1 The parallel version in Luke 11.49–51 lacks the patronym for Zechariah and contains further differences in wording. On the variations, see Davies, W. D. and Allison, Dale C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3 (ICC; New York: Continuum, 1997) 316–18Google Scholar. Davies and Allison consider the patronym a Matthean addition. For the view that the patronym is original to Q, see Luz, U., Matthew 21–28: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 150–1Google Scholar. The Lucan version of this statement has featured much less prominently in its reception, both because it does not present the problems associated with the Matthean version and because the Gospel of Matthew was by far the most popular of the Synoptic Gospels in antiquity, on which see the brief comments in Hurtado, L. W., The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006)Google Scholar 30.

2 Peels, H. G. L., ‘The Blood “from Abel to Zechariah” (Matthew 23,35; Luke 11,50f.) and the Canon of the Old Testament’, ZAW 113 (2001) 583–601Google Scholar, at 586. Peels then produced a list of twentieth-century commentators that took this view, including eighteen commentators on Matthew and thirteen more on Luke, with only five commentators dissenting (586 n. 8).

3 More recent commentators accepting the ‘canonical’ interpretation of our passage include Nolland, J., The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005) 946–7Google Scholar; France, R. T., The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007)Google Scholar 880; Turner, D. L., Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2008)Google Scholar 558; Wilkins, M. J., Matthew (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004) 756–7Google Scholar; Garland, D. E., Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011)Google Scholar 497. Witherington, B. III, Matthew (Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2006)Google Scholar 433, seems to leave the matter open as to whether our passage refers to 2 Chronicles as the last book of the Hebrew canon or as the conclusion of the historical books (assuming a LXX arrangement). For others who continue to advance this ‘canonical’ interpretation, see Hahn, A., Canon Hebraeorum – Canon Ecclesiae: Zur deuterokanonischen Frage im Rahmen der Begründung alttestamentlicher Schriftkanonizität in neuerer römisch-katholischer Dogmatik (Berlin: Lit, 2009)Google Scholar 197; Kalimi, I., The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature: A Historical Journey (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 44–54Google Scholar. Those who have dissented include Eissfeldt, O., The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 567–8Google Scholar; Carr, D. M., ‘Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible’, in A Gift of God in Due Season (ed. Weis, R. D. and Carr, D. M.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 22–64Google Scholar, esp. 44–5; Steinmann, A. E., The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon (St Louis: Concordia Academic, 1999) 98–101Google Scholar; McDonald, L. M., The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007) 96–100Google Scholar; Barrera, J. C. Trebolle, ‘Origins of a Tripartite Old Testament Canon’, in The Canon Debate (ed. McDonald, L. M. and Sanders, J. A.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002) 128–45Google Scholar, at 131; C. A. Evans, ‘The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers’, in McDonald and Sanders, Canon Debate, 185–95, at 189–90; Guillaume, Ph., ‘New Light on the Nebiim from Alexandria: A Chronography to Replace the Deuteronomistic History’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5.9 (2004) 1–51Google Scholar, esp. 12–13, available online at: www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_39.pdf; Lim, T. H., The Formation of the Jewish Canon (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013) 157–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For an extended discussion of the variant patronym, see Beckwith, R. T., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985) 211–22Google Scholar. See also Gundry, R. H., Matthew: A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd edn; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994) 471–2Google Scholar.

5 As it is spelled in NETS. Leonard C. Allen lists our item as an inner-Greek corruption assimilated to the name Azaria in 2 Chron 26 (The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of 1 and 2 Chronicles to the Massoretic Text (2 vols.; VTSup 25, 27; Leiden: Brill, 1974)Google Scholar 1.31).

6 See Allen, Greek Chronicles, 6–17; Knoppers, G. N., I Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2003) 59–62Google Scholar; Kalimi, I., The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005)Google Scholar 13 n. 46. The date of LXX Chronicles is established by the quotations of it found in the work of Eupolemus.

7 On Hebraising revisions of the LXX, see Marcos, N. Fernández, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 109–87Google Scholar.

8 Brooke, A. E., McLean, N. and Thackeray, H. St. John, eds., The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, 2.3: i and ii Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932)Google Scholar 524. The manuscripts attesting the reading ζαχαριαν are a b'b(mg)fjmc₂e₂ (along with Josephus and Theodoret).

