Protestant canon

[SummaScriptura]

They have to be written only when a prophet is alive. What's to address?

Could you cite the chapter and verse where this rule is spelled out?

 

[SummaScriptura]

I don't see that anyone's dealt with the fact that Jesus quoted from the Greek OT that Protestants don't accept.

I think the scholarship is leaning toward Jesus quoting semitic texts upon which the Greek versions were based. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic and Hebrew texts have been found which follow the Septuagintal text tradition more closely than the text tradition that became the Masoretic one.

However, your point is nevertheless valid, Jesus and the Apostles often quoted texts which were either the basis for the Septuagint or were the Greek versions themselves.

 

[SummaScriptura]

So, what do you think now about scripture identifying its own canon?

I need some time to cogitate.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

So, what do you think now about scripture identifying its own canon?

The theory, as you've presented it, is full of holes. Lose connections, interpretations, and questionable sources.
Conjecture, logical fallacy, uncited sources.

In short, it's a step above astrology and three steps beneath bible code and May 21, 2011 is the end of days.

Yeah, I know, you didn't ask me.
But I responded. How about that.

 

[Standing Up]

And now for a bit of irony.

" Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus was the author of the books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any, that he was an inspired man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these books are no more canonical, than the Antiquities, or Wars of the Jews, by the same author. "
Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Josephus apparently the author of the books of the Maccabees that some groups accept as Scripture, while rejecting his definition and reason of the books of Scripture (same as the Protestant one)

 

[SummaScriptura]

Out of a desire to get to the truth of the issue, I have to confess I need to better understand the passages in Matthew and Luke.

So help me unpack this, please...

Matthew 23:34-36
34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Luke 11:49-51
49Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, “I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,” 50so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

So, if I am understanding this correctly, Jesus will be sending "prophets, apostles, wise men and scribes". The Jews will persecute these ones whom Jesus sends. Because they will persecute the sent-ones of Christ, the blood of all the righteous from Abel to Zechariah will be charged to their account.

I seem to be missing some pieces here.

Why does Jewish persecution of the church bring guilt upon the Jews for all the righteous from Abel to Zechariah?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Hey! Waitaminit!

The Zechariah to whom Jesus refers dies in 2 Chronicles 24, that's about 100 years before Manasseh! Manasseh is reputed as a killer of prophets. Not only that, Manasseh's son Josiah consulted the prophets of God. Remember the prophetess Huldah?

So yes, Jesus is pointing to the death of Zechariah as particularly historic, but I don't know why yet. However, I do know it was not becasue the time of the prophets had come to an end!

 

[SummaScriptura]

By the way, Jewish tradition has the minor prophet Zechariah dying of old age.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Apparently there are 2 prophets Zechariah. ONe the son of Iddo. Another the son of Jehoida and/or Berechiah. I'm still sorting this out...

I think Zecharia the minor prophet was the son of Berechiah, who was the son of Iddo.

The one mentioned in Chronicles is son of Jehoida.

 

[ivebeenshown]

And now for a bit of irony.

" Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus was the author of the books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any, that he was an inspired man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these books are no more canonical, than the Antiquities, or Wars of the Jews, by the same author. "
Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Josephus apparently the author of the books of the Maccabees that some groups accept as Scripture, while rejecting his definition and reason of the books of Scripture (same as the Protestant one)

Interesting how you don't cite Jerome or Eusebius on that. Not saying they didn't say it, but it would be better to go straight to the source, no?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And now for a bit of irony.

" Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus was the author of the books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any, that he was an inspired man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these books are no more canonical, than the Antiquities, or Wars of the Jews, by the same author. "
Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Josephus apparently the author of the books of the Maccabees that some groups accept as Scripture, while rejecting his definition and reason of the books of Scripture (same as the Protestant one)

Considering that Josephus was born more than 100 years after the texts were written, i find that to be a rather vacuous argument.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And now for a bit of irony.

" Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus was the author of the books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any, that he was an inspired man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these books are no more canonical, than the Antiquities, or Wars of the Jews, by the same author. "
Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Josephus apparently the author of the books of the Maccabees that some groups accept as Scripture, while rejecting his definition and reason of the books of Scripture (same as the Protestant one)

again, as I mentioned before, you must accept that the book of Maccabees is at least partially inspired, since it fortells of the general resurrection on judgment day.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Hey! Waitaminit!

The Zechariah to whom Jesus refers dies in 2 Chronicles 24, that's about 100 years before Manasseh! Manasseh is reputed as a killer of prophets. Not only that, Manasseh's son Josiah consulted the prophets of God. Remember the prophetess Huldah?

So yes, Jesus is pointing to the death of Zechariah as particularly historic, but I don't know why yet. However, I do know it was not becasue the time of the prophets had come to an end!

Check out this article for a better explanation of what we're dealing with...

from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah « Viva Catholic

and interesting argument from this article:

While Josephus mentioned twenty-two books (equal to the present twenty-four books of Jewish Scripture if we combine Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah) in three divisions, the number of books in the second and third division differs with the present Jewish Scripture. The second division according to Josephus has thirteen books while the the third one has four. The present Jewish Scripture has eight and eleven books in the second and third divisions. Since according to Josephus the third division contains hymns and precept for the conduct of human life, Chronicles cannot be the last book in Josephus’ list.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think Zecharia the minor prophet was the son of Berechiah, who was the son of Iddo.

The one mentioned in Chronicles is son of Jehoida.

Right. Thanks.

 

[SummaScriptura]

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.

