Protestant canon

[Standing Up]

So why use the canon mentioned by a few selects men (some of which weren't even Christians) rather than that decided on by many at carthage/hippo? Why do they have pre-eminence?

IIRC, neither EO or RC uses the canon "established" at carthage/hippo anyway!

If you refer to tradition, you should be able to show why one source of tradition is more authoratitave than another.

The sources of the Protestant canon all acknowledge the same thing; that is, the valid line of prophets ended in Ezra's time. Plus, as we saw in the other thread, even Maccabees itself says, there were no valid prophets during the time of its writing.

In the NT, we have Paul, Peter, and others all talking about the Spirit of prophecy moving men.

We also have Jesus delineating the OT (blood of prophets from Abel to Zacharia) and NT (first and last apostles to die).

So, the determination of scripture (God breathed in OT and NT) is clear throughout.

I'll reiterate again because it clarifies IMO exactly the spirit of choice in these matters. It is those groups (EO, RC, OO?, LDS) who place Tradition, Councils, Magesteriums on par with Scripture who also accept the deteros and other things as equal to the God-breathed Scripture. IOW, they decided what would be "scripture", what would be God breathed or moved-by-the-Spirit.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wait, before I protest, which one represents the EOC, the girl on the left, or on the right?

They both look good to me tho I prefer blonds ehehe

 

[ivebeenshown]

IIRC, neither EO or RC uses the canon "established" at carthage/hippo anyway!

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under
the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books
of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the
Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the
Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews,
two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the
Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or
to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have
received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that
the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept. (From 3rd Council of Carthage, 397AD)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

IIRC, neither EO or RC uses the canon "established" at carthage/hippo anyway!

Incorrect. Both recognize all the books mentioned at Carthage as inspired.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I'll reiterate again because it clarifies IMO exactly the spirit of choice in these matters. It is those groups (EO, RC, OO?, LDS) who place Tradition, Councils, Magesteriums on par with Scripture who also accept the deteros and other things as equal to the God-breathed Scripture. IOW, they decided what would be "scripture", what would be God breathed or moved-by-the-Spirit.

Naw, the HS does that, acting through the Church.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>We also have Jesus delineating the OT (blood of prophets from Abel to Zacharia) and NT (first and last apostles to die).<snip>

Source please.

I don't need the Abel citation, just the Zacharia one.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Source please.

I don't need the Abel citation, just the Zacharia one.

It's from the gospel of Pseudo-So and So.

 

[SummaScriptura]

It's from the gospel of Pseudo-So and So.

Yeah, I think so too. I am aware of the quote from Jesus to this effect. I just don't think anyone has demonstrated the Scripture (if any) which refers to Zecharia son of Berechiah. I used to accept this evidence until I looked closely at the passages and the evidence seemed to evaporate.

 

[Erose]

Jerome made changes to the Bible which have impoverished Western Christians of all stripes.

Summa this is a bold claim that I would like to see you support, which I don't think you can. Especially since the West experience a much longer and stronger "golden age" than did the East. There is a reason why the Western Catholic church, and not the Eastern Orthodox churches, is the predominate Christian faith in the world.

Not saying that this is Jerome's doing, but I do think that his translation was a great tool used by the Western Church up until recently.

But to make a claim that Jerome's translation impoverished the Western Church which has not seen impoverishment is quite frankly stretching it quite a bit.

1. Jerome moved the Church in the West off the Greek text as the basis for the Old Testament.

And what is the problem with this? We have to remember that the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scripture and not the other way around. Also the manuscripts used by Jerome where much older than anything that modern scholars possessed up until the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't like he was translating the Masoretic text. Not only that Jerome during his translations used both the Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures. Beside's Jerome make a very good case for why he did this to his second letter to Rufinus.

2. Jerome diminished the catholic epistles in the New Testament by moving them to the back.

Dimished? Tell me where you would have put them? Before the gospels or just before the Pauline letters? And besides they are still in the Bible as scripture.

3. Jerome promoted the Pauline epistles by moving them after Acts in the N.T., specifically to promote the epistle to the Church of Rome.

Where is your proof and if you have some proof the next question what is the damage?

4. Jerome was the first (not Luther) to label the books he did not like "Apocrypha"

Yes the term was used during his time but I wouldn't necessarily think that it was Jerome that coined the word.

5. Jerome did not bring forward a number of chapters and books into the Latin Vulgate, Manasseh, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras etc.