9 Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 74.2 (see below); Theodoret, Comm. Hebrews 11.37, PG 82.769a; Quaestiones in 2 Paralipomenon, for which see the edition of Natalio Fernandez Marcos and José Ramón Busto Saiz, Theodoreti Cyrensis quaestiones in reges et paralipomena: editio critica (Madrid: Instituto ‘Arias Montano’, CSIC, 1984) 283 line 5; 286 lines 11–12. Cf. also Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 9.17, PG 67.1629b.

10 Niese, B., ed., Flavii Iosephi opera, vol. 2 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1885) 302–3Google Scholar. No significant variants are listed for this name. In general, see Begg, C. T., ‘Joash of Judah according to Josephus’, in The Chronicler as Historian (ed. Graham, M. P., Hoglund, K. G. and McKenzie, S. L.; JSOT Suppl. 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 301–20Google Scholar.

11 Weber, R., Les anciennes versions latines du deuxième livre des Paralipomènes (Rome: Abbe of St Jerome, 1945)Google Scholar 51. In general, see Marcos, N. Fernández, ‘The Old Latin of Chronicles between the Greek and the Hebrew’, in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (ed. Taylor, B. A.; SCS 45; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997) 123–36Google Scholar; Kraus, M., ‘Hebraisms in the Old Latin Version of the Bible’, VT 53 (2003) 487–513Google Scholar.

12 Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1875)Google Scholar.

13 On the development of the tradition of the ‘murder of the prophets’, see Satran, D., Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 25–8Google Scholar. For further references in Origen, see N. de Lange, La lettre à Africanus sur l'histoire de Suzanne, in Harl, M., ed., Origène: Philocalie, 1–20. Sur les Écritures (SC 302; Paris: Cerf, 1983)Google Scholar 497.

14 Comm. ser. Matt. 28 (ed. Klostermann, E., Origenes Werke 11/2: Origenes Matthäuserklärung (GCS 38; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1933)Google Scholar 50.3). Klostermann gives the reading Zachariam in the apparatus. It is this latter reading that is printed by Migne (PG 13.1636c).

15 Modern editions of the Greek New Testament omit ἐπɛιράσθησαν. See Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn; Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994) 603–4Google Scholar. Metzger cites Origen as a partial witness to the omission of ἐπɛιράσθησαν.

16 The Vulgate, like the LXX, also gives the patronym Barachia in Isa 8.2. Strange to say, I cannot find any one before the eighth century who takes the view that Jesus' Zechariah was the Minor Prophet (see n. 40 below). According to Lives of the Prophets 15.6, the latter died peacefully. However, this identification has recently been defended by Blomberg, C. L., The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (2nd edn; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2007) 246–8Google Scholar.

17 Comm. ser. Matt. 25 (ed. Klostermann, GCS 38, 42.10–19). He says the same thing later (43.27–9). Origen puts too much weight on ἐφονɛύσατɛ; see Chapman, J., ‘Zacharias, Slain between the Temple and the Altar’, JTS 13 (1912) 398–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 406–7. But Davies and Allison (Matthew, 318) do note that the ‘you’ in Matt 23.35 is ‘odd’. On Jesus' Zechariah son of Barachiah not being the Minor Prophet, cf. also Ep. Afr. 14, where Origen seems to differentiate Zechariah son of Barachiah from the members of the Twelve. I have used the paragraph divisions of the edition by de Lange, Lettre.

18 On Comm. Matt. 10.18, see also Hanson, R. P. C., Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London: SPCK, 1954)Google Scholar 42 and n. 2. See also the note in de Lange, Lettre, 546–7. Both Hanson and de Lange, and also others, think that Origen does sometimes indicate that the referent of Jesus' statement is Zechariah the Minor Prophet. See also Davies and Allison, Matthew, 318 n. 46; Bardy, G., ‘Saint Jérôme et ses maîtres hébreux’, RBén 46 (1934) 145–64Google Scholar, esp. 161 n. 1. However, it seems possible to reconcile the seemingly divergent interpretations.

19 Comm. ser. Matt. 25 (ed. Klostermann, GCS 38, 42.23–43.18).

20 Origen is emphatic that Zechariah was killed by the scribes and Pharisees (according to the saying of Jesus) and not by Herod (as in the Protevangelium), though he does not mention the Protevangelium in this context; Comm. ser. Matt. 26 (ed. Klostermann, GCS 38, 44.13–26).

21 De Lange, Lettre, 546–7 n. 1, suggests that Origen, or his source, may have misunderstood the information provided by Josephus regarding the death of Zechariah son of Bareis.

