If Jesus/Yeshua Was God, Why Did He Mess Up?

[BL2KTN]

So all the righteous blood shed on the earth will be charged to you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. -- Yeshua/Jesus, Matthew 23:35

Only problem is, Zechariah who was murdered wasn't the son of Berechiah; he was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20-21). The Zechariah who was actually the son of Berechiah was a minor prophet who suffered no such fate.

If Jesus/Yeshua is God, how did he confuse the prophets? Is it possible for Yahweh to forget who he is talking about?

 

[Targaryen]

You do realize that the Gospels were not actually written by Jesus, right?

 

[NorrinRadd]

So all the righteous blood shed on the earth will be charged to you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. -- Yeshua/Jesus, Matthew 23:35

Only problem is, Zechariah who was murdered wasn't the son of Berechiah; he was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20-21). The Zechariah who was actually the son of Berechiah was a minor prophet who suffered no such fate.

If Jesus/Yeshua is God, how did he confuse the prophets? Is it possible for Yahweh to forget who he is talking about?

Jesus, and Matthew who transcribed the account, often followed the communication conventions of their culture, not the ones common today. Per Craig Keener in the IVP Bible Background Commentary:

The Zechariah murdered in the temple was son of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chron 24:22), not Zechariah son of Berechiah (Zech 1:1), who lived much later in Israel’s history. But Matthew uses the Jewish interpretive technique of combining key words to coalesce two Zechariahs, referring to one and alluding to the other, as he did with Amon/Amos and Asa/Asaph in his genealogy in chapter 1. (The suggestion of some scholars that “Zechariah” also alludes to a prophet martyred in a.d. 67 is unlikely.)

​

 

[BL2KTN]

You do realize that the Gospels were not actually written by Jesus, right?

So the gospel of Matthew is incorrect about what Jesus/Yeshua said?

Jesus, and Matthew who transcribed the account, often followed the communication conventions of their culture, not the ones common today. Per Craig Keener in the IVP Bible Background Commentary:
The Zechariah murdered in the temple was son of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chron 24:22), not Zechariah son of Berechiah (Zech 1:1), who lived much later in Israel’s history. But Matthew uses the Jewish interpretive technique of combining key words to coalesce two Zechariahs, referring to one and alluding to the other, as he did with Amon/Amos and Asa/Asaph in his genealogy in chapter 1. (The suggestion of some scholars that “Zechariah” also alludes to a prophet martyred in a.d. 67 is unlikely.)

This appears to be a paragraph of academic jargon intended to forgive a pattern of factual errors made in the bible. In actuality there is no alluding in the text I provided. It's just an error of confusing the Zachariah/Zechariahs... nothing more, nothing less.

 

[NorrinRadd]

This appears to be a paragraph of academic jargon intended to forgive a pattern of factual errors made in the bible. In actuality there is no alluding in the text I provided. It's just an error of confusing the Zachariah/Zechariahs... nothing more, nothing less.

No, it's you insisting that we must take a literalist approach to Scripture, and that the ancients communicate according to modern standards. They didn't do that. For instance, regarding Matt. 27:9-10 --

Jewish scholars could cite some texts while simultaneously alluding to others. Matthew here quotes Zechariah 11:12–13, but by attributing it to Jeremiah he also alludes to a similar text that he wishes his more skillful readers to catch (Jer 32:6–10; cf. 19:1–4, 10–11). (The quotation is almost verbatim, and it is unlikely that Matthew would have known the text so well yet attributed it accidentally to the wrong author, unless he is using a list of standard messianic proof texts instead of citing directly from Zechariah, or he is purposely “blending” texts, as I suggest here.) Zechariah 11:12–13 refers to the low valuation God’s people had placed on him; they valued him at the price of a slave (Ex 21:32).

​

Or Eph. 4:8. Most translations format it as a quote, and in footnotes refer to Psa. 68:18. Paul actually paraphrases the Psalm to apply it to his purpose.

