedigree, which E. Nestle indicated very briefly [The Relation of Mary and Elisabeth, The Expository Times, vol. XVII (1905), p. 140.], in this way: Elizabeth was the daughter of Anon, and had a sister Dina: of whom and of her husband Sadoc was born Mary the Mother of God. And Sadoc was the son of Zotham, son of Eliezer; by which Eliezer was begotten Mathan, the father of Jacob, who was the father of St. Joseph. These few examples show more than enough how freely tradition has wandered through pathless and precipitous places. others. Nor is there leisure to report what, as the centuries passed, various writers each added of his own in so unpunished a licence of inventing.

[71] Zechariah in the protevangelium is said to have the Virgin Mary, On what Zechariah did with the Blessed Virgin. Protevangelium of James, VIII, 2 – X Tischendorf, Evang. apocr., pp. 16–21.:

Γενομένης δὲ αὐτῆς δωδεκαετοῦς συμβούλιον ἐγένετο τῶν ἱερέων λεγόντων· &ldquogr;Ἰδοὺ ἡ Μαρία γέγονεν δωδεκαετὴς ἐν τῷ ναῷ Κυρίου· τί οὖν αὐτὴν ποιήσωμεν μήπως μιάνῃ τὸ ἁγίασμα Κυρίου;&rdquogr; Καὶ εἶπον τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ· &ldquogr;Σὺ ἕστηκας ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον Κυρίου, εἴσελθε καὶ πρόσευξαι περὶ αὐτῆς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν φανερώσει σοι Κύριος, τοῦτο καὶ ποιήσωμεν.&rdquogr; Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς λαβὼν τὸν δωδεκακώδωνα εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, καὶ ηὔξατο περὶ αὐτης. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἐπέστη λέγων αὐτῷ· &ldquogr;Ζαχαρία, Ζαχαρία, ἔξελθε καὶ έκκλησίασον τοὺς χηρεύοντας τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ ἐνεγκάτωσαν ἅμὰ ῥάβδον, καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν ἐπιδείξῃ Κύριος σημεῖον, τούτου ἔσται γυνή.&rdquogr; Ἐξῆλθον δὲ οἱ κήρυκες καθ᾽ ὅλης περιχώρου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ ἤχησεν ἡ σάλπιγξ Κυρίου, καὶ ἔδραμον πάντες. admonished by God, Ἱωσὴφ δὲ ῥίψας τὸ σκέπαρνον ἐξῆλθεν εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῶν· καὶ συναχθέντες ἀπῆλθον πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα, λαβόντες τὰς ῥάβδους. Λαβὼν δὲ ἁπάντων τὰς ῥάβδους εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ηὔξατο. Τελέσας δὲ τὴν εὐχὴν ἔλαβε τὰς ῥάβδους καὶ ἐξῆλθε καὶ ἐπέδωκεν αὐτοῖς· καὶ σημεῖον οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐταῖς. Τὴν δὲ ἐσχάτην ῥάβδον ἔλαβεν Ἰωσήφ· καὶ ἰδοὺ περιστερὰ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τῆς ῥάβδου καὶ ἐπετάσθη ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰωσήφ. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἱερεὺς τῷ Ἰωσήφ· &ldquogr;Σὺ κεκλήρωσαι τὴν παρθένον Κυρίου παραλαβεῖν εἰς τήρησιν ἑαυτῷ.&rdquogr; Καὶ ἀντεῖπεν Ἰωσὴφ λέγων· &ldquogr;Υἱοὺς ἔχω καὶ πρεσβύτης εἰμί, αὕτη δὲ νεᾶνις· μήπως περίγελως γένωμαι τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ.&rdquogr; Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἱερεὺς τῷ Ἰωσήφ· &ldquogr;Φοβήθητι Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου, καὶ μνήσθητι ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς Δαθὰν καὶ Ἀβειρὼν καὶ Κορέ, πῶς ἐδιχάσθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατεπόθησαν διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν αὐτῶν. entrusted to St. Joseph Καὶ νῦν φοβήθητι, Ἰωσήφ, μήπως ἔσται ταῦτα ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου.&rdquogr; Καὶ φοβηθεὶς Ἰωσὴφ παρέλαβεν αὐτὴν εἰς τήρησιν ἑαυτῷ… and the tasks of the virgins Ἐγένετο δὲ συμβούλιον τῶν ἱερέων λεγόντων· &ldquogr;Ποιήσωμεν καταπέτασμα τῷ ναῷ Κυρίου.&rdquogr; Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἱερεύς· &ldquogr;Καλέσατέ μοι παρθένους ἀμιάντους ἀπὸ τῆς φυλῆς Δαυΐδ.&rdquogr; Καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται καὶ ἐζήτησαν καὶ εὗρον ἑπτὰ παρθένους. Καὶ ἐμνήσθη ὁ ἱερεὺς τῆς παιδὸς Μαριάμ, ὅτι ἦν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Δαυΐδ, καὶ ἀμιάντος ἦν τῷ Θεῷ. Καὶ ἀπῆλθον οἱ ὑπηρέται καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰσήγαγον αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ ναῷ Κυρίου. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἱερεύς· &ldquogr;Λάχετε μοι τίς νήσει τὸ χρυσίον καὶ τὸ ἀμίαντον καὶ τὴν βύσσον καὶ τὸ σηρικὸν καὶ τὸ ὑακίνθινον καὶ τὸ κόκκινον καὶ τὴν ἀληθινὴν πορφύραν. conferred upon her;" Καὶ ἔλαχεν τὴν Μαριὰμ ἡ ἀληθινὴ πορφύρα καὶ τὸ κόκκινον, καὶ λαβοῦσα ἀπίει εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς. Τῷ δὲ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐσίγησεν Ζαχαρίας; καὶ ἐγένετο ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ Σαμουήλ, μέχρις ὅτου ἐλάλησεν Ζαχαρίας…

And when she became twelve years old, there was a council of the priests, saying: "Behold, Mary has become twelve years old in the temple of the Lord; what then shall we do with her, lest she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?" And they said to the high priest: "You stand at the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord reveals to you, that let us do." And the high priest went in, taking the vestment with the twelve bells, into the holy of holies, and prayed concerning her. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by, saying to him: "Zechariah, Zechariah, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each a rod, and to whomever the Lord shows a sign, his wife she shall be." And the heralds went out through all the surrounding country of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran. And Joseph, throwing down his adze, went out to meet them; and having gathered together they went to the high priest, taking their rods. And he, taking the rods of them all, went into the temple and prayed. And having finished the prayer he took the rods and went out and gave them back to them; and there was no sign on them. But the last rod Joseph took; and behold, a dove came out of the rod and flew onto the head of Joseph. And the priest said to Joseph: "You have been chosen by lot to take the virgin of the Lord into your keeping." And Joseph objected, saying: "I have sons and I am an old man, but she is a girl; lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel." And the priest said to Joseph: "Fear the Lord your God, and remember what God did to Dathan and Abiram and Korah, how the earth was divided and they were swallowed up on account of their gainsaying. And now fear, Joseph, lest these things happen in your house." And Joseph, being afraid, took her into his keeping… And there was a council of the priests, saying: "Let us make a veil for the temple of the Lord." And the priest said: "Call to me undefiled virgins of the tribe of David." And the officers went away and sought and found seven virgins. And the priest remembered the child Mariam, that she was of the tribe of David and was undefiled before God. And the officers went away and brought her. And they brought them into the temple of the Lord. And the priest said: "Cast lots for me, who shall spin the gold and the white and the fine linen and the silk and the blue and the scarlet and the true purple." And the true purple and the scarlet fell by lot to Mariam, and taking them she went away to her house. And at that time Zechariah fell silent; and Samuel took his place, until Zechariah spoke…

Of the questioning of Mary and Joseph before Zechariah we have spoken briefly before Num. 22–23, pp. 10–11..