22 Basil of Caesarea, Hom. in sanctam Christi generationem 5, PG 31.1468c–1469a; Gregory of Nyssa, In diem natalem Salvatoris (ed. Mann, F., Gregorii Nysseni opera 10.2; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 248–50Google Scholar; Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. in Lucam 11:47, PG 72.720b–721a. On Basil's dependence on Origen in this regard, see DelCogliano, M., ‘Tradition and Polemic in Basil of Caesarea's Homily on the Theophany’, VC 66 (2012) 30–55Google Scholar, esp. 46–7. For additional references, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 318 n. 46. The view that Jesus referred to the father of John the Baptist was still being defended by Stuart, M., Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon (Andover: Allen, Morrill and Wardwell, 1845) 279–83Google Scholar.

23 See the discussion on John Chrysostom below.

24 Of course, some Greek Fathers cite Matt 23.35 without discussing the identity of Zechariah; cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, Dem. ev. 8.2; 9.11; 9.13; Theodoret of Cyrus, Comm. Psal. 107.14, PG 80.1760.18. Probably, the patronym prevented Theodoret from seeing any relation between the two Zechariahs. He knows that the Zechariah of 2 Chron 24 is Zechariah son of Iodae (Quaest. Par., cited above, n. 9). Eusebius never mentions the prophet of 2 Chron 24.

25 Chapman, ‘Zacharias’, 398–9.

26 It is possible that our extant sources for the VL have been influenced by the Vulgate in this regard, though the argument of Fernández Marcos, ‘Old Latin of Chronicles’, suggests that the reading Zaccaria could well be original to the VL (but he does not discuss this reading specifically).

27 Did Tertullian offer an identification for Zechariah of Matt 23.35? This is not found in his extant works, but Lawrence of Brindisi (fl. 1600) attributes to Tertullian the view that the intended Zechariah was the father of John the Baptist, and he cites Tertullian's Scorpiace in this regard; Nativitas et Epiphania, in die S. Stephani protomartyris, Hom. 1.6.

28 The translation used here is slightly adapted from Jerome, St, Commentary on Matthew (trans. Scheck, T. P.; FOC 117; Washington: Catholic University of America, 2008) 266–7Google Scholar.

29 As will become clear, this quotation from Matt 23.35 functions as a decisive proof in Jerome's argument in a different way from what we saw in Origen. The latter highlighted the verb ‘you killed’, which, to his mind, indicted the first-century Jews. Jerome does not take notice of the verb in his analysis but rather stresses the location of the death.

30 Davies and Allison (Matthew, 318) curiously follow Jerome in asserting that the temple stood in ruins during the days of Zechariah the Minor Prophet.

31 Bardy, ‘Saint Jérôme et ses maîtres hébreux’, 160–1.

32 Jacobs, A. S., ‘The Disorder of Books: Priscillian's Canonical Defense of Apocrypha’, HTR 93 (2000) 135–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Tract. iii; see Priscillian of Avila: The Complete Works (ed. and trans. Conti, M.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 86–7Google Scholar.

34 My translation follows that of Bonnard, Émile, Saint Jérôme: Commentaire sur Saint Matthieu, vol. 2 (SC 259; Paris: Cerf, 1979)Google Scholar 181.

35 On this last point, see Zahn, Th., Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1888–92)Google Scholar 2.695.

36 For Jerome's comments on this Gospel, see Skarsaune, O., ‘Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature’, in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (ed. Skarsaune, O. and Hvalvik, Reidar; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007) 505–67Google Scholar, esp. 541–9.

37 Hom. in Matt. 74.2, PG 56.681. The NPNF translator incorrectly asserts that the indeclinable Ἰωδάɛ could be read as a genitive, so that the translation would be ‘whom scripture also calls the son of Iodae’ (NPNF¹ 10.446 n. 8). While this improves the accuracy of Chrysostom's statement, it fails to consider that Chrysostom himself would have been concerned to make the genitive explicit by the insertion of a definite article in the genitive before Ἰωδάɛ. Rather, Ἰωδάɛ clearly represents the alternative name for Zechariah (and not his father's name), because it complements the earlier adjective ‘double-named’.