Because they were not part of the Western canon established by the council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, who coincidently is the one that commissioned Jerome to correct the Old Latin translation, which I agree that he went beyond that by making a whole new translation and I would have to say thank God that he did. But to say that it was Jerome who regulated these writings to the appendix on his own is not a very accurate explanation of what really happened.

6. Jerome was the first (not Luther) to put books and/or chapters he did not find of value into an appendix

Again I think you are misrepresenting Jerome here. If Jerome felt they had no value he would have argued that they should not be in his Bible at all. But there they are. One thing to point out here is that in the West these writings that ended up in Jerome's appendix where not canonical in the West. That is not used for liturgical reasons.

Jerome the Great should be called Jerome the Innovator. When it comes to the Bible, however, oftentimes "innovations" are not a good idea.

But in the case of the many "innovations" of Jerome, one can say that they were good ideas from which the church benefited from for over a 1000years.

 

[Rick Otto]

It's from the gospel of Pseudo-So and So.

Is that EOspeak for "Luke:11"?
49] Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
[50] That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
[51] From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

 

[hedrick]

I disagree whole heartedly with you on this. The book of Wisdom is by far the deepest book in the OT and I would even make the claim that the book of Wisdom is for the OT what the gospel of John is for the NT.

Wisdom may be wonderful, but it doesn't have any plausible authorship by a prophet. It's part of Jewish wisdom literature. Actually, so are a couple of the books in the actual OT. The judgement described in the Jewish Encyclopedia is not one that modern scholars would make. But I didn't mean by "inspired" the typical common-language sense of an inspirational book. I meant that it was written by an actual Inspired prophet, who was speaking for God. That's what the Jewish decision was trying to get at. Again, I think they got it at best only approximately, but if you accept the traditional attribution of the Hebrew OT, it's not a terrible distinction.

As far as I can tell, there was a combination of reasons for the Reformers:

* They used the Hebrew canon, for reasons I already mentioned. Hebrew copies in Qumran and other evidence for Hebrew isn't the issue, and much of it wouldn't have been available to them anyway. It wasn't part of the usual Hebrew Bible. Discussions of the actual history of the Jewish canon is interesting. It's by no means clear that it was post-Christian. I believe the concept of Jamnia is a 19th Cent idea. They would more likely have known Josephus' account of the closing of the canon under Ezra. Josephus is a strong indication of what the Hebrew canon was in Jesus' time.

* There were doubts from a few well-known early Christians.

* Some of the more questionable doctrines seemed to be based on D-C books. However I should note that this isn't deciding, since Calvin did expositions of the relevant D-C texts in the Institutes anyway.

* The lack of quotations from the D-C books in the NT (allusions are a different thing) didn't help, although of course not every book in the OT is quoted.

* Jesus typical term "the Law and the Prophets" is unlikely to include the D-C books, and the Reformers surely would have seen it as referring to the Hebrew OT.

All of these can be argued, and I have no beef with Catholics for using the larger canon. But I think there's enough reason that it was sensible for the Reformers to use the Hebrew canon, as they would have known it. Educated Protestants should know the D-C books anyway, for their insight into the background of NT times. But I wouldn't quote it as canonical when dealing with other Protestants.

Catholics and Protestants use the Bible differently. I think the differing canons actually fit their approach. Catholics take a broader view of the role of Scripture. Wisdom literature works just fine for them. They can also deal with a "stepped canon", i.e. a canon with books having various levels of centrality. This is certainly the Jewish tradition, where the Torah is clearly at a higher level than anything else, then the prophets (which includes the historical books), then the writings, and maybe the D-C books. The way Protestants tend to use the Bible makes this problematical. They want only the higher levels of authority, with authors who are viewed as having verified authority from God, e.g. Moses, David, and the prophets, and the Apostles in the NT.

As is well-known, some Protestants toyed with the idea of making at least some level of distinction in the NT as well, but that never caught on. It's probably good that it didn't. James is an important balance for some interpretations of Paul, and the Rev gives a valuable perspective, as long as we don't treat it as a codebook we can turn into a timeline.

Of course some of these identifications turn out to be a bit dubious, but I still think that in both Jewish and Christian tradition, the D-C books are less central than the Torah and the prophets. That Catholics and Protestants would draw the line differently is completely consistent with their differing views of Scripture.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Is that EOspeak for "Luke:11"?
49] Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
[50] That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
[51] From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

No I think our EO friend was remarking on how you get to the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures from this saying of Christ. Its quite a leap.

First of all, you have to get past the long leap to having Christ referring to a codex of the O.T. which is the only way you get a beginning and an end to a mass of scroll books. The Jews were reluctant to use the codex format.