[72] he sees Gabriel ministering to her. On the visions of Zechariah in the temple. Pantaleon the deacon, in the encomium of Gabriel the archangel, has this about Zechariah (from the Paris codex 1519, pp. 303–304).

[γ᾽] Ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶ προφήτῃ Ζαχαρίᾳ ἐν τῷ ναῷ θυμιῶντι αὐτὸς ἔφησεν ἐν γήρει τεκεῖν τὸν Πρόδρομον ὁπηνίκα καὶ τὴν ἀφωνίαν αὐτῷ δέδωκεν τὸ τῆς ἀπιστίας ἐπιτίμιον. [δ᾽] Τὸν αὐτὸν οὖν θειότατον Γαβριὴλ ἐθεάσατο πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς Ζαχαρίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων κομίζοντα τροφὴν οὐρανόθεν τῇ θεομήτωρι In Latin in Migne, P. L., CXL, cols. 588–89..

[3] But to the prophet Zechariah too, as he offered incense in the temple, he himself said that he would beget the Forerunner in old age, at which time he also gave him dumbness as the penalty of his unbelief. [4] The same most divine Gabriel, then, the same Zechariah beheld again bringing food from heaven into the holy of holies to the Mother of God.

That fiction was certainly fairly ancient: being very like the one which Muhammad already embellished in the Koran Sura III, verse 32. Cf. Protevangelium, VIII, 1 (Tischendorf, p. 16)..

[73] The Angel's message to Elizabeth. On the conception of John the Baptist. The Barbarus Scaligeri, shortly after narrating that the angel was seen by Zechariah in the temple, adds this mention foreign to the Gospel:

In these times the angel announced to Elizabeth concerning John, in the same consulship of Lentulus and Silvanus, on the 8th day before the kalends of April Mommsen, Chronica minora, p. 276; cf. Frick, p. 334..

[74] The Ethiopians believe Zechariah was killed by Herod himself. On the death of Zechariah. With I know not what intention the Ethiopic translator of the Protevangelium so twisted the old narrative that king Herod was said to have slaughtered Zechariah with his own hand:

Then king Herod, rising by night, went into the temple of the Lord, where Zechariah the priest was, and killed him in that very place; nor was there ever anyone of the sons of Israel who found it out In Mar. Chaine, Le Cycle de la Vierge, l. c., pp. 193–94..

[75] Dreams of the Muhammadans. Finally, so that it may be seen by what channels, as it were, these fables diffused themselves, it will not be superfluous to point out a portent which, among many other most absurd things, the Muhammadans have sung about Zechariah. For they say that Zechariah, when he was accused by the Jews of having corrupted the Virgin Mary, asked God that the trunk of a tree might open; and when he had hidden himself in it, the tree closed up again; this tree, the devil betraying him, was cut by the Jews, and Zechariah was not found See, for example, Tabari, Annales, ed. de Goeje, ser. I, vol. II, p. 734.. Perhaps this insane dream was given its origin by some rather obscure recollection of the miracle which St. Elizabeth was repeatedly said to have worked in the rock.

[76] The Apocryphon of Zechariah. Concerning the words πατρὸς Ἰωάννου attached to the name of Zechariah in that series τῆς στιχομετρίας which is called Nicephorus's, where the apocryphal works of the Old Testament are enumerated [Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica, ed. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880), p. 135; Th. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. II, 2 (Erlangen, 1890), p. 300.], it would be idle to dispute in this place. What that "apocryphon of Zechariah" seems to have in common with the little narratives reported earlier the reader will be taught in Alexander Berendts Studien, p. 9 and following..

CHAPTER THREE

On the cult of SS. Zechariah and Elizabeth.

§ I. On the tomb of St. Zechariah.

[77] The tomb of Zechariah entirely unknown If the monuments of antiquity have ever clearly demonstrated anything, the written documents which we collected in the foregoing investigation evidently show that the very men who first composed, or rather fabricated, them did not even suspect any tradition which fixed the tomb of Zechariah in a certain place. Indeed, after his slaying began to be narrated in a certain customary form, most writers either kept silent about the grave and bones of the holy man, or each spoke contrary things at his own pleasure.

[78] A) The Protevangelium and other little books of the kind deny that the body of Zechariah was ever found. different men placed it in different places, — B) The Coptic discourse which was published at num. 32 feigns that it was buried by Herod's soldiers in the same grave with the little ones of Bethlehem. — C) Pseudo-Eurippus narrates that the corpse of Zechariah, brought by angels from I know not where, was laid beneath the altar of the temple, which temple that deceiver imagines stood in the city of Bethlehem. — D) The little book on the Lives of the Prophets, according to the Paris copy, assigns the grave of Zechariah to Jerusalem, as it seems, ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ ἐχόμενα τοῦ ναοῦ Κυρίου Above, num. 30, p. 12.. — E) With this fable must in some way be joined the rumour which the Muslim traveller Ali of Herat heard at Jerusalem shortly before the year 1191: that the tomb of Zechariah lies hidden in the cave which is now called the cave of souls (), beneath that hallowed rock which lies under the dome of the shrine of Omar [Ch. Schefer, Aboul Hassan Aly el Herewy, Indication sur les lieux de pèlerinage (extraits), Archives de l'Orient latin, vol. I (Paris, 1881), p. 600.] (). — F) The Synaxarium of the church of Constantinople, twisting the book on the Lives of the Prophets in its own way too, will have it that Zechariah was buried by the priests μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ P. 16.. — G) Hippolytus of Thebes asserts that the body of Zechariah was thrown into the valley of Jehoshaphat: Ἐν τῷ γὰρ ἱερατεύειν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος λιθοβολήσαντες αὐτὸν καὶ κροταφήσαντες (ed. κροταφίσαντες) ἀπέκτειναν καὶ σύραντες ἐκρήμνησαν (ed. ἐκρέμνησαν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κοιλάδα τοῦ Ἰωσαφάτ Diekamp, p. 2, cf. p. 11, and the editor's note, p. 78.. The origin of this opinion we conjecture to be of this kind.

[79] others in the valley of Jehoshaphat, Over against the temple, at the very foot of the Mount of Olives, stood very ancient tombs, one of which, which still stands today [Cf. F. de Saulcy, Histoire de l'art judaïque, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1864), pp. 225, 261–63.], had from the most ancient time been famous under the name of the prophet Zechariah, who in the opinion of the Jews, we do not doubt, was the son of Jehoiada. Those who thought the ancient high priest had been laid there could feign, in keeping both with the place and with the story, that his body after the slaying had been committed was thrown down from the elevated temple area into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and that in this way the bloody traces had been imprinted which the simpler brethren, to use Jerome's words, used to point out at the outlets of the gates which lead to Siloam P. L., vol. XXVII, col. 174; cf. above, num. 26., not far from that part of the valley where, on the opposite slope, stands the monument of Zechariah. And now, after the memory of that slaying was transferred to the father of John, the tomb too must have passed to him, which, both by nearness of place and by popular opinion, was usually connected with the story of the bloodied rock. Moreover, the words of Hippolytus agree wonderfully with the Basilian Menologion, where the little narrative of the book on the Lives of the Prophets is seen depraved once again in another way Above, num. 59..