38 Several Byzantine authors also knew the prophet of 2 Chronicles 24 by the name Zachariah, but they do not connect him with Matt 23.35; see Chronicon Paschale (7th c.; ed. L. Dindorf; 2 vols.; CSHB; Bonn: Weber, 1832) 1.302; Syncellus, George (8th–9th c.), Ecloga chronographica (ed. Mosshammer, A. A.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1984) 220–1Google Scholar; George Monachus (9th c.), Chronicon 4.11 (ed. C. de Boor; 2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1904) 1.216; George Cedrenus (9th c.), Compendium historiarum (ed. I. Bekker; CSHB; Bonn: Weber, 1838) 189; John Zonaras (12th c.), Epitome historiarum 2.19 (ed. L. Dindorf; 6 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1868–75) 1.157; Michael Glycas (12th c.), Annales (ed. I. Bekker; CSHB; Bonn: Weber, 1836) 357–8. However, this character is still known as Azarias in John Damascene, Sacra Parallela, PG 95.1229d.

39 Jerome's contemporary Augustine cites Matt 23.35 several times (Leg. 2; Faust. 22.76; C. litt. Petil. 2.14.31; De excidio urbis 2; Enarrat. Ps. 61.4; 108.18; Epist. 140.44.10; Quaest. Hept. 7.49.3; Spec. 25), but unfortunately he never deems it necessary to identify the particular Zechariah intended.

40 Cf. Bede (8th c.), Homeliae evangelii 1.3; Christian of Stavelot (9th c.), Expositio super Librum generationis; Heiric of Auxerre (9th c.), Homiliae per circulum anni 12 (sine dubio); Rabanus Maurus (9th c.), Expositio in Matthaeum 7; Rupert of Deutz (12th c.), Commentarium in Apocalypsim 4.6; Paschasius Radbertus (9th c.), Expositio in Matheo 10; Thomas Aquinas (13th c.), Super Evangelium Matthaei reportatio 23.3.1894 (citing Jerome explicitly), Catena aurea in Lucam 11.12 (citing Gregory of Nyssa); Anthony of Padua (13th c.), Sermones festivi, sermo in festo S. Stephani protomartyris 1.4. Those who take a different view include the Liber de ortu et obitu patriarcharum 32.4 (8th c.; Zechariah the Minor Prophet); and Lawrence of Brindisi (16th–17th c.), Nativitas et Epiphania, in die S. Stephani protomartyris, Hom. 1.6, who names Jerome as having erred on this question, and takes instead Origen's view that Jesus referred to the father of John the Baptist, whose grandfather was named Barachiah and Jehoiada, as attested by Epiphanius (he says), thus harmonising Origen's interpretation with Jerome's information that the Gospel of the Nazarenes reads ‘son of Jehoiada’ at Matt 23.35.

41 This is similar to the position taken recently by Peels, ‘Blood’, 594–9, and also the position taken by Calvin, on whom see below.

42 E.g. Matt 23.29–36; 1 Thess 2.14–15. On the theme, see Satran, Biblical Prophets, 25–9.

43 For all these lists, see most conveniently Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (rev. Ottley, R. R.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914) 198–214Google Scholar. For analysis, see Gallagher, E. L., Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text (Vigiliae Christianae Supplements 114; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some of the Christian lists likely genuinely reflect Jewish sources; see Dorival, G., ‘L'apport des Pères de l'Église à la question de la clôture du canon de l'Ancien Testament’, in The Biblical Canons (ed. Auwers, J.-M. and de Jonge, H. J.; BETL 163; Leuven: Leuven University, 2003) 81–110Google Scholar.

44 Jerome's term ordo seems to be related to the Hebrew term seder found in, e.g., b. B. Bathra 14b; see Dorival, ‘Apport de Pères’, 92–3. For a recent study of Jerome's canon list, see Gallagher, E. L., ‘Jerome's Prologus Galeatus and the OT Canon of North Africa’, in Studia Patristica 69 (ed. Vinzent, M.; Leuven: Peeters, 2013) 99–106Google Scholar.

45 Or, as Beckwith puts it, ‘Jerome was a Hebrew scholar, and had Jewish teachers; consequently, when he speaks of the opinions of the Jews, he is speaking from knowledge’ (Old Testament Canon, 119). For a recent examination of Jerome's interactions with Jews, see Hale Williams, M., ‘Lessons from Jerome's Jewish Teachers: Exegesis and Cultural Interaction in Late Antique Palestine’, in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context (ed. Dohrmann, N. B. and Stern, D.; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2008) 66–86Google Scholar.

46 See Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, 452–64.

47 Calvin, J., Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (3 vols.; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845–6) 3.90–1Google Scholar, translation of Harmonia ex tribus evangelistis composita, Matthaeo, Marco & Luca adjuncto seorsum Johanne, quod pauca cum aliis communia habeat cum Joh. Calvini commentariis (Geneva: Stephanus, 1555)Google Scholar.