To say nothing of not finding any reference to any "Zechariah the son of Barachiah" (Mat. 23:35) in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Summa this is a bold claim that I would like to see you support, which I don't think you can. Especially since the West experience a much longer and stronger "golden age" than did the East. There is a reason why the Western Catholic church, and not the Eastern Orthodox churches, is the predominate Christian faith in the world.

Not saying that this is Jerome's doing, but I do think that his translation was a great tool used by the Western Church up until recently.

But to make a claim that Jerome's translation impoverished the Western Church which has not seen impoverishment is quite frankly stretching it quite a bit.

And what is the problem with this? We have to remember that the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scripture and not the other way around. Also the manuscripts used by Jerome where much older than anything that modern scholars possessed up until the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't like he was translating the Masoretic text. Not only that Jerome during his translations used both the Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures. Beside's Jerome make a very good case for why he did this to his second letter to Rufinus.

Dimished? Tell me where you would have put them? Before the gospels or just before the Pauline letters? And besides they are still in the Bible as scripture.

Where is your proof and if you have some proof the next question what is the damage?

Yes the term was used during his time but I wouldn't necessarily think that it was Jerome that coined the word.

Because they were not part of the Western canon established by the council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, who coincidently is the one that commissioned Jerome to correct the Old Latin translation, which I agree that he went beyond that by making a whole new translation and I would have to say thank God that he did. But to say that it was Jerome who regulated these writings to the appendix on his own is not a very accurate explanation of what really happened.

Again I think you are misrepresenting Jerome here. If Jerome felt they had no value he would have argued that they should not be in his Bible at all. But there they are. One thing to point out here is that in the West these writings that ended up in Jerome's appendix where not canonical in the West. That is not used for liturgical reasons.

But in the case of the many "innovations" of Jerome, one can say that they were good ideas from which the church benefited from for over a 1000years.

Another reason I could cite is:

7. Jerome led the West into using a Bible that had less integration between its Old and New Testaments. A heritage from the Catholic Church preserved in all Protestant Bibles.

8. Jerome's "translation" of Tobit in the Vulgate is atrocious. He practically admitted that much. "I spent an evening on it". Probably a worse example of sloppy paraphrasing than most modern paraphrases. He rendered the storyline ludicrous.

On can say many, many things. And many people do. I have cited my list of Jerome's innovations. I find them deleterious. You find them wonderful products of the leading of the Holy Spirit. I don't think the Holy Spirit would lead Christ's Church in a direction which made the Bible less integrated and harder to understand.

You are a Catholic who is defending the direction taken by his church in history; I understand that. I am a Protestant defending the more ancient tradition of the communions of Orthodoxy regarding this one subject: the preservation of the tradtions regarding the Scriptures. What the West did in its councils is of passing interest from an historical perspective for me, that's about it.

 

[Erose]

Wisdom may be wonderful, but it doesn't have any plausible authorship by a prophet. It's part of Jewish wisdom literature. Actually, so are a couple of the books in the actual OT. The judgement described in the Jewish Encyclopedia is not one that modern scholars would make. But I didn't mean by "inspired" the typical common-language sense of an inspirational book. I meant that it was written by an actual Inspired prophet, who was speaking for God. That's what the Jewish decision was trying to get at. Again, I think they got it at best only approximately, but if you accept the traditional attribution of the Hebrew OT, it's not a terrible distinction.

Can you think of any Christiological prophecies in the book of Proverbs? To be a prophet always means saying something that occurs in the future? Or does it mean saying or writing the word of God?

There is no doubt that the Book of Wisdom is the word of God, I would say that its teaching is much closer to the teaching of the New Testament than other wisdom literature found in the OT.

But Wisdom possesses something not found in other Wisdom literature except fo the Psalms. There is a passage that takes one into the minds of the Jews watching Jesus die on the cross:

Wisdom 2: [12] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [13] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. [14] He is become a censurer of our thoughts. [15] He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.


[16] We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. [17] Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. [18] For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. [19] Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. [20] Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
[21] These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. [22] And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. [23] For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. [24] But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: [25] And they follow him that are of his side.

What passages in the NT does this passage remind you of? For me it takes me to the foot of the Cross.

As far as I can tell, there was a combination of reasons for the Reformers:

* They used the Hebrew canon, for reasons I already mentioned. Hypothetical Hebrew originals for some of the books wouldn't have been relevant to them.

One question for you Hedrick, did Luther translate his Bible from Hebrew into German or Latin into German? And do you have sources?

* There were doubts from a few well-known early Christians.