[80] The same monument seems to be designated by Theodosius the travel-writer: Saint James … was laid on the Mount of Olives. Saint James himself and Saint Zechariah and Saint Simeon in one memorial

were laid, which memorial Saint James himself built; he himself laid their bodies there and commanded that he be laid there with them Geyer, Itin. Hierosol., l. c., p. 142.. This testimony Gregory of Tours copied in almost the same words: James the apostle … gave up his spirit and was buried on the Mount of Olives in the memorial which he had previously built for himself, and in which he had buried Zechariah and Simeon [In gloria martyrum, ed. B. Krusch, MG., Scriptores rerum merovingicarum vol. I, p. 503.]. This opinion passed to not a few pilgrims of a later age.

[81] some at Sebaste, A tomb of Zechariah is also mentioned at Sebaste in Samaria, near Neapolis. The authors of this opinion are for the most part Muhammadan writers from the twelfth century onward. Let one be heard, Yaqut, in his geographical lexicon:

Sebastia is a village in the parts of Palestine, two days distant from the Holy City. There is the tomb of Zechariah and of John () the son of Zechariah — peace be upon both! — and of several of the prophets and holy men [Ferd. Wüstenfeld, Iacut's geographisches Wörterbuch, vol. III (Leipzig, 1868), p. 33.].

The origin of this opinion, whether it ever prevailed among Christians or found credit only among the Muslims, is not at all obscure. From a fairly ancient time the grave of John the Baptist was venerated at Sebaste. A place sacred to the son could not long lack some memorial of the parents. And so the custodians of the place provided themselves with a small urn in which the body of Zechariah was said once to have been kept, as John Phocas says (in the year 1177). He, having reported that there was shown at Sebaste the prison into which John was believed to have been cast by Herod, describes this sanctuary in these words: Ἡ δὲ τοιαύτη φυλακή ἐστιν ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν, ἔχουσα βαθμίδας ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν ἕως αὐτῆς εἴκοσιν, ἐν δὲ τῷ μέσῳ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχει θυσιαστήριον περὶ τὸν τόπον καθ᾽ ὃν ἀπεκεφαλίσθη ὑπὸ τοῦ σπεκουλάτορος. Δεξιᾷ δὲ τοῦ τοιούτου θυσιαστηρίου ἐστὶ λαρνάκιον ἐν ᾧ ἐτεθησαύριστο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἁγίου Ζαχαρίου τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ προδρόμου. Ἐν δὲ τῷ εὐωνύμῳ ἕτερον λαρνάκιον ἐν ᾧ ἐστι κείμενον τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁγίας Ἐλισάβετ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ [Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens Grecs, vol. I (Paris, 1875), p. 537.].

This prison is under the ground, having twenty steps from above down to it, and in the middle of it there is an altar, about the place where he was beheaded by the executioner. To the right of this altar is a small coffer in which the body of St. Zechariah, the father of the Forerunner, had been stored. And on the left another small coffer, in which lies the body of St. Elizabeth his mother.

Then, from this chest which was thought at one time to have contained the body of Zechariah (ἐτεθησαύριστο), some inept rumour made a tomb in which his bones actually rested. The grave of St. Elizabeth, however, which was set up in this place as if to heap up the fraud, all antiquity knew to exist nowhere.

[82] some also at Beth-Zechariah. We may neglect in this place the sayings of the pilgrims who venerated our Zechariah in the church of the little village of Beth-Zechariah near Eleutheropolis, where report had it that the body of the prophet Zechariah was found in the fifth century. See what will presently be set out.

§ II. On the relics of St. Zechariah.

[83] The relics of Zechariah brought to Constantinople, The Chronicon paschale narrates that in the year 415 the relics of St. Zechariah were brought to Constantinople Dindorf, l. c., vol. I, pp. 572–73.: Καὶ ἐκομίσθη ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει διὰ τῆς Χαλκηδονησίας σκάλας λείψανα Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ζαχαρίου τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ μηνὶ γορπιαίῳ πρὸ ς᾽ νωνῶν σεπτεμβρίων ἡμέρᾳ σαββάτῳ, βασταζόντων τὰ αὐτὰ λείψανα ἐν γλωσσοκόμοις δυσὶν Ἀττικοῦ πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καὶ Μωσέως ἐπισκόπου Ἀνταράδου Φοινίκης, καθεζομένων αὐτῶν ἐν βουριχαλίοις· ἅτινα ἀπέθεντο ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ προπέμποντος Οὔρσου ἐπάρχου πόλεως καί πάσης τῆς συγκλήτου.

And there were brought into Constantinople by way of the landing-stage of Chalcedon the relics of Joseph the son of Jacob and of Zechariah the father of St. John the Baptist, in the month Gorpiaeus, on the 6th day before the nones of September, on a Saturday, these relics being carried in two caskets by Atticus, patriarch of Constantinople, and Moses, bishop of Antaradus in Phoenicia, seated in carriages; and they deposited them in the great church, Ursus the prefect of the city and the whole senate escorting them.

It will not be superfluous to note that this translation took place at about the time when, in the little field of Caphar Zechariah, which is a village not far from Eleutheropolis in Palestine, the body of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada unexpectedly came to light; which event Sozomen reported, as he himself had heard it Hussey, l. c., p. 917.. Certainly it may be asked, without injury to anyone, whether the sacred bones which were brought to Constantinople in the year 415 have nothing in common with those which had just been dug up at Caphar Zechariah.

[84] they were kept in the Chalkoprateia That the relics of the prophet Zechariah were kept at Constantinople in the church of St. James near the church of the Holy Reliquary in the Chalkoprateia, in the last times of the empire, we can learn from George Codinus De aedificiis Constantinopolitanis, ed. Imm. Bekker (Bonn, 1843), p. 113.: Τὸν ἅγιον Ἰάκωβον τὸν πλησίον αὐτῆς That is, τῆς ἁγίας Σοροῦ. ὁ αὐτὸν Βασιλεὺς Ἰουστῖνος ἀνήγειρεν, ἔνθα εἰσὶν ἐν σοροῖς λείψανα τῶν ἁγίων νηπίων καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Συμεὼν τοῦ θεοδόχου, καὶ προφήτου Ζαχαρίου καὶ Ἰακώβου τοῦ ἀδελφοθέου.

Saint James, the one near it, the same emperor Justin raised up, where there are in coffins the relics of the holy infants and of St. Simeon who received God, and of the prophet Zechariah and of James the brother of God.

Therefore the bones of that prophet Zechariah were venerated in a certain way together with the relics of the little Innocents and of the two saints with whom Zechariah the father of John was thought to rest at Jerusalem in the grave of the valley of Jehoshaphat. For my part I should not condemn of excessive boldness anyone who conjectured that the sacred bones kept at St. James's in the Chalkoprateia were first attributed to our Zechariah, whatever Codinus himself thought. And in very truth other witnesses, who name Zechariah the father of John, seem to designate the same relics as he does.

[85] at Hagia Sophia, Nicholas of Thingeyrar (c. the year 1151): In Constantinople there is a church which is called Hagia Sophia… Here rest also James the brother of the Lord, and Simeon who carried Christ to the altar with the offerings, and Zechariah the father of John the Baptist [In Riant, Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae, vol. II (Geneva, 1878), pp. 213, 215.].

[86] in the imperial chapel. A description of the sanctuary of Constantinople (c. the year 1190): This is the Sanctuary which is at present contained in the imperial chapel at Constantinople… The chin with the cheeks and the back of the head of John the Baptist, the head of James the Less, the head of the just Simeon; the head of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist; of which latter two the bodies rest in the same city Ibid., pp. 216–17..

[87] Antony, bishop of Novgorod (c. the year 1200): In the same church (that is, in the greater chapel of the palace of Boukoleon) rest James the brother of the Lord, St. Zechariah the prophet, half of the Innocents (the other part remaining at Jerusalem)… Ibid., p. 224. Cf. Codinus, above num. 84, and what was noted at num. 32, p. 13..

