Protestant canon

[Standing Up]

From Kevin Edgecomb's translation:

Vulgate Prologues

" 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. "

You don't find a clue in there as to which books were scripture? Jerome's list ties back to Melito and Josephus and as mentioned with Abel to Zacharias, Christ.

Wasn't it merely Augustine's strength to which folks owe their expanded canon?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

... : 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

If only someoen would have figured out this formula for canonicity 1500 years ago...

 

[Montalban]

If only someoen would have figured out this formula for canonicity 1500 years ago...

Fortunately Martin Luther was able to sort some of it out.

 

[SummaScriptura]

" 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. "

You don't find a clue in there as to which books were scripture?

In the year 400? Surely you jest!

Jerome's list ties back to Melito and Josephus and as mentioned with Abel to Zacharias, Christ.

I don't doubt that Jerome was unduly enamored by his Jewish intructors. But why should the Church follow Jerome in abandoning 400 years of practice because of one man's predeliction?

Wasn't it merely Augustine's strength to which folks owe their expanded canon?

Huh? Do you really think Auggie Daddy had anything to do with it? Auggie Daddy caused some books to fall into disuse, for sure, but he did not impose any usage that was not already common. Auggie's influence was largely to negate certain books, not to impose any. In any case, the Ethiopian church wasn't listening. They didn't get the memo.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

You find reference to him, but it is to Zechariah the prophet who wrote the book Zechariah:

(Zech. 1:1) 1 In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, the prophet..."

In fact, no one really knows for sure which Zechariah Jesus is referring to here in Mt. There are at least 6 different possible explanations. It's a rather storied controversy in fact. To base a canon on such a controversial verse would be risky indeed.

Regardless of the outcome of said controversy, I fail to see how this is to be taken as a "proof-text" for a protestant OT canon...Jesus mentions the martyrdom of two righteous men who's blood fell on the hands of the jews. Trying to extrapolate the entire OT canon from this verse is reaching at best.

Bottom line, the scrolls Jesus read and quoted from most of the time were in greek. We know that the deutero's were included in the earliest copies of the greek OT's we have. It's not hard to do the math.

 

[Montalban]

Bottom line, the scrolls Jesus read and quoted from most of the time were in greek. We know that the deutero's were included in the earliest copies of the greek OT's we have. It's not hard to do the math.

This is the telling point. Jesus used the canon Protestants reject

 

[Montalban]

You don't find a clue in there as to which books were scripture? Jerome's list ties back to Melito and Josephus and as mentioned with Abel to Zacharias, Christ.

The same Melito who doesn't agree with you?

 

[Rick Otto]

In fact, no one really knows for sure which Zechariah Jesus is referring to here in Mt. There are at least 6 different possible explanations. It's a rather storied controversy in fact. To base a canon on such a controversial verse would be risky indeed.

How many prophets named Zechariah were there, six?

 

[Thekla]

How many prophets named Zechariah were there, six?

Actually the Jewish use of the term "prophet" was/is much broader than the present Christian use; not all Jewish prophets "prophesied".

To add: considering both the broader understanding of "prophet", and the prophesy of Zechariah father of John the Baptist recorded in Luke, this Zechariah would indeed be a candidate for the Zechariah mentioned by Christ ...

 

[BloodyRachel]

This is the telling point. Jesus used the canon Protestants reject

Jesus didn't say they were Scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

In the year 400? Surely you jest!

I don't doubt that Jerome was unduly enamored by his Jewish intructors. But why should the Church follow Jerome in abandoning 400 years of practice because of one man's predeliction?

Huh? Do you really think Auggie Daddy had anything to do with it? Auggie Daddy caused some books to fall into disuse, for sure, but he did not impose any usage that was not already common. Auggie's influence was largely to negate certain books, not to impose any. In any case, the Ethiopian church wasn't listening. They didn't get the memo.

Augustine and Jerome worked in the same time frame. Jerome knew that books were in the canon, but not scriptural. He, like us, could also use Josephus who listed the same OT scripture that Protestants use. So, when Augustine essentially says the same thing, as you quoted above, it should be easy enough to arrive at the conclusion they made the decision what was scripture (all of it, including the deteros), instead of parts of it (tradition from Gamamiel (Paul) to Josephus to Melito to Jerome, only the same Protestant OT).

Additionally, even Maccabees says it was written during the time when there were no genuine prophets. Yet the church decided the Jews weren't entrusted with the oracles of God and made the decision that Macc was God-breathed, even as the book rejects that notion for itself! So, Josephus traces that (scripture is God-breathed) even while agreeing there were other books written, Melito tells us the same thing (minus Esther), and Jerome continues the thought. Augustine too agrees, yet the "bishop is above all" and can decide that Tradition is equal to Scripture is equal to a book that says of itself not God breathed.