Not necessarily doubts. Remember that in the early churches each had their own canon that they used in their liturgies. The Western canon wasn't solidified until Pope Damasus I and the council of Rome in the 4th century.

* Some of the more questionable doctrines seemed to be based on D-C books. However I should note that this isn't deciding, since Calvin did expositions of the relevant D-C texts in the Institutes anyway.

I think this is the primary reason why Luther and later Calvin rejected the D-C books. They just didn't fit into their theology.

* The lack of quotations from the D-C books in the NT (allusions are a different thing) didn't help, although of course not every book in the OT is quoted.

Heb 11: [35] Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection. In the Protestant OT we can think of two women who had a loved one raised to life (1 Kings 17; 2 Kings 4). Can you think of any woman that was tortured not accepting deliverance from the torture in hope of a better resurrection? I can think of only one and that is: 2 Mac 7. In this chapter a woman had to watch all seven of her sons tortured and killed for their beliefs. They could have survived if only they would eat pigs' meat. But they all including the mother held to their profession of faith in God. The final verses make this point well: 2 Mac 7: [36] For my brethren, having now undergone a short pain, are under the covenant of eternal life: but thou by the judgment of God shalt receive just punishment for thy pride. [37] But I, like my brethren, offer up my life and my body for the laws of our fathers: calling upon God to be speedily merciful to our nation, and that thou by torments and stripes mayst confess that he alone is God. [38] But in me and in my brethren the wrath of the Almighty, which hath justly been brought upon all our nation, shall cease. [39] Then the king being incensed with anger, raged against him more cruelly than all the rest, taking it grievously that he was mocked. [40] So this man also died undefiled, wholly trusting in the Lord. [41] And last of all after the sons the mother also was consumed. [42] But now there is enough said of the sacrifices, and of the excessive cruelties.

Another thing to point out here is the teachings of sacrifice taught in the NT are found here in 2 Macc.

This is just an example of one instance that I have found.

* Jesus typical term "the Law and the Prophets" is unlikely to include the D-C books, and the Reformers surely would have seen it as referring to the Hebrew OT.

If you go off of this term that would eliminate about half of the OT Bible that you accept. What about the history books and the wisdom books? If I remember correctly the Jews break the Bible down into more than two sections. It is either 3 or 4 but I do not have my references with me to support that.

Catholics and Protestants use the Bible differently. I think the differing canons actually fit their approach. Catholics take a broader view of the role of Scripture. Wisdom literature works just fine for them. They can also deal with a "stepped canon", i.e. a canon with books having various levels of centrality. This is certainly the Jewish tradition, where the Torah is clearly at a higher level than anything else, then the prophets (which includes the historical books), then the writings, and maybe the D-C books. The way Protestants tend to use the Bible makes this problematical. They want only the higher levels of authority, with authors who are viewed as having verified authority from God, e.g. Moses, David, and the prophets, and the Apostles in the NT.

I agree with you for the most part. When the Western church established the Western Canon it used three criteria and they were: Orthodoxy, Historical usage, and Liturgical usage. If I remember correctly the term canon was used at that time specifically to refer to the Scripture that was used in the Liturgical services of the Church.

As is well-known, some Protestants toyed with the idea of making at least some level of distinction in the NT as well, but that never caught on. It's probably good that it didn't. James is an important balance for some interpretations of Paul, and the Rev gives a valuable perspective, as long as we don't treat it as a codebook we can turn into a timeline.

That is how I understand it as well.

Of course some of these identifications turn out to be a bit dubious, but I still think that in both Jewish and Christian tradition, the D-C books are less central than the Torah and the prophets. That Catholics and Protestants would draw the line differently is completely consistent with their differing views of Scripture.

In the Jewish tradition there is the Torah and the rest of scripture. The Torah is central in Jewish worship with the rest of scripture being a kind of a supporting cast. For Catholics it is the Gospels that are central to our worship. If you have ever been to one of our services you may have noticed a higher level of reverence for the Gospels than the rest of Scripture. For the reading of the Gospels we stand during the reading, while we sit during the other readings, and only ordained ministers (bishop, priest, or deacon) can read the Gospels at Mass, while a layman can read the other writings.

 

[Erose]

Another reason I could cite is:

7. Jerome led the West into using a Bible that had less integration between its Old and New Testaments. A heritage from the Catholic Church preserved in all Protestant Bibles.

Less intergration? Do you have evidence of this and can you explain this point in a little more detail. I am not challenging on this for I am not exactly sure what you mean by this.

8. Jerome's "translation" of Tobit in the Vulgate is atrocious. He practically admitted that much. "I spent an evening on it". Probably a worse example of sloppy paraphrasing than most modern paraphrases. He rendered the storyline ludicrous.

