Protestant canon

[Standing Up]

Chronicles was considered the overview of their history and written by Ezra. This corresponds to the "bookends" (Genesis to Chronicles) like Matthew to Revelation, even though neither are arranged chronologically.

 

[Montalban]

Didn't that temple morph into Herod's temple?

Yes, although when Herod rennovated it it became known as "Herod's Temple".

How does that help your theory?

 

[Montalban]

Chronicles was considered the overview of their history and written by Ezra. This corresponds to the "bookends" (Genesis to Chronicles) like Matthew to Revelation, even though neither are arranged chronologically.

The last events in Chronicles take place in the reign of Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon in 539 BCE

While Ahasuerus was traditionally identified with Xerxes I during the time of the Achaemenid empire, many historians now believe that Esther was the queen of Persia under a later king of Persia, during the time of the Sassanid empire


As far as I can tell Xerxes comes after Cyrcus the Great

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, although when Herod rennovated it it became known as "Herod's Temple".

How does that help your theory?

I would have loved to have seen the original Solomon's Temple

JERUSALEM:BIBLE ARCHITECTURE:SOLOMON'S TEMPLE,SECOND TEMPLE,KING HEROD THE GREAT,HOLY CITYhttp://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/

Herod the Great rebuilt the Second Temple on a grand scale. It took 46 years to build, and was completed in 26AD. It was used not only for worship, but as a repository for the Scriptures and a meeting place for the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish law court. This Temple was destroyed in 70AD after the Jewish Revolt.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Reformation by any other name means to go backward, to the source, to the origin; it means to trace a teaching, a book, backward. The earlier it surfaces the more likely it is to be apostolic. It should then be embraced and the rest rejected.

The Reformation of the 16th century was not a reformation movement tracing back to Apostolic times. Both Luther's and Calvin's reformation movements drew inspiration from and attmepted to trace back to the 5th century.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Chronicles was considered the overview of their history and written by Ezra. This corresponds to the "bookends" (Genesis to Chronicles) like Matthew to Revelation, even though neither are arranged chronologically.

Interesting way to put it.

So then, if Jesus is indeed "bookending' sacred history, perhaps he is merely referring to Chronicles in total. 1 Chronicles 1 begins with the genealogy of Adam. So, Chronicles could be seen here are the scroll which perfectly bookended the martyrdoms of Abel and Zechariah, even though Abel is skipped over.

This would mean it says nothing about canon.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Justin Martyr makes the same claim against the Jews 4 times, but each assertion was shown later in history to be false.

Paul wrote that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Josephus wrote they didn't change anything. I doubt they altered things and it seems a poor explanation.

And who says the deutero's weren't written by Jews? And even then, where in that verse does it say that "only the Jews" were trusted with the words of God?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Didn't that temple morph into Herod's temple? FYI, the Spirit never filled that temple like the tabernacle of Moses or Solomon's temple. (Or like the Christian.)

What was Joshua the high priest doing then if there was no temple?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Chronicles was considered the overview of their history and written by Ezra. This corresponds to the "bookends" (Genesis to Chronicles) like Matthew to Revelation, even though neither are arranged chronologically.

Why doesn't Josephus consider Chronicles to be the bookend, though, in his list of scripture?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Chronicles was considered the overview of their history and written by Ezra. This corresponds to the "bookends" (Genesis to Chronicles) like Matthew to Revelation, even though neither are arranged chronologically.

and Chronicles wasn't the last OT book to be penned, either...how could Chronicles give a comprehensive overview of Jewish history if there was much to come afterwards? What real function does the bookend have in this situation then, other than it being placed at the end of the canon by 2nd century sources?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Interesting way to put it.

So then, if Jesus is indeed "bookending' sacred history, perhaps he is merely referring to Chronicles in total. 1 Chronicles 1 begins with the genealogy of Adam. So, Chronicles could be seen here are the scroll which perfectly bookended the martyrdoms of Abel and Zechariah, even though Abel is skipped over.

This would mean it says nothing about canon.

Good catch. Never noticed that. Yet another possibility...

