Protestant canon

[Rdr Iakovos]

More irony:
Looking at StandingUp's choice of caon, it's clear he lacks Wisdom.

 

[SummaScriptura]

.

 

[hedrick]

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.

 

[Montalban]

More irony:
Looking at StandingUp's choice of caon, it's clear he lacks Wisdom.

Sorry, I beat you to that. About a week ago I said someone's lacking wisdom!

 

[Montalban]

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 accept that they may have done it this way. The problem with that is it's then 17th century thinking

 

[SummaScriptura]

Okay, okay, what is the judgment of you all, in Matthew 23:35, is Christ referring to the guy killed by King Joash, or is he speaking of the minor prophet?

I'm unsure where everyone comes down on this question...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I tend to think it was the father of John the Baptist.

 

[Standing Up]

I tend to think it was the father of John the Baptist.

Others have thought that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, is meant, who is supposed to be murdered by the Jews very lately; and it being a recent action, is mentioned by our Lord: the reason of it is a tradition, which several ancient writers (z) speak of, and is pretended to be this; that there was a place, in the temple appropriated to virgins, and that Mary, the mother of our Lord, after his birth, came and took her place here, as a virgin, when the Jews, knowing her to have a child, objected to it; but Zechariah, who was acquainted with the mystery of the incarnation, ordered her to keep her place, upon which the Jews slew him upon the spot: but this tradition is not to be depended on; nor does it appear that there ever was any such particular place in the temple assigned to virgins; nor that the father of this Zacharias was Barachias; or that the son was slain by the Jews, and in this place.
Matthew 23:35 Bible Commentary

 

[Standing Up]

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.

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.

 

[Standing Up]

Okay, okay, what is the judgment of you all, in Matthew 23:35, is Christ referring to the guy killed by King Joash, or is he speaking of the minor prophet?

I'm unsure where everyone comes down on this question...

Two arguments:

" Others have been of opinion, that Zechariah the prophet is designed; and indeed, he is said to be the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, Zechariah 1:1 and the Jewish Targumist speaks of a Zechariah, the son of Iddo, as slain by the Jews in the temple. His words are these (a),

"as ye slew Zechariah, the son of Iddo, the high priest, and faithful prophet, in the house of the sanctuary of the Lord, on the day of atonement; because he reproved you, that ye might not do that evil which is before the Lord. And him the Jews make to be the same with Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, in Isaiah 8:2 and read Berechiah (b): but the Targumist seems to confound Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, with him; for the prophet Zechariah was not an high priest, Joshua was high priest in his time; nor does it appear from any writings, that he was killed by the Jews; nor is it probable that they would be guilty of such a crime, just upon their return from captivity; and besides, he could not be slain in such a place, because the temple, and altar, were not yet built:


"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. "
Matthew 23:35 Bible Commentary

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Two arguments:

" Others have been of opinion, that Zechariah the prophet is designed; and indeed, he is said to be the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, Zechariah 1:1 and the Jewish Targumist speaks of a Zechariah, the son of Iddo, as slain by the Jews in the temple. His words are these (a),

"as ye slew Zechariah, the son of Iddo, the high priest, and faithful prophet, in the house of the sanctuary of the Lord, on the day of atonement; because he reproved you, that ye might not do that evil which is before the Lord. And him the Jews make to be the same with Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, in Isaiah 8:2 and read Berechiah (b): but the Targumist seems to confound Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, with him; for the prophet Zechariah was not an high priest, Joshua was high priest in his time; nor does it appear from any writings, that he was killed by the Jews; nor is it probable that they would be guilty of such a crime, just upon their return from captivity; and besides, he could not be slain in such a place, because the temple, and altar, were not yet built:


"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. "
Matthew 23:35 Bible Commentary

Says the guy whoever wrote this commentary. He seems to discount Zechariah as John's Father offhandedly and without evidence. And who said he had to be a high priest?

 

[Montalban]

Says the guy whoever wrote this commentary. He seems to discount Zechariah as John's Father offhandedly and without evidence. And who said he had to be a high priest?

Just when I thought all the patricular rules in this theory were out, now another one regarding high priests

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Ah I see now, nm. It was refuting the account found in the Targum. I don't find that account to be particularly reliable either, so we can through that one out. Just because the Targum account isn't trustworthy here, does not entirely rule out the possibility that Jesus was referring to the minor prophet, however. Jesus didn't say anything about high priests, and there could have been an oral tradition that the Zecharia was martyred; after all, most prophets of the OT had a similar demise.

So what was the argument against the reference ito Zech. n Mt. being to the father of John the Baptist again? Many early traditions refer to this Zecharia as being the one referenced in Mt.

And also there is this possibility, which I'm not sure someone has mentioned yet, that Jesus was prophesying a future martyrdom of another Zecharia:

"The Zechariah ben-Berechiah referred to is not Zechariah ben-Jehoida; nor is he the Minor Prophet named Zechariah ben-Berechiah. Its someone else. In Josephus Wars of the Jews, in Book 4, Chapter 6, Section 4, Josephus describes a conspiracy that occurred during the First Jewish Revolt against an eminent citizen named Zacharias the son of Baruch. Josephus relates how Zechariah ben-Baruch was brought before a puppet-court on trumped-up charges of treason, but argued his case so well that the puppet-court, consisting of 70 judges, declared him Not guilty. At that point, the Zealots arose against the puppet-courts members whose consciences prevented them from serving as the puppets they had been appointed to be. And two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him, and said, Thou hast also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other. They also threw him down out of the temple immediately into the valley beneath it."

Matthew 23:35 - Zechariah, Son of Berechiah in Contradictions Forum

Just something to think about. Perhaps Jesus audience had some important relation to this future event. After all, it would be an effective prophecy.

And of course, as I mentioned before, even if we knew for a certain that Jesus was referring to Genesis to Chronicles in Mt., and he meant for them to be bookends for canonicity, then would we know for certain that the deutero's were not included amongst the books in-between? Of course not; in fact, we probably