If I remember correctly, because Jerome did not have a Hebrew manuscript of Tobit, he took the current translation from his Old Latin Bible and compared it to his Greek manuscripts and corrected where it needed to be corrected. So he did not retranslate Tobit but corrected the existing Latin translation to his Greek manuscripts. Since Tobit is a relatively short book finishing Tobit in one night is not unreasonable. Now granted I have not seen the quote from Jerome on this personally and if you have it I would like to see it. Not saying he didn't say it, but I have learned that seeing is believing.

On can say many, many things. And many people do. I have cited my list of Jerome's innovations. I find them deleterious. You find them wonderful products of the leading of the Holy Spirit. I don't think the Holy Spirit would lead Christ's Church in a direction which made the Bible less integrated and harder to understand.

Look I haven't seen anything in any of these points that are not opinions. That is fine but they as far as I can tell not complete factual from what I see.

You are a Catholic who is defending the direction taken by his church in history; I understand that. I am a Protestant defending the more ancient tradition of the communions of Orthodoxy regarding this one subject: the preservation of the tradtions regarding the Scriptures. What the West did in its councils is of passing interest from an historical perspective for me, that's about it.

You are correct I am Catholic and you are Protestant, but historically the Orthodox church is not older than the Catholic Church since they used to be the same church.

I understand why the Eastern Churches have their Canons and why they have additional books in them that are not in my Bible. I do not fault this but respect this. In the ancient churches as well as today Liturgy is the center of our Churches' existence. One cannot ignore the importance of the liturgical usage of the Scriptures in the ancient churches. Each Particular Church has it own liturgical traditions and those liturgical traditions included the Canon of Scripture used those Churches. As our Eastern Brethren should be able to attest to is that in the Particular Churches of the East both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches there are differing canons of Scripture. And the reason for this is centered around Liturgical usage.

I do think that all Eastern Churches' canons include the Catholic canon with some additional writings. This should be celebrated because this is their tradition hard earned through much blood and tears.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>Look I haven't seen anything in any of these points that are not opinions.<snip>

I do not see how we can have any realistic dialogue if this is the true way you see it.

 

[SummaScriptura]

From Kevin Edgecomb's translation:

Vulgate Prologues

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

1Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!
I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the 3Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. 6For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans 9is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.
12I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.

I see this as shoddy.

You are free to be of the opinion that that was normal and a good way to go about it. Fine.

After comparing his translation with the text of the book, I do not see how anyone can come away with the opinion that is the way Biblical books should be translated. Jerome's version makes the premise of the book laughable: bird dung in yer eyes can make you blind.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

No I think our EO friend was remarking on how you get to the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures from this saying of Christ. Its quite a leap.

First of all, you have to get past the long leap to having Christ referring to a codex of the O.T. which is the only way you get a beginning and an end to a mass of scroll books. The Jews were reluctant to use the codex format.

To say nothing of not finding any reference to any "Zechariah the son of Barachiah" (Mat. 23:35) in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Yup.

 

[Standing Up]

No I think our EO friend was remarking on how you get to the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures from this saying of Christ. Its quite a leap.

First of all, you have to get past the long leap to having Christ referring to a codex of the O.T. which is the only way you get a beginning and an end to a mass of scroll books. The Jews were reluctant to use the codex format.

To say nothing of not finding any reference to any "Zechariah the son of Barachiah" (Mat. 23:35) in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Perhaps.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
51. blood of Zacharias-Probably the allusion is not to any recent murder, but to 2Ch 24:20-22, as the last recorded and most suitable case for illustration. And as Zacharias' last words were, "The Lord require it," so they are warned that "of that generation it should be required."

 

[Standing Up]

Source please.

I don't need the Abel citation, just the Zacharia one.

... : it remains, that it must be Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, who was slain in the court of the house of the Lord, 2 Chronicles 24:20 who, as Abel was the first, he is the last of the righteous men whose death is related in the Scriptures, and for whose blood vengeance was required, as for Abel's. He was slain in the court of the house of the Lord; and so the Ethiopic version here renders it, in the midst of the holy house. It is often said by the Jewish writer (c), that "R. Joden (sometimes it is R. Jonathan) asked R. Acha, whether they slew Zechariah, in the court of the Israelites, or in the court of the women? he answered him, neither in the court of the Israelites, nor in the court of the women, but in the court of the priests.
Matthew 23:35 Bible Commentary (Gill)

Abel to Zechariah----OT
James to John----NT