 

[Erose]

This has been an interesting discussion, but I believe the original question was why Protestants chose the Hebrew canon. Most of the issues here are unlikely to have affected the Reformers. I still think from the 16th Cent perspective, they had two realistic choices: the Greek canon via the Vulgate, and the Hebrew canon. My suspicion is that they were simply going back to what they would have seen as the original, just as they moved to the Greek NT. If the Greek NT had had a different set of books than the Vulgate, I assume we'd have differences in the NT canon as well. I think the situation would have been different had there been a Hebrew Bible with the D-C books, and even more complex if there had been some with and some without. I'm making no statements about the original language of the D-C books or whether some Hebrew translations had been made, just about the canons as they existed in the 16th Cent. The Reformers had enough on their plate without constructing a canon other than the two obvious ones.

Even after reading all of this I'm not convinced that they were wrong to do so. However my Bibles mostly have the D-C books, and I do read them from time to time.

I respect your opinion on this matter for you seem to be more knowledgable than most of your peers on this forum so I have few questions for you:

1) Why reject the Vulgate since it for the most part was a translation from the original languages? Was it an occurance already at the time of Luther that there was a moving away from Latin back to cultural languages?

2) Why the Masoretic texts instead of the earlier Hebrew texts? Was it for convenience sake, since, I assume here, it was easier to get ahold of the Masoretic OT or was it ignorance?

3) What language was Luther translating from for his Bible and how did he learn Hebrew?

Thanks before hand.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Another question, did any of the reformers use the Abel to Zecharia reference to defend the Protestant canon that we know of?

 

[SummaScriptura]

and Chronicles wasn't the last OT book to be penned, either...how could Chronicles give a comprehensive overview of Jewish history if there was much to come afterwards? What real function does the bookend have in this situation then, other than it being placed at the end of the canon by 2nd century sources?

Besides this, to make the martyrdom of Zecharaih the son of Jehoida the priest, in 2 Chronicles 24, a "bookend", is weird on the face of it because:

• Chronicles 25-35, span an additional 400 years of time. 2 Chronicles 24 takes place about eight centuries before Christ, and 100 years before the Northern Kingdom was dispersed.
  
• There were many martyrdoms of prophets which occurred after 2 Chronicles 24. Manasseh, King of Judah is reputed to have killed as many prophets as he could lay hands on, including Isaiah.
  
• 2 Chronicles 24, coming as it does before the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, does not coincide with any so-called "silent years" of prophecy, (not that there was any such "silent years")
  
• I cannot envision any scenario in which the listeners to Christ would comprehend this was the way in which Christ using the reference.
  
• Besides, the "canon" of Scripture was not even closed by Christ's time, remember these words?: "I have not come to abolish [Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill them." (The Greek word "pleroo" used here means to fill up or make complete.) A better indicator that Christ viewed the canon of Scripture still open, you'll not find.

 

[Standing Up]

Besides this, to make the martyrdom of Zecharaih the son of Jehoida the priest, in 2 Chronicles 24, a "bookend", is weird on the face of it because:

• Chronicles 25-35, span an additional 400 years of time. 2 Chronicles 24 takes place about eight centuries before Christ, and 100 years before the Northern Kingdom was dispersed.
  
• There were many martyrdoms of prophets which occurred after 2 Chronicles 24. Manasseh, King of Judah is reputed to have killed as many prophets as he could lay hands on, including Isaiah.
  
• 2 Chronicles 24, coming as it does before the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, does not coincide with any so-called "silent years" of prophecy, (not that there was any such "silent years")
  
• I cannot envision any scenario in which the listeners to Christ would comprehend this was the way in which Christ using the reference.
  
• Besides, the "canon" of Scripture was not even closed by Christ's time, remember these words?: "I have not come to abolish [Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill them." (The Greek word "pleroo" used here means to fill up or make complete.) A better indicator that Christ viewed the canon of Scripture still open, you'll not find.

Given that, as noted earlier, the question remains then, why and to whom was the reference Abel to Zechariah made?

You noted that the Spirit departed from the temple about the time of 2 Chron. 24:22. It was then destroyed 100 years later, no? Yet for another 400 years there were genuine prophets. But, Ezra supposedly penned Chronicles.

Lastly, the concensus was there were no genuine prophets for the 400 years from Malachi to John the baptist. Again, even Macc notes that. No 'thus sayeth the LORD' during that time.