[88] A finding of the relics of Zechariah obscurely mentioned. In the synaxarium of Constantinople P. 458., at the eleventh day of February, there is recorded: ἡ εὕρεσις τοῦ λειψάνου τοῦ ἁγίου Ζαχαρίου τοῦ πατρὸς Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ. Where, when, and by whom this finding is held to have been made, we can attain by no conjecture.

[89] The head of Zechariah among the Muslims of Damascus. Before we turn to other parts of the East, mention must be made of a rumour which Quaresmius heard by report: that the Muslims of Damascus keep, and on the more solemn feasts display with the greatest pomp, a skull which they contend is the head of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist [Historica, theologica et moralis Terrae Sanctae elucidatio, vol. II (Antwerp, 1639), pp. 875–76.]. What is to be wondered at is surely not that these men peddled this fiction, but that some among the Christians thought it in any way probable.

[90] The Armenians believe In the Armenian synaxarium, in the place which was cited above Num. 60, p. 20., the blood of Zechariah we read that the blood of Zechariah was collected by pious men in linen cloths and little flasks. He would be of a credulous mind who should think he saw here the trace of some obsolete tradition, since that testimony rests on the very narrative to which it pretends to add authority. Let us hear it from the author who first brought it forward.

For that Moses of Uti, or, if you prefer, of Kaghankatuk, who about the tenth century [Agob Manandian, Beiträge zur Albanischen Geschichte (Leipzig, 1897), pp. 18–19. Cf. p. 6. See also L. Alishan, Commentarii de Armenia (), vol. I, Scriptores historiae Armeniae (Venice, 1901), pp. 173–76.] wrote in the Armenian tongue the history of the kingdom of the Albanians [Who, as the pronunciation varied now one way and now another, have also been called Aluani, Alvani, Aghuani, Aghovani. A wandering nation which in those times dwelt beyond the river Cyrus, between Iberia and the Caspian sea.], narrates that St. Gregory [ which name seems to be distinguished by a certain peculiarity from the more common form (Gregory).], grandson of St. Gregory the Illuminator, who they assert preached the Gospel to the Albanians, brought with him relics of St. Zechariah [ (History of the land of the Albanians), ed. J. B. Emin (Moscow, 1860), book I, chap. 14, pp. 25–26. Cf. C. V. Chahnazarian, (Paris, 1860), vol. I, p. 126. That neither of these editions presents the genuine and uncorrupted text has been asserted in the periodical (Ararat) 1895–96. This study we were unable to obtain. See Manandian, op. cit., p. 6.]:

translated into Albania "Taking precaution for all these things," he says, "the blessed man carried off with him a splendid and most precious pledge, relics of the blood of the great high priest and martyr Zechariah, the father of John, and of St. Pantaleon, who, having confessed Christ with glorious testimony, was crowned in the city of Nicomedia. And when he had brought the most holy relics of the martyrs to the great city of Thsri : the chief town of the nation of the Djelbi, concerning which see below. in the dominion of the Albanians, he built a small church there and there with great care laid up part of the blood of Zechariah and of the relics of St. Pantaleon, and left a certain priest to guard the martyrs of Christ and minister to them. And taking the other part of the relics of St. Zechariah and of blessed Pantaleon, he went away into the land of the Moschi" [, in Greek Μόσχοι, whom the old interpreters thought were the Massagetae (Agathangelus, ed. P. de Lagarde, Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen Classe der königlichen Gesellschaft zu Göttingen, vol. XXXV, 1889, p. 146; cf. Hübschmann, op. cit., p. 275, note 2).]. There, after he had suffered martyrdom on the plain of Vatni on the western shore of the Caspian sea, the disciples who had come with him from the village of Haband in the province of Artsakh, in the parts of Albania bordering on the Armenians [Cf. Moses, book I, c. 20, and the History of Armenia of Faustus "of Byzantium," book III, c. 6: (Venice, 1832), pp. 13–15. On the site of the village of Haband (), see H. Hübschmann, Die altarmenischen Ortsnamen (Strassburg, 1904), pp. 266–67, 349.], carried his body to their homeland and laid it in the church of the fortress of Amaras [ (or ) to the north of the river Araxes. Hübschmann, op. cit., p. 350 (from our Moses, book III, c. 20). L. Alishan notes that a larger village by the name of Amaras exists today near the city of Gandzasar, which was the see of the Catholicoi of Albania (, de Armenia historia, vol. I, p. 226, note 2).], which St. Gregory the Illuminator himself is said to have erected. "Here too," says Moses, "near the ambo, on the northern side, they laid the sacred blood of Zechariah enclosed in a glass ampulla, and in another ampulla the relics of blessed Pantaleon. And both ampullae were laid near the most holy relics of the grandson

of St. Gregory, they themselves, fleeing, returned into Armenia" Emin, pp. 30–31; Chahnazarian, vol. I, pp. 127–28..

