Others do not agree....
Note the third paragraph.
It is difficult to focus simply on the third paragraph and ignore the rest of the blog so my response engages with what you linked to more comprehensively. The author, it should be noted, is an apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy who has, it would seem, published two books, neither of which are academic... indeed, the idea that John's father was a high priest garners no serious scholarly discussion.
Your source begins with the claim that Zechariah was, "[a]ccording to the entire tradition of the Church ... [a] High Priest who entered the Temple in Jerusalem on the Day of Atonement." By "Church" is meant that of Eastern Orthodoxy and he proceeds to explain the origin of various celebratory dates within this tradition that depend on the claim concerning Zechariah, appealing to the authority of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite. Your source then claims that the "early" Protoevangelium of James "testified" to Zechariah being a high priest... in other words, he takes this obvious forgery seriously --- no scholar thinks it was actually written by James, a (step)brother to Jesus, but rather by someone writing around the middle of the second century CE at the earliest. That said, he is correct that Zechariah is therein referred to as the high priest:
The chief priest (ο αρχιερευς) went in, taking the robe with twelve balls into the Holy of Holies; and he prayed about [Mary]. And behold, an angel of the Lord appeared and said to him, "Zacahrias, Zacharias, go out and gather the widowers of the people, and have each of them bring a rod; she will become the wife of the one to whom the Lord God gives a sign." (
Prot. Jas. 8.3) --- Translation is that of Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše in
The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford University Press, 2011)
Now, as Ronald F. Hock correctly notes, the Protoevangelium of James "assumes, reworks or develops both Matthew's and Luke's stories at many points throughout the narrative" (
The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas [The Scholars Bible 2; Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995], pp. 4-5) and, specific to the claim above, that "this mention of Zechariah is the first instance in which the Infancy Gospel of James reveals knowledge of the canonical birth accounts, although there Zechariah is not the high priest, but only a priest (see Luke 1:5)" (ibid, 5-6). This was my initial response to your claim, prompting you to link to this blog... so I will now turn to the evidence your source provides to bolster the embellishment of this second-century pseudepigraphic document, though that origin for the tradition ought to be sufficient to discredit it.
Your source claims that other high priests were called simply priests, citing first Lev 13:2 where Aaron, assumed to be the high priest at the time is referred to simply as "the priest". The problem here is that the office of a "high priest" infers a succession of such figures and a well-established priestly class... indeed, Aaron is
nowhere referred to in the Pentateuch by the Hebrew equivalent of this title (
הכהן הגדול). It appears only once in Leviticus within a phrase rather than a title:
The priest who is exalted above his fellows (הכהן הגדול מאחיו), on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been consecrated to wear the vestments, shall not dishevel his hair, nor tear his vestments. (Lev 21:10)
This is ostensibly an instruction not for Aaron but for his sons (see 21:1), which correctly views the idea (not yet even the title) of a "high priest" as a future development applicable to Aaron's
descendants. This holds true for the only actual occurrences of the title as such in the Pentateuch... it appears three times in the law concerning the future cities of refuge in the land of Israel (Num 35:25, 28). That your source fails to cite this cluster of occurrences is perhaps telling since they establish a pattern and a circumstance whereby a "high priest"
could be referred to as simply a "priest" --- it occurs in 35:32, but this is only possible because this figure has
already been introduced as being the "high priest". This does not hold for the text of Luke 1:5 since Zechariah is
introduced as simply a priest. The other examples your source appeals to in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 (not written by Paul, a false attribution your source naively passes along) are irrelevant, addressing a symbolic Melchizedek order rather than an actual office within the Levitical order. Similarly irrelevant is "tradition of the Church" concerning priests and bishops... and, as for claim that "it is assumed by many that the Gospel of Luke was written to the High Priest Theophilus (37-41 A.D.)" and he would already know of Zechariah's high priestly duties, its pure speculation rests on the equally dubious provenance proffered by a small handful of fringe interpreters (not many!) positing a ridiculously early date for the gospel and suggesting an absurd intended reader among the hostile priestly aristocracy.
Your source next tackles the "objection" that the angel Gabriel appeared beside an altar used for the burning of incense that was
outside the most holy place, which is not where censing was supposed to take place on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16:12-13). Aside from the fact your source appears blissfully unaware of the alternative tradition that situates the incense altar
inside the most holy place (cf. Heb 9:3-4), this "objection" already assumes something critics of the claim would not grant in the first place, namely that Zechariah entered the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement... there is nothing whatsoever in the text of Luke to suggest this solemn date --- indeed, the text refers to Zechariah's priestly order participating in their rotation of duties (Luke 1:8, 23; cf. 2 Chr 13:11) and that he enters the sanctuary to burn incense after being chosen by lot (1:9). Your source weakly suggests this lot refers rather to his selection as high priest "at some point in time" (ie. in the past), ignoring what the text actually says and the temporal phrase of 1:8 that anchors the casting of lots to when the priestly order is already on duty.
In any case, the high priests at this time were not chosen by lot... they were appointed, which brings us to your source's attempt to explain away the absence of Zechariah's name from the "Hebrew and Roman records" --- he refers to "a gap between the High Priests from 3 B.C. to 6 A.D.", presumably during which Zechariah could have served. The blog author is correct that who was serving as high priest during this period is not clear since our only source (Josephus) refers to Jesus the son of Sie replacing Eleazar son of Boethus, who was appointed by Archelaus (
Ant. 17.339, 341), in 4 BCE but failing to note when Joazar son of Boethus was reappointed, reemerging in the narrative in 6 CE in connection with the assessment of property by Quirinius (
Ant. 18.3). The problem with invoking this gap in order to slip in Zechariah as high priest is that it is irrelevant since we know exactly who the high priests were through to the early reign of Archelaus as ethnarch, but Luke situates the narrative during the earlier reign of Herod (1:5), who died in 4 BCE --- indeed, if your source takes the Protoevangelium of James seriously on its claim to Zechariah being the high priest, then to remain consistent, he would accept its claim that Herod ordered Zechariah killed (
Prot. Jas. 23.1-3)! As I already noted in an earlier post, the high priest at this time would most likely have been Simon son of Boethus, who was in office from around 24/22 to 5 BCE. For all the high priests who served at the end of Herod's reign through that of his son Archelaus, consult James C. VanderKam's
From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), pp. 406-19.
Your source's final point concerns the worry surrounding Zechariah's delay inside the sanctuary (Luke 1:21), proceeding to connect this with musings in rabbinic sources about what might happen if the high priest died while inside the most holy place that no one else could enter on the Day of Atonement... this assumes the solemn setting nowhere articulated and overlooks the simple and obvious narrative cue that Zechariah has been delayed by the angel's visitation, it matters not one iota what day it was or how far deep inside the sanctuary he was! This is the extent of your source's "proof" that Zechariah was the high priest... all easily refuted.
Kind regards,
Jonathan