We haven't spoken to the veracity of the deteros, but my understanding is they are filled with historic contradiction, etc.

So, we'll keep cogitating.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, although when Herod rennovated it it became known as "Herod's Temple".

How does that help your theory?

Summascriptura found a reference to Zech of 2 Chron. 24:22 that the Spirit departed the temple after that time.

But, there were individual prophets (Isaiah, Malachi) for another 400 years, until the time of Ezra and rebuilding of what came to be Herod's Temple. Then, as noted, the period of "genuine prophets" ended for another 400 years to John the Baptist.

Just trying to loosely tie it to the fact that we (born-again believers) are now the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The OT, at least, was formalized by Jewish leaders c. 65 AD.

I don't know where the poster got this date, probably pulled it out of the air.

 

[Standing Up]

Interesting way to put it.

So then, if Jesus is indeed "bookending' sacred history, perhaps he is merely referring to Chronicles in total. 1 Chronicles 1 begins with the genealogy of Adam. So, Chronicles could be seen here are the scroll which perfectly bookended the martyrdoms of Abel and Zechariah, even though Abel is skipped over.

This would mean it says nothing about canon.

I understand. The deal is we all know supposedly why Jesus renamed Peter, but why did He rename James and John to sons of thunder? They ended up being the first and last apostles to die. Between them was written NT scripture. Likewise is IMO the inference of Abel to Zechariah.

Again, some will want to use Tradition, Councils, Infallible Popes as equal to the rule of faith (scripture); and they typically include the deteros. But are the deteros really God-breathed scripture? IMO, that is selective picking and inconsistent. Why don't you follow Pope Benedict or EC 8 or canon ** of EC 1? I know why I don't. I'm not built on that foundation, but on OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here is the oldest single source I can find for Jewish tradtion regarding two of the Biblical prophets named Zechariah.

The name of the document, as mentioned earlier is "Lives of the Prophets". The date of its composition/compilation is about 100 AD, though its probably based upon much older oral traditions. I posted the "son of Jehoida" passage before but not the "son of Iddo".

Zechariah son of Iddo
1He came from Chaldea when already advanced in age. While there, he prophesied often to the people, and did wonders in proof of his authority. 2He foretold to Jozadak that he would beget a son who would serve as priest in Jerusalem; 3he also congratulated Shealtiel on the birth of a son and gave him the name Zerubbabel. 4In the time of Cyrus he gave the king a sign of victory, and foretold the service which he was destined to perform for Jerusalem, and he praised him greatly.

5His prophecies uttered in Jerusalem had to do with the end of the nations, with Israel and the temple, with the laziness of prophets and priests, and with a double judgment. 6After reaching great age he was taken ill, and dying, was buried beside Haggai.

Zechariah son of Jehoiada
1He was of Jerusalem, the son of Jehoiada the priest, the prophet whom Joash king of Judah slew beside the altar, whose blood the house of David shed within the sanctuary, in the court. The priests buried him beside his father.

2From that time on there were portentous appearances in the temple, and the priests could see no vision of angels of God, nor give forth oracles from the inner sanctuary; nor were they able to inquire with the ephod, nor to give answer to the people by Urim and Thummim, as in former time.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I understand. The deal is we all know supposedly why Jesus renamed Peter, but why did He rename James and John to sons of thunder? They ended up being the first and last apostles to die. Between them was written NT scripture. Likewise is IMO the inference of Abel to Zechariah.

Again, some will want to use Tradition, Councils, Infallible Popes as equal to the rule of faith (scripture); and they typically include the deteros. But are the deteros really God-breathed scripture? IMO, that is selective picking and inconsistent. Why don't you follow Pope Benedict or EC 8 or canon ** of EC 1? I know why I don't. I'm not built on that foundation, but on OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone.

This point is irrelevant. No one is asserting that books written after John died are canonical, and this inference made here is not mentioned in scripture. However, consider this. NT scripture was not all written by apostles. (Luke, Acts, for example). There are many apocryphal writings (10+) which claimed to be Christian and have apostolic ties written before John died, yet they were rejected by the church. Why reject these? They were written around the same time as the Gospel of John (or before), and claimed to have been written by the apostles or someone who was associated with them.