[91] and given to oblivion Pursuing the rest of the history — if it is indeed history — Moses relates that the city of Thsri revolted from the kingdom of the Albanians and surrendered to the Persians. By them, a persecution having been stirred up, the priest who had the care of the sacred pledge underwent martyrdom with a boy Emin, pp. 31–32; Chahnazarian, vol. I, p. 129.. "Their bodies," he says, "certain Syrian monks carried out and brought to the village which is called Hacu , a village unknown to us., and laid them in a tomb, and built themselves a monastery in the same place. They say the relics of these blessed ones are there even now. All these things were done in the reign of Vatche [.], king of the Albanians [Vatche is believed to have reigned in Albania about the year 450; and Vatchagan, who will be mentioned presently, thirty years after him. See M. Brosset, Additions et éclaircissements à l'histoire de la Géorgie depuis l'antiquité jusqu'en 1469 de J. C. (St. Petersburg, 1851), p. 471.]. Moreover, the most holy relics of the blessed martyrs lay hidden until the reign of the most pious king of the Albanians, Vatchagan [.] the Second…" These last words are to be referred to Zechariah and Pantaleon, as will presently be evident. How their relics were then believed to have been found, let us listen to Moses narrating [Book I, chap. 19; Emin, p. 42 and following; Chahnazarian, vol. I, p. 147 and following, vol. II, pp. 85–86.]. manifested by a prodigy. The apparition of the relics of St. Zechariah, the father of John, and of blessed Pantaleon, who suffered martyrdom in the city of Nicomedia; which (relics) the grandson of Gregory had brought into the land of the Djelbi [ otherwise or , who in Greek are called Σιλβανοί (Lagarde, op. cit., p. 148), dwelt between the Alans and the Khazars, beyond the Caucasian Gates; cf. L. Alishan, : Topographia Maioris Armeniae (Venice, 1853), pp. 91–92. Chahnazarian doubtfully conjectures that their town Thsri is the same as what the Arabic writers call Sarir (vol. II, p. 84): whether rightly or otherwise, let him see to it. For that is the name not of a city but of a kingdom or region, to which, however, a situation is assigned not remote from the borders of the Djelbi (see especially Yaqut, loc. cit., vol. III, p. 88).]. Many signs and wonders took place in the city which is called Thsri, in the place where the relics of the holy martyrs of Christ were present, though no one at all knew where those relics of the saints were placed. Namely, they were in a heathen region; those who suffered from fever or sickness, coming, took away earth from the church where the relics of the saints Emin sancti. were, and although they were pagans, a great healing took place. But since the unspeakable cult of the most wicked Persians is always hostile to the church of God, a certain Persian magus, entering the place where the relics of St. Zechariah and his companion were present, wished for mockery's sake to empty his bowels, and when he had loosed the fastening of his breeches, his entrails poured out and he departed this life amid the most savage torments. This miracle Jonas [], bishop of the Huns Chahnazarian Graecorum () episcopus; another reading archiepiscopus., from the land of the Moschi Id. in regione Mocthai ()., a very truthful man, who had seen it with his own eyes, committed to writing. Moreover, in the city of Hacu, in which were the relics of the martyrs who had suffered in the city of Thrsi before Argesius . Chahnazarian Gergesio, another reading Ergesio (). the Persian, a hieromonk by the name of Jacob saw in a vision by night a certain man surrounded with immense glory and most splendid in appearance, and with him a male child [There are to be understood, I think, the priest and the boy of whom there had been talk in c. 14, although, forgetting their persona, they call the relics their own.], likewise shining with a terrible light. They said (to him): "Go into the city of Thsri and report (this) to the governor of the city, a prince from the land of the Albanians, who is called Chodjcoric []; to him we have shown your vision. We are the saints (lying) in that church. You Chahnazarian vos. with him bring (us) out" Id., vol. II, p. 86: . But when the priest had not heeded the matter, he saw the same vision again and a third time, and again at last neglected it out of sloth. Then he fell into a grave illness, and when he was already near death, the same men, surrounded with angelic splendour and shining in appearance, came to him and said to this priest: "Do you know for what cause you are going to die, or not?" He said: "I do not know, O lords." They said: "Because you obstinately refused the command, and did not go to Chodjcoric in the city of Thsri to receive our relics there. Behold, now you are dying." But the priest, turning to prayer, asked for health, so that, hastening there, he might carry out the commands. Then they, raising their hands, signed (him) Emin omits signaverunt. with the sign of the life-giving cross; and he at once recovered his health. And rising up he went away into the city of Thsri. And when he had come to Chodjcoric, who was the governor of the city, he, without making any inquiry, received him as a monk. But although it had been said to him in the vision, "To Chodjcoric likewise I am showing your vision," the priest did not say even a word about this. After they rose from supper, the priest went to rest in the church with two other priests who were with the governor, while Chodjcoric (withdrew) with two boys to his own house Emin omits in aedes suas; Chahnazarian variant reading propter quod ().. Then came the same men, of a still more terrible appearance; who said to Chodjcoric: "Rise, go into the church, for Chahnazarian sancti quoque. the saints are there. You and that priest, bring (them) out." But he, roused from sleep, said (to himself): "It is a long time since I went to the liturgical hours: that is the cause of this dream Emin ivisti"; and at once fell asleep again. Again the same sight showed itself to him; and they said: "It is not because you have long (not) gone to the liturgical hours that we have spoken these things. But our relics are in the church; go, you and that priest, bring them out." Awakened with immense terror, he was nevertheless seized again by a sweeter sleep. Again those men stood by him, clothed in light, shining with splendid faces. They say to him: "Rise, go into the church, in which you will see a great light; turn your attention to it; and in the place where that light shall gather, in that place are the relics of the saints." This same vision was showing itself at the same time to the priest. And the priest, roused from sleep, was going out of the church to go to Chodjcoric; while he was (hastening) to the priest to tell his vision. Meeting one another, they confessed that they had been moved by the same cause and related what they had seen. And so Jacob the priest and Chodjcoric Chahnazarian adds nominatus. the prince, and the other two priests who were with the governor, and his two boys, when Id. adds qui. they had sealed themselves with the sign of the life-giving cross, proceeded to the church. And when they had entered the portico near the platform and had adored the cross before them, looking up they saw a burning light in the church, exceedingly terrible. And for fear of the light they had seen they did not dare to rise. They sang one psalm and another [Id. postquam psalmum unum cecinerunt, cum lucem terribilem ferre non possent, alterum psalmum cecinerunt. Neque tum surgere potuerunt. Tertium…], and could not rise; when they had finished a third, with the help of almighty God, a certain man seemed to come, who raised them all up from the ground. They all signed themselves Id. adds iterum. with the sign of the cross Id. adds dominicae., and, entering the inner church, which was filled with a shining light, they performed the divine office until dawn. At daybreak that whole light began to be gathered over the platform and, a movement taking place, flowed together into the place in which the relics of the blessed martyrs of Christ were. At length, like the flame of a candle, it now blazed and now vanished above the place in which the holy relics rested, until they marked the place. When they then opened it, they found the relics of the blessed ones, over which there was an inscription of this kind: "I, Gregory, brought these saints, Zechariah the father of John and blessed Pantaleon who suffered in the city of Nicomedia Chahnazarian adds: et ibi ipse vita functus sum ().." And taking the relics of the saints they washed them and anointed them with sweet oil. And Chodjcoric sealed them with his ring, and, mounting his horse, set out himself as messenger to the most pious king of the Albanians, to whom he related how magnificent signs had appeared. Then the king, devoted to God, flooded with the most delightful joy, broke out into prayers and praises of the great God, and gave thanks for the immense gifts received. Then as quickly as possible he assembled bishops, monks and anchorites; he celebrated the memory of the saints splendidly, and generously bestowed alms on the poor. Then he ordered the bishops and priests to be clothed in precious vestments, and Manasses, the priest of his palace, who was very faithful, [with his household he sent as quickly as possible to receive the most holy relics of the martyrs. And when the saints arrived, the king with the queen, walking on foot before the multitude (cum - multitudinem) Emin omits.] of the household, with the sign of the Lord's Chahnazarian adds fulgentis. cross, with incense and various flowers, an immense throng of people standing by, keeping festival, gave glory with pious canticles to Jesus Christ the true God through the illustrious Id. adds Christi. martyrs. Then, fitting various garments from the royal wardrobe, he prepared an adornment for the saints with gold, silver and precious gems. He also ordered a wooden and folding tabernacle to be made, and red leather and white linen to be stretched over it; and within it to be placed the reliquary of the saints and the treasure of the whole Testament. And Susanic, queen of the Albanians, a woman of lively faith and piety, ordered her own larger tabernacle to be set over the purple tent of the saints in the manner of a church, in which at the synaxes the king and his family and the multitude stood; which also in summertime kept the heat from the sacred tabernacle, and in the season of rains defended it from moisture. And around the larger tabernacle enclosures of linen hangings were set in a circle, within which, at the time of the sacred rites, the royal troops, being admitted, prayed adoring God before the cross and the blessed martyrs, and listened to the books inspired by God. And since the king always carried with him the relics of the saints, he ordered a litter to be made for their use, likewise covered with purple leather, and over it a curtain of precious linen to be laid, and a golden cross with most precious gems, and the king's name to be engraved in chased work, which they were to hang above this litter [Id. adds atque sericae fimbriae versicolores e regali diademate - circum crucis signa relucebant.]. Then from the royal stables he chose white horses which seemed most handsome and precious, and ordered their tails to be dyed with purple colour, and appointed attendants who

should have the care of the litter and the horses of the saints. And he forbade the litter to contain anything else besides the saints and the Gospels with the other books inspired by God. He also ordered a wagon to be made, to which white oxen were to be yoked for carrying the tabernacle of the saints. He appointed many priests, deacons, readers and psalmists in the royal residence, who were always to perform the sacred office day and night in honour of the saints. And when the camp was moved…

[93] Then the writer lingers in narrating, or rather devising, this wonderful apparatus, and, pouring out barbaric colours, describes with what pomp the relics of the saints were escorted, by what rite their seat was chosen in the camp, with what piety they were usually venerated; among which he relates that the king and queen, since they were without children, prayed to God through the holy martyrs, and a son was born to them who received the name Pantaleon. Nor is there enough of portents. Adding miracles to miracles, Moses narrates at length that the body of St. Gregory, long and much sought by king Vatchagan, was at length, God manifesting it, found in the church of Amaras, and with it two ampullae in which the blood of Zechariah and the relics of St. Pantaleon lay hidden Book I, c. 23; Emin, p. 59; Chahnazarian, vol. I, p. 174..