Here's my understanding of this passage after thinking about it some...

The writer is particularly interested with the impact upon temple worship for these events. Joash defiled the temple by martyring the prophet in it. From that time forward until the destruction of the temple in 586 BC, (some 200+ years after the martyrdom), the priests in the temple were unable to operate in the prophetic. As it says, "From 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."

The passage cannot in any way be construed to apply to the temple which had been standing in Jesus' day. The author of The Lives of the Prophets, would in any case have been aware the priests during the period of 2nd-Temple Judaism had operated from time-to-time in the prophetic.

The passage cannot in any way be construed to apply to the termination of a "time of the Prophets", since there were prophets, both writing (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah) and not (Huldah) who came after the martyrdom of Zechariah.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Check out this article for a better explanation of what we're dealing with...

from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah « Viva Catholic

and interesting argument from this article:

While Josephus mentioned twenty-two books (equal to the present twenty-four books of Jewish Scripture if we combine Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah) in three divisions, the number of books in the second and third division differs with the present Jewish Scripture. The second division according to Josephus has thirteen books while the the third one has four. The present Jewish Scripture has eight and eleven books in the second and third divisions. Since according to Josephus the third division contains hymns and precept for the conduct of human life, Chronicles cannot be the last book in Josephus’ list.

Good info, thanks.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

Here's my understanding of this passage after thinking about it some...

The writer is particularly interested with the impact upon temple worship for these events. Joash defiled the temple by martyring the prophet in it. From that time forward until the destruction of the temple in 586 BC, (some 200+ years after the martyrdom), the priests in the temple were unable to operate in the prophetic. As it says, "From 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."

The passage cannot in any way be construed to apply to the temple which had been standing in Jesus' day. The author of The Lives of the Prophets, would in any case have been aware the priests during the period of 2nd-Temple Judaism had operated from time-to-time in the prophetic.

The passage cannot in any way be construed to apply to the termination of a "time of the Prophets", since there were prophets, both writing (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah) and not (Huldah) who came after the martyrdom of Zechariah.

For the reference to prophet Zechariah mentioned in Chronicles to have any bearing on the canon of scripture, two things must first be demonstrated conclusively:

1) Jesus who said Zechariah son of Berachius in Mt. 23:35, actually meant Zechariah son of Jehoaida (or the text is corrupt, etc.)

2) Chronicles, the book which mentions Zecharia, must be shown conclusively to have been the last book of the hebrew OT during this time. It does not appear that even Josephus considered it to be so (according to his list, anyways).

If the above two cannot be shown conclusively, then there isn't any point in discussing this passage further with regards to the hebrew canon.

Personally, i find it rather risky to base the canon on a passage of scripture, while operating under the assumption that there must be a textual corruption of some kind in the passage in order for the canon to be valid.

 

[SummaScriptura]

For the reference to prophet Zechariah mentioned in Chronicles to have any bearing on the canon of scripture, two things must first be demonstrated conclusively:

1) Jesus who said Zechariah son of Berachius in Mt. 23:35, actually meant Zechariah son of Jehoaida (or the text is corrupt, etc.)

<snip>

Personally, i find it rather risky to base the canon on a passage of scripture, while operating under the assumption that there must be a textual corruption of some kind in the passage in order for the canon to be valid.

Point of clarification.

It seems to be conclusive to me Jesus is referring to the death of Zechariah in the temple during the reign of King Joash. This alone seems to put the kibosh on the theory he signalled the end of the time of the Prophets. Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah were yet future.

The point of confusion is over Jesus' use of the "son of Berechiah" appelation. This would necessitate there being a Berechiah in the older Zecheriah's genealogy though none is apparent.

If the Zecariah to whom Jesus refers is the minor prophet, it seems to me, that would lend greater weight to some sort of terminus of the "times of the Prophets", since the minor prophet operated during the period of the restoration and thus just before the misnomered "inter-testamental" period. The minor prophet was apparently never martyred, however.

I'm sure this is not the last word on this though.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Point of clarification.

It seems to be conclusive to me Jesus is referring to the death of Zechariah in the temple during the reign of King Joash. This alone seems to put the kibosh on the theory he signalled the end of the time of the Prophets. Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah were yet future.

The point of confusion is over Jesus' use of the "son of Berechiah" appelation. This would necessitate there being a Berechiah in the older Zecheriah's genealogy though none is apparent.

If the Zecariah to whom Jesus refers is the minor prophet, it seems to me, that would lend greater weight to some sort of terminus of the "times of the Prophets", since the minor prophet operated during the period of the restoration and thus just before the misnomered "inter-testamental" period. The minor prophet was apparently never martyred, however.

I'm sure this is not the last word on this though.

Interesting. May I ask why you find it convincingly to be that Zechariah?

I don't think that anyone here has asserted that Jesus is signaling the end of the prophets in this passage, as you mentined there are others (chronologically speaking) after the Zechariah in Chronicles. The importance lies in Chronicles historically being considered the last book of the hebrew NT, and that Jesus was allegedly "spelling out" the book of the bible in Mt. 23, with bookends at Genesis and Chronicles.

I have yet to find any source earlier than the 2nd century however which shows conclusively that Chronicles was the bookend, even Josephus says otherwise.

Even if this were the case, could not some of the deutero's have been included along with the writings? (since the OT was obviously not categorized chronologically) I certainly don't see why this could not have been so.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

For example, in the LXX, the book of Wisdom and Sirach are included alongside the other wisdom books, specifically: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon (Song of Songs).