That sort of thing happens frequently. The ancients didn't follow the same rules and standards we use today. Really, pretty much all the punctuation in Scripture is "best guesses" by translators. There were no vowels in the ancient Hebrew of the OT, and the NT was all upper case with no punctuation.

Now, if it makes you happy to say, "A-HAH!!! There's an error in the Bible!" then fine. Goody for you. It's not going to bother anyone who has any sense.

 

[Harry3142]

It is believed that the person of whom Jesus is speaking was neither Zacharias that we find in the Old Testament. Instead, he is referred to by Josephus in his book The Wars of the Jews 4:5:4, and was the son of Baruch. he was murdered in the temple by Idumeans following their capture of it. However, the Idumeans are recorded to have received help from traitorous Jews, which enabled them to seize the temple.

 

[BL2KTN]

No, it's you insisting that we must take a literalist approach to Scripture, and that the ancients communicate according to modern standards. They didn't do that. For instance, regarding Matt. 27:9-10 --

I insist no such thing. In this example, however, it appears there is a genuine mistake by either Yeshua or the author of the gospel.

Or Eph. 4:8. Most translations format it as a quote, and in footnotes refer to Psa. 68:18. Paul actually paraphrases the Psalm to apply it to his purpose.

That sort of thing happens frequently. The ancients didn't follow the same rules and standards we use today. Really, pretty much all the punctuation in Scripture is "best guesses" by translators. There were no vowels in the ancient Hebrew of the OT, and the NT was all upper case with no punctuation.

Now, if it makes you happy to say, "A-HAH!!! There's an error in the Bible!" then fine. Goody for you. It's not going to bother anyone who has any sense.

I think when you conclude with a statement that suggests those who disagree with you have no sense, it really speaks poorly of your character. All your examples are really unrelated... the grammatical rules of ancient languages have little to do with Yeshua naming the wrong Zechariah.

[quote="Harry3142]It is believed that the person of whom Jesus is speaking was neither Zacharias that we find in the Old Testament. Instead, he is referred to by Josephus in his book The Wars of the Jews 4:5:4, and was the son of Baruch. he was murdered in the temple by Idumeans following their capture of it. However, the Idumeans are recorded to have received help from traitorous Jews, which enabled them to seize the temple.[/quote]

Can you reference this for me? If this is true, it would surprisingly resolve the issue.

 

[NannaNae]

1Ch 15:23
And Berechiah and( and his grandpa?) Elkanah were doorkeepers for the ark.

Berechiah appears to be a clan line with in Levi.. and these position of the temples are hereditary possessions. thus all Berechiah are eligible to be doorkeepers for the ark.


A Zachariah so many years later could have been a son of Johoiada, and that does not exclude him being from the clan line( son of / by right of Barachiah ) with all of it's rights and privileges and responsibilities ! considering he dies at the ark and the clan line of the rightful male line of Barachiah and they were the door keepers to the ark.. means Jesus knew the lineage of everybody... even when he was just a man!


His word is true ! only the mind of men is tiny!
his word is true it is our jobs to understand how it is true!

to think that you would let your lack of knowledge about such a small thing as who
s was who's daddy in your head.. keep you from the most awesome God, proves you ain't so bright as you wish to be.. seems your and others concepts of clans and families and their rights is really lacking.
Because God is all over that stuff!

 

[Harry3142]

What we have here is a translation of a translation. Since Matthew is believed to have been written originally in either hebrew or aramaic, The name for Zacharias' father would have looked like this; Brch. Many years later, when Matthew was translated into greek, the translator would have looked at these consonants and assumed that they were identifying Berachiah, when they were actually identifying Baruch as the father of that particular man named Zacharias.

 

[BL2KTN]

Matthew was not written in Hebrew originally and Aramaic uses vowels. This is not a translation issue.

 

[Targaryen]

Originally Posted by LiberalAnglicanCatholic

You do realize that the Gospels were not actually written by Jesus, right?
​

So the gospel of Matthew is incorrect about what Jesus/Yeshua said?