[94] Other authors With this story, which Kirakos of Gandzak also related briefly, from our Moses as it seems : Kirakos doctoris Gandsaceni brevis historia (Venice, 1865), chap. VIII, p. 98., there must be compared the Armenian synaxarium [, vol. II, p. 116. An excerpt of another copy was published by P. J. Dashian, Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitaristen-Bibliothek zu Wien (Vienna, 1895), Armenian part, p. 58.]: And in the days of St. Gregory our illuminator there was brought into Armenia some of the blood of St. Zechariah, which was contained in a little flask; and with it a particle of the relics of Pantaleon the physician, who suffered in the city of Nicomedia in the time of Maximian the impious king. These St. Gregory, the grandson of St. Gregory the illuminator, took away with him into Albania, and when he had met a martyr's death there, the faithful laid them in his tomb. Then in the time of Vatchagan, the most pious prince of the Albanians, the relics of St. Gregory, catholicos of the Albanians, were discovered, and with them the blood of Zechariah and a particle of the bones of Pantaleon. By whose power many signs and healings of diseases take place, to the glory of Christ our God.

[95] of this uncertain story. Although this elogium does not entirely agree with the narrative of Moses, it nevertheless cannot be doubted that it was taken from it. The older Armenian writers who mention the relics of the saints brought into Armenia by St. Gregory the Illuminator, such as Agathangelus and that false Zenob of Glak, nowhere name St. Zechariah. But since the same men assert that the left hand of St. John the Baptist was brought to the Armenians by Gregory, and that it was the cause of many miracles [: Historia Agathangeli (Venice, 1862), p. 607 and following. In Greek in Lagarde, op. cit., p. 71 and following. Cf. the Arabic recension, N. Marr, (Baptismus Armenorum, Iberorum, Abhazorum et Albanorum a S. Gregorio), , vol. XVI (1905), p. 131. Zenob of Glak, : Historia provinciae Taron (Venice, 1889), p. 23 and following.], perhaps a handle was given to someone to join the father to the son. Whether that was Moses or someone else I neither know nor think it needs to be found out. Both findings of the relics of St. Zechariah are commemorated together by the Armenians on the 30th of September , vol. II, p. 172.. And let it suffice to have set out these things about a most suspect story.

[96] The relics of St. Zechariah Relics of St. Zechariah reached the West too. Dandolo narrates that some part of them was brought to Venice: Duke Angelus, at Venice he says, a Catholic man, received from the emperor Leo Understand Leo the Armenian (813–820). the body of St. Zechariah the prophet and part of the wood of the cross and of the garments of Christ and of his mother, with very many treasures, and under the title of St. Zechariah built a monastery not far from his palace, which he decreed should be for nuns, and fully granted it the lands and waters adjoining it, and laid the relics he had received in the same church [Muratori, Scriptores rerum italicarum, vol. XII, p. 165. See there the note from the Ambrosian codex.]. Thus Dandolo, trusting in the testimony of authors whom the reader may examine himself if he can. That the body of St. Zechariah was carried out of the imperial city was certainly not suspected by those writers whom we named above. But the churches of Constantinople boasted that they possessed the ashes not only of him but also of Zechariah son of Barachiah Riant, Exuviae Constantinopolitanae, vol. II, pp. 224–25.. With whose bones Duke Angelus was presented by Leo the Armenian is not altogether clear. However the matter stands, the Venetians persuaded themselves that these are relics of our Zechariah, as all know. Yet that this is their true origin is not obscurely denied by Quaresmius, who prefers that they be those of the ancient prophet Elucidatio Terrae Sanctae, vol. II, p. 264..

[97] and at Rome. At Rome in the Lateran there is piously kept the head of St. Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, "from which," as Baronius reports, they were wont to say "blood once flowed for some days" [Martyrologium Romanum, second ed. (Antwerp, 1589), p. 490, cf. Baldeschi and Crescimbeni, Stato della SS. Chiesa papale Lateranense nel anno MDCCXXIII, p. 94.]; and likewise in the Basilica of St. Mary Major the chin of St. Zechariah the prophet, placed in a certain vessel of mother-of-pearl Paulus de Angelis, Basilica S. Mariae Maioris de Urbe (Rome, 1621), p. 111.: the judgement about these relics we commit to those who shall read this little commentary.

§ III. On the places sacred to St. Zechariah.

[98] Omitting false mentions In the geographical chart executed in mosaic work, which was discovered not long ago in the church of Madaba beyond the Jordan, there is marked to the east of the village of Socho (Σοχώ, in Eusebius Σοκχώ), which is between Jerusalem and Eleutheropolis, a certain place about which this is noted: ΒΕΘΖΑΧΑΡ ΤΟ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΖΑΧΑΠΙΟΥ [Adolf Schulten, Die Mosaïkkarte von Madaba und ihr Verhältnis zu den ältesten Karten und Beschreibungen des heiligen Landes, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, N. F., vol. IV (1900–1901), p. 21; cf. pp. 37, 97.]. Some investigator or other, either crafty or absurd beyond measure, would have it that he had found this church not far from the village which is called Beït Saar and is neighbour to the village of Beït-Zakaria [See H. Vincent, Les ruines de Beit Cha'âr, Revue Biblique, vol. XII (1903), p. 612 and following.]. Nor could there fail to be those who believed it was dedicated to Zechariah the father of John; but in vain. It appears more evidently than the light of noon that the painter of this chart marked that Χαφὰρ Ζαχαρία … ἐν ὁρίοις Ἐλευθεροπόλεως τῆς Παλαιστίνης, where Sozomen narrates that the body of the prophet Zechariah was found Above, num. 64, pp. 20–21., and the Coptic synaxarium recalls that a church was erected in that saint's name Above, num. 60, p. 20.. The same is mentioned by Theodosius Ed. Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana, p. 138., Antoninus Ed. Geyer, p. 180., Willibald [Titus Tobler, Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae (Leipzig, 1874), p. 35: "And from there they went to St. Zechariah the prophet, not the father of John, but another prophet."], and the rest, all of whom, some more clearly than others, signify the ancient prophet.

[99] or doubtful ones, Nor does that holy Domnica seem to have been a devotee of our saint, but of his older namesake, for whose sake the emperor Theodosius the Great built a monastery at Constantinople together with a chapel, which the patriarch Nectarius, in an uncertain year, on the 26th day of January, dedicated in the name of St. Zechariah [In the Life of St. Domnica, ed. Th. Ioannu, Μνημεῖα ἁγιολογικά (Venice, 1884), pp. 274–76.]. For though the writer names this patron of the place fairly often, he nowhere omits to add the appellation of prophet, nor does he use any other. Indeed he notes that Domnica's oratory was not inappropriately consecrated to St. Zechariah, οὗ κατὰ μίμησιν αὕτη προφητικῶς ἐμπνεομένη καὶ θεοφορουμένη προαγορεύειν καὶ προλέγειν τὰ ἄδηλα καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα κατηξίωται, which surely is understood more fittingly of the ancient Zechariah than of ours Ibid., p. 275.. The site of the monastery of St. Domnica, which seems to have been one or other of the two which Codinus calls by the name of St. Domnina De aedificiis, ed. Bekker, p. 122., is unknown. The place in which it was erected is said to have previously been χῶρος ἀνακεχωρημένος ἀοίκητός τε καὶ ἔρημος, πὴ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιπολαζόντων δαιμονίων πᾶσι φευκτὸς καθιστάμενος, πὴ δὲ καὶ διὰ τοὺς ἀναιρουμένους ἐκεῖσε κακούργους καὶ καταδίκους βδελυκτὸς προδεικνύμενος Th. Ioannu, pp. 274–75..