 

[Standing Up]

If only someoen would have figured out this formula for canonicity 1500 years ago...

Uh, 2000 years ago. Jesus spoke it, and the apostles wrote it down. We then find it with Gamaliel and Paul, Josephus, Melito (minus Esther), out to Jerome in the first 400 years. These books were God breathed (same as P), those were not.

It helps to understand some of those in the church's attitude, however. Remember she excommunicated those who observed the actual day of death and resurrection of our Lord. So, it's an easy step to "infallibility" or "this is scripture, even though it says it is not" or "Tradition is equal to God-breathed".

Built on the foundation of OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone.

 

[Standing Up]

How many prophets named Zechariah were there, six?

Here's some reference:


People's New Testament

23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood. Thus would they fill the measure full and become guilty of all the righteous blood shed by the whole army of martyrs. The blood of Zacharias. The reference is probably 2Ch 24:20. He was slain in the court of the house of the Lord by the people, and died exclaiming, The Lord look upon this and require it (2Ch 24:22). He was the son of Jehoiada. The Siniatic manuscript omits Barachias in this place, and the error is supposed to have crept in from the mistake of some early copyist who confused this Zacharias with Zechariah the prophet, who was the son of Barachias.
Matthew 23:35 Bible Commentary

 

[ivebeenshown]

Uh, 2000 years ago. Jesus spoke it, and the apostles wrote it down.

You know what Jesus also spoke, was that John the Baptist was a prophet. And John the Baptist was killed before Jesus said the 'Abel to Zacharias' line. Of course, Zacharias was the father of John the Baptist.

 

[Standing Up]

You know what Jesus also spoke, was that John the Baptist was a prophet. And John the Baptist was killed before Jesus said the 'Abel to Zacharias' line. Regardless, how do you know the Gospel of Luke is authentic? And does that make Luke a prophet?

Law and prophets were until John the baptist. He proclaimed the kingdom of God upon us.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Law and prophets were until John the baptist. He proclaimed the kingdom of God upon us.

Alright, well, anyways, Jesus called John the Baptist a prophet, and Luke wrote that John's dad, Zacharias, prophesied. So I don't buy your whole 'valid line of prophets' thing. Not to mention, Jesus just said something about their blood. He never said 'there only valid prophets from Abel to Zacharias.' In fact, some of the OT books you include were written after Zacharias' death.

 

[Standing Up]

Alright, well, anyways, Jesus called John the Baptist a prophet, and Luke wrote that John's dad, Zacharias, prophesied. So I don't buy your whole 'valid line of prophets' thing. Not to mention, Jesus just said something about their blood. He never said 'there only valid prophets from Abel to Zacharias.' In fact, some of the OT books you include were written after Zacharias' death.

They didn't write anything. And 'valid line of prophets' is here also:

"4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets."
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Josephus is reiterating what Maccabees says, no genuine prophets during its writing. Keep in mind that folks argue for apostolic succession; likewise, prophetical succession. End result should be we are built on OT prophets and NT apostles (aka God-breathed Scripture).

To your last comment, I don't think so. IIRC: Malachi was last; they called him the cap (or something like that). Chronicles wherein is mentioned Zecharias is the entire span (Abel to Zacharias).

 

[Thekla]

They didn't write anything. And 'valid line of prophets' is here also:

"4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets."
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Folks argue for apostolic succession; likewise, prophetical succession.

To your last comment, I don't think so. IIRC: Malachi was last; they called him the cap (or something like that). Chronicles wherein is mentioned Zecharias is the entire span (Abel to Zacharias).

Again; per Judaism not all prophets wrote.
(See note in Stone edition of Tanach on definition of "prophet".)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Jesus didn't say they were Scripture.

There's alot of OT books he didn't say were scripture...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Additionally, even Maccabees says it was written during the time when there were no genuine prophets. Yet the church decided the Jews weren't entrusted with the oracles of God and made the decision that Macc was God-breathed, even as the book rejects that notion for itself! So, Josephus traces that (scripture is God-breathed) even while agreeing there were other books written, Melito tells us the same thing (minus Esther), and Jerome continues the thought. Augustine too agrees, yet the "bishop is above all" and can decide that Tradition is equal to Scripture is equal to a book that says of itself not God breathed.

First of all, Can you prove to us that the books of Maccabbees were not written/originally authored by a jew? We know that the jews were trusted with the words of God, yes (Obviously this changed sometimes between the OT and the NT, however) Does this mean the words of God must all be written in Hebrew? Can't a Jew write the words in Greek as well and they be equally inspired? After all, many Jews of the 1st-2nd century BC spoke greek. Can you show that this notion of Hebrew primacy was something other than an invention of the Masoretes in the 9th century?