Maybe Matthew's author got the context wrong or maybe it was a legitimate misquote. Still doesn't back your position any.

 

[BL2KTN]

Maybe Matthew's author got the context wrong or maybe it was a legitimate misquote. Still doesn't back your position any.

I'll take your answer that it's possibly the wrong context by the author or a legitimate misquote. Others may not like that, however, since it leads to a doctrine of errant scripture. They won't like the slippery slope of that, but I like your answer. I think it's most likely.

 

[Harry3142]

BlueLightningTN-

My reference for its being Zacharias son of Baruch I found in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. As for the language in which Matthew was originally written, scholars came to the conclusion that it was hebrew based on 2 different factors:

1. The gospel is directed at Jews, not Gentiles. Since they considered hebrew to be a 'holy language', it would be of benefit to write it in hebrew.

2. A few years ago scholars skilled in both greek and hebrew decided to translate the gospels into hebrew from greek as an entellectual exercise. What they found when they started translating Matthew surprised them. Even though the copy they had was written in greek, the sentence structure was clearly hebrew.

Some ultraliberal scholars have attempted to convince us that none of the gospels were written until very late in the 1st century. Unknown authors used the book of Mark, written sometime after 70 AD, added to it quotes from a gospel called Q (which there is no evidence for ever having existed), and then attached to them the names of those who had actually known Jesus or , in the case of Luke, had access to eyewitnesses.

However, that theory is by no means universally accepted. In the Muratorian Fragment, itself written circa 170 AD, it states that the 3 synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), as well as that part of Luke which later became the book of Acts, were completed prior to St. Paul's being released from his first imprisonment, and then journeying to Spain. This dates them to having been written before 62 AD. We can arrive at this date due to St. Paul's being rearrested during Nero's reign of terror, and summarily executed in 64 AD.

Here is some information on properly dating the gospels:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html

 

[BL2KTN]

1. It is obvious Matthew was not written for Jews. The author purposefully explains Jewish customs, geographies, etc, and sometimes gets them wrong.

2. There's no possible way it was written in Hebrew since the author of Matthew can't read Hebrew. We know this because he confused the words "and" and "even" in Hebrew when he has Jesus/Yeshua riding two animals into Jerusalem (unlike the other gospels which get it right).

3. You'll have to reference your second point... I speak multiple languages, and I can tell you the whole sentence structure thing makes zero sense. Just like I can't write Spanish in English sentence structure, I can't write Hebrew in Greek sentence structure. It is impossible because the grammar rules are different. If someone tried, the translated language would be garbled and obvious that it was switched word-for-word form the first language.

4. Dating of the gospels is off-topic for this thread.

5. If you wouldn't mind posting what the New Jerome Biblical Commentary says, I'd appreciate it. I don't have access to it and can't judge the merits of its assertion without seeing where it's getting its information.

 

[Harry3142]

I suggest that you read Contemporary Catholic Biblical Scholarship, found on the Christiancadre website I referenced in message #13. There you will find contradictions to your statement concerning greek and hebrew. They also know multiple languages.

As for quoting from The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, I did that when I noted that the reference to Zacharias son of Baruch was to be found in The Wars of the Jews 4:5:4.

 

[Sketcher]

Dr. Michael L. Brown (academic creds here) refutes this in his work, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4 - New Testament Objections." Basically, the best two explanations for this are either that:

- "Son" is to be taken in a less literal way, since we could be known as "sons" of Adam or I could be known as a "son" of a more recent ancestor. Zechariah son of Jehoiada may have had an ancestor named Berechiah if this is the case.

- "Berekiah" may not have been an original rendering, and thus may be an early copyist error.

Either way, similar inconsistencies exist in the Targum as well.

I would recommend the book for a more in-depth answer, and if possible, correspondence with Dr. Brown if you have further questions after having read it.

-

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Closed.

General apologetic threads are not allowed.


ADMIN HAT OFF