[100] ancient shrines of Zechariah existed at Constantinople, That the feast of St. Zechariah was usually celebrated at Constantinople ἐν Καταβόλῳ we know from the typicon of Patmos [A. Dmitrievskij, : Descriptio chirographorum liturgicorum quae in bibliothecis Orientis orthodoxi asservantur, vol. I, Τυπικά (Kiev, 1895), p. 3; cf. Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, p. 16.]. That other shrines of Zechariah existed is reported ἐν τῷ Παραδεισίῳ Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, pp. 169–77. and perhaps elsewhere; about which it may seem doubtful to whom they were first dedicated.

[101] in Bithynia, In Bithynia, in the region bordering on the imperial city, at the foot of Mount Olympus, there was the monastery of St. Zechariah at Atroa; of which frequent mention is made both in other hagiographical monuments and in the Life of St. Auxentius Acta Sanctorum, November vol. II, 1, p. 370; cf. pp. 325–26., of St. Ioannicius P. G., vol. CXIV, p. 1436., and in the Synaxarium of Constantinople P. 366..

[102] in Galilee, Palestine and Syria too, from the time of the holy wars onward, the credulous piety of pilgrims adorned with several memorials of Zechariah. In Galilee, near Nazareth, Ernoul (c. the year 1231) saw a monastery of the Greeks erected under the title of St. Zechariah, in the place where the father of John was thought to have lived [In Henr. Michelet and Gaston Raynaud, Itinéraires à Jérusalem (Publications de la Société de l'Orient latin, série géographique, III, Geneva, 1882), p. 60, cf. p. 81.].

[103] at Jerusalem, At Jerusalem, besides the tomb of Zechariah, of which mention has more than once occurred in these commentaries, there is frequently mentioned by Christians and Muhammadans a little shrine situated near the temple [John of Würzburg says that it was changed by the Saracens into a "clock-house." Tobler, Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae, p. 123.], which they call the chapel of Zechariah

[See, for example, Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadhani, Compendium libri Kitâb al-Boldân, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum, part V (Leiden, 1885), p. 101. Other testimonies are available in N. A. Mednikov, : Palaestina, ex quo ab Arabibus capta est, ad bella crucigerorum, , fasc. L (St. Petersburg, 1897), Appendix, second part, pp. 762, 802, 860, 862, 1213, 1266.]. For my part it is uncertain in which of two places the shrine that the older pilgrims pointed out was believed to stand: in the one where Zechariah saw the angel, or in the one where the guards shed his blood [Peter the Deacon, ed. Geyer, Itin. Hierosol., p. 108. It matters little which Zechariah each of the pilgrims believed had been slain here; for the places are the same in which the deeds were believed to have happened.].

[104] Ain Karem, Among the places of Judaea in which the memory of Zechariah settled in a later age, the most celebrated is a small town in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem towards the setting sun, which by its proper name is called Ain Karem, or also, the appellation being drawn from the title of the church to which pilgrims flock, "St. John in the Hill Country." For many believe that the Forerunner of the Lord was born there, and that the Virgin Mother of God was received there by St. Elizabeth. Certain testimonies of this opinion are not had before the twelfth century. For it is not sufficiently established whether to a writer of the eleventh century, still less of the tenth or ninth, as Fr. Louis Cheikho thinks [: Chirographa Arabica bibliothecae universitatis nostrae orientalis (Al Machriq, vol. VII (1904), p. 490.], there can be assigned that Book of Demonstration, foisted, more ineptly even than mendaciously, now upon St. Peter of Sebaste, now upon St. Athanasius of Alexandria Cheikho, l. c., p. 488.; in which, among other buildings of a later age, there is indicated as worth visiting a church of Zechariah in the territory of Aelia, where Mary went to Elizabeth [I. Marta, : Testimonia arabica de sanctuariis Palaestinae. Ibid., vol. V (1902), p. 483.]. Although the words of Theodosius can not unsuitably be understood of the site of the present shrine, who reckoned from Jerusalem to where St. Elizabeth, the mother of lord John the Baptist, lived, 5 miles Ed. Geyer, Itiner. Hierosol., p. 140.: for about that distance lies between Jerusalem and Ain Karem. However that may be, that before the twelfth century not only the inhabitants of the place but the monks of the laura of St. Sabas were accustomed to venerate the house of Zechariah there is shown clearly by the itinerary of a certain Daniel, a hegumen from the southern parts of Russia [M. A. Venevitinov, , 1106–1107: Vita et peregrinatio Danielis coenobiarchae in Rossiaca terra a. 1106–1107, , fasc. III and IX (St. Petersburg, 1885), pp. 83–84.]. Nonetheless we should judge it arduous to win any credit for this opinion [This was recently attempted, by heaping up testimonies rather than proving, by Fr. Barn. Meistermann, O. F. M., La patrie de saint Jean-Baptiste, Paris, 1904.], even if whatever we have found out about the fictitious history of Zechariah did not deter us from the vain play of conjectures. To the same Daniel there was shown, about five hundred paces from Ain Karem, a rock within which, at God's command, St. Elizabeth, fleeing with John, was said to have taken refuge [Venevitinov, l. c., pp. 84–85. Cf. John Phocas, Historiens grecs des Croisades, l. c., p. 552.]. This place several other pilgrims have visited from that time on.

[105] at Damascus, That the church of Zechariah at Damascus is famous Quaresmius has already told us Elucidatio Terrae Sanctae, pp. 875–876.. He, however, prudently doubts whether it is other than the most renowned church of St. John which is often mentioned in the old monuments Adamnan, De locis sanctis libri tres (Geyer, Itiner. Hierosol., p. 276)..

[106] and at Venice. In the West there must be named the church and monastery in which, at Venice, not far from the palace of the Rialto, pious faith celebrates the memory and the ashes of St. Zechariah. The origin of these buildings we have set out in the words of Dandolo Num. 96, p. 27.: whether you believe him or not, it cannot be denied that in the tenth century [A rescript of Otto III was given to the Monastery of St. Zechariah on the 5th of February of the year 998. MG. Diplomata Ottonis tertii, p. 691. On the history of this convent read especially Bozzoni, Il silentio di Zaccaria snodato, Venice, 1678; Flaminius Cornelius, Ecclesiae Venetae, vol. XI (1749), pp. 305–404, and Mair, Venezia e le sue lagune, vol. II, 2 (Venice, 1847), pp. 168–76.] the opinion already prevailed by which the body of St. Zechariah was thought to have been translated here.

[107] No seat of the cult of St. Elizabeth known. I have not found that churches were dedicated under the title of St. Elizabeth in the early centuries. Yet certain indications cast doubt on whether it can be clearly denied that any such ever existed. For example, it may be permitted to mention a village near Korthyla in the island of Cyprus, which today bears the name Hagia Elisávet, surely from some church or chapel dedicated to St. Elizabeth: whether ancient or recent, whether consecrated to the mother of John or to some saint of the same name, there has been no leisure to explore.

§ IV. On the feasts of SS. Zechariah and Elizabeth.

[108] The feast of St. Zechariah The older liturgical books of the Latin church record no day sacred to St. Zechariah. At length, first in the lesser Roman martyrology, there began to be announced on the nones of November a commemoration of Zechariah the prophet, father of John the Baptist; which mention, expressed similarly in the martyrology of Ado, Usuard copied and Wandelbert set out in verse.