48 Lightfoot, J., A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (4 vols.; repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989)Google Scholar 2.302–8. This is a reprint of Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations (ed. Gandell, R.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859)Google Scholar. The following note appears in the online catalogues of some libraries (e.g. Harvard, Duke) regarding the Oxford edition of 1859: ‘Originally written in Latin and published at intervals between 1658 and 1674. It is not known by whom the translation was made.’ The original Latin publication went under the title of Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Imprensae i.In chorographiam aliquam terrae israeliticae. ii.In Evangelium s. Matthaei (Cambridge, 1658).

49 Another version of this interpretation considers Jehoiada the priest to be the grandfather of Zechariah, Barachiah the father; see Morison, J., Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1870) 488Google Scholar; Morris, L., The Gospel according to Matthew (PNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992)Google Scholar 589 n. 45. Chapman, ‘Zacharias’, 407–8, thinks the patronym in Matthew is due to scribal error.

50 Lightfoot, Commentary, 2.307. Lightfoot (2.308) gives four further reasons for Christ's choosing this Zechariah, mostly having to do with the especially heinous nature of his murder. In this way, he was ‘a more proper and apparent type of Christ’.

51 See Luz, Matthew, 155. This view was accepted by e.g. Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Matthaei: Übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904) 119–21Google Scholar, on whom see Kalimi, Retelling of Chronicles, 46; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 318 n. 47. In fact, the tradition cited by Origen (Comm. ser. Matt. 25) relating the name of John the Baptist's father as Barachiah is attributed, in a Greek fragment, to Josephus, and it may be that Origen was thinking of this passage about Zechariah son of Bareis (see de Lange, Lettre, 546–7 n. 1). Chapman, ‘Zacharias’, dedicates a good portion of his article to refuting the ‘son of Bareis’ interpretation, which he says (p. 399 n. 1) is assumed ‘as certain’ by many German writers.

52 Eichhorn, J. G., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Bey Weidmanns erben und Reich, 1780) 18Google Scholar.

53 Eichhorn, J. G., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Bey Weidmanns erben und Reich, 1804) 510–13Google Scholar.

54 Michaelis, J. D., Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 3 in 2 parts (trans. Marsh, Herbert from the 4th German edn; 2nd English edn; London: Rivington, 1802) 1.172–4Google Scholar; quotation from p. 174. Alternatively, Michaelis suggests (p. 173 n.) that perhaps the account in 2 Chron 24.20–2 has the incorrect patronym, and that the story actually refers to Zechariah the Minor Prophet and has been inserted into Chronicles in the wrong location. Thus, Jesus may have been correcting the story as found in Chronicles with its inaccurate patronym! Michaelis' translator also supplies an interesting note (2.131–2 n. 14), in which he affirms that Jesus intended Zechariah the Minor Prophet, and that for chronological reasons.

55 de Wette, W. M. L., Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1836) 194Google Scholar; he does not cite Eichhorn here.

56 de Wette, W. M. L., A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament (2 vols.; trans. Parker, Theodore; Boston: Little and Brown, 1843) 1.17Google Scholar. Parker, the translator who provides the note, was a transcendentalist preacher in Boston.

57 Stuart, Critical History, 279.

58 For early English-speaking commentators who adopt this interpretation, see Morison, Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, 488; Broadus, J. A., Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) 476–7Google Scholar; Wolfendale, J., A Homiletical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (London: Richard D. Dickinson, 1890) 261Google Scholar. The two great works on the OT canon at the end of the nineteenth century took opposite positions: the interpretation was accepted by Ryle, H. E., The Canon of the Old Testament: An Essay on the Gradual Growth and Formation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture (London: MacMillan, 1892) 141Google Scholar; it was rejected by Buhl, F., Canon and Text of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1892) 17Google Scholar. See also the doubts expressed by Green, W. H., General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon (New York: Scribner's, 1898) 201–2Google Scholar.

59 Cf. Ginsburg, C. D., Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr. New York: Ktav, 1966) 779–976Google Scholar. Ginsburg gives a detailed survey of Hebrew Bible editions up to the Second Rabbinic Bible (1524–5) and a little after. He describes the editio princeps of the Hagiographa (Naples, 1486–87) on pp. 807–14. For a recent analysis of the rise of biblical criticism and Eichhorn's role in its formation, see Gibert, Pierre, L'invention critique de la Bible: xv^e–xviii^e siècle (Paris: Gallimard, 2010)Google Scholar. On Eichhorn, see pp. 322–50.