[109] at Venice, To the nuns of the Venetian convent of St. Zechariah the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on the 11th of December of the year 1609, granted the office of St. Zechariah Benedict XIV, De servorum Dei beatificatione, book IV, part II, c. 29, n. 13., and, as it seems, assigned it to the fifth day of November.

[110] at Rome, The same Sacred Congregation on the 24th of April of the year 1706 granted to the chapter and canons of the Liberian basilica "the office of St. Zechariah under the semidouble rite for the 10th of November" Ms. P. 192 of the Vallicelliana library., because in their calendar the fifth day of November is pre-empted by the transferred feast of the Holy Innocents.

[111] In the Proper of the same basilica, which was published a few years after that rescript, the feast of Zechariah was placed on the fifteenth day of November; which custom still obtains. The feast is marked with this rubric: On the feast of St. Zechariah, confessor, father of St. John the Baptist. Semidouble. We have the chin and relics in the ciborium of the relics [Proprium sanctorum ad usum cleri sacrosanctae patriarchalis basilicae Sanctae Mariae Maioris (Rome, 1714), autumn part, p. 89.].

[112] in the Greek church, That the memory of St. Zechariah is recalled by the Greeks on the fifth day of September is a very well-known fact. At what time this began to be done is uncertain. The very old calendar which Morcelli published is silent about Zechariah Kalendarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, vol. I (Rome, 1788), pp. 17–68.. The menologion of the Metaphrast passed him over at the fifth day of September, although older menologia generally present some encomium of St. Zechariah to be read on that day.

The same day as the Greeks was assigned to Zechariah by the Armenians, Copts, Muscovites and Abyssinians.

[113] in the Eastern churches. The Jacobites celebrate together Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John, on the sixteenth day of December [Steph. Assemani and Jos. Sim. Assemani, Bibliothecae apostolicae vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogus. Partis primae vol. II, Codices syriaci (Rome, 1758), p. 255.].

[114] The Annunciation to Zechariah. Besides the solemn day of Zechariah and Elizabeth, the annunciation of the nativity of John the Baptist seems to be held by the Orientals as a feast of them both, which is celebrated by the Greeks, Syrians and others on the twenty-third day of September, but by the Copts on the twenty-sixth day of the month Thout, by the Ethiopians on the twenty-sixth of the month Maskaram (both of which days fall on the twenty-third day of September). But in the calendar which, as the Muslim mathematician Muhammad al-Biruni testifies, was observed about the year of the Lord 1000 by the Syrian Melkites in the kingdom of Khwarazm, between the Caspian sea and the Oxian lake, there is placed on the tenth day of October the Commemoration of Zechariah the prophet, which is the annunciation made to him by the angels of the nativity of John his son, as is reported in the venerable Koran and explained in the Gospel [Chronologie orientalischer Völker von Albêrûni, ed. E. Sachau (Leipzig, 1878), p. 291; in English, The Chronology of ancient nations, or "Vestiges of the past" (London, 1879), p. 288. From the former work the Arabic text of the calendar was excerpted and furnished with notes by Fr. Louis Cheikho: "Calendarium ecclesiae Antiochensis, at the beginning of the eleventh century, Al Machriq, vol. V (1902), p. 6. Since mention of this book has occurred, it will be worth the trouble to copy here the passage where, as we said (above num 25, note 3, p. 11), the rabbinic fable about the blood of Zechariah bar Jehoiada, first transferred to our Zechariah, was at length transferred to John the Baptist: They say that these stones (which were seen heaped up at Jerusalem near the gate of the column), they say, he reports, that these stones were thrown upon the blood of John the son of Zechariah, but that this blood overflowed upon them with seething and roaring, until Nebuchadnezzar killed the inhabitants and sprinkled their blood upon it, and that then it (the blood) subsided" (Sachau, Chronology, p. 297). Which reckoning of times the man most learned in history not unskilfully mocks.]. That this was not, however, the common time of this solemnity among the Melkites, other monuments show, for example the Syriac menaea which R. Payne Smith described [Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae. Pars sexta codices syriacos complectens (Oxford, 1864), cols. 313, 315.], where in the Greek manner the commemoration of Zechariah is assigned to the fifth day of September, and the feast of the annunciation to Zechariah to the twenty-third day of the same month. In the Iberian manuscript menaea too, which Alexander Tsagareli found in the monastery of the Holy Cross near Jerusalem, the "Annunciation to Zechariah" is recorded at the twenty-seventh day of September [: Monumenta antiquitatis ibericae in Terra Sancta et in Monte Sinaï, , fasc. X (St. Petersburg, 1883), Appendix I. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum monasterii Sanctae Crucis, prope Hierosolymis, p. 162.].

[115] Commemorations of St. Zechariah The present-day Syro-Maronites, on the day after the nativity of John the Baptist, that is, on the twenty-fifth day of June, commemorate Zechariah the priest and Elizabeth his wife. So at least the Officium feriale iuxta ritum ecclesiae Syrorum Maronitarum, published at Rome in the year 1830 [In Nic. Nilles, Kalendarium manuale utriusque ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis, vol. I (Innsbruck, 1896), p. 488.]. But in the old Catalogue of the feasts of the whole year which was published by Fr. Louis Cheikho : Calendarium vetus ecclesiae Maronitae (Al Machriq, vol. VIII, 1905, p. 873)., on the sixteenth day of the month Iyar (which is May) there is announced Zechariah

the priest, father of John the Baptist. It must be seen, however, whether perhaps the last words grew onto a shorter mention, such as is read in al-Biruni's calendar at the same day: Commemoration of Zechariah the prophet Cheikho, , p. 65..

[116] The Armenians, on the third weekday of the third week after the Assumption, make memory of the holy prophets Ezekiel, Ezra and Zechariah the father of John the Baptist [: Breviarium ecclesiae Armenorum. Pars tertia: ab Epiphania ad sabbatum sextum Quadragesimae (Vienna, 1879), p. 800.].

[117] in various churches. By the Syrians, in the week of Albs, which is the first after Easter, on the sixth weekday, the memory of the holy women Marina and Mary, Anna and Elizabeth is celebrated Assemani, l. c., p. 261..

[118] The feast of St. Elizabeth. That a proper feast of St. Elizabeth is celebrated by the Coptic church on the sixteenth day of the month Amshir and by the Ethiopian on the sixteenth day of the month Yakatit we have said before Num. 65, p. 21.. In other churches the mother of the holy Forerunner seems to have lacked this honour. Indeed among the Latins she was banished from all liturgical monuments for a very long time, until Cardinal Baronius, not indeed in the twin first edition which he saw to [Martyrologium Romanum ad novam kalendarii rationem et ecclesiasticae historiae veritati restitutum (Rome, 1583), p. 268; id., accesserunt Caesaris Baronii annotationes (Rome, 1586), p. 500.], but only in the second edition of the Roman Martyrology, added to the elogium of Zechariah a mention of St. Elizabeth in these words: "Likewise St. Elizabeth, mother of the same most holy Forerunner" Martyrologium Romanum, second ed. (Antwerp, 1589), p. 489; cf. p. 490.. Why he added this he explained in his commentary in this way: "Elizabeth is joined to Zechariah her husband, not for the reason that both departed from the body on one and the same day (so far as is known), but since, through ignorance of the certain day of her natal day, her memory had at times been passed over, it seemed advisable to join her with her husband in the commemoration of the saints: for it was thought wicked that a most holy woman, celebrated by the proclamation of the Gospel, should be passed over in silence too ungenerously."

ON SS. ZECHARIAH AND ELIZABETH, PARENTS OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST,

BY P. P.

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER TWO

CHAPTER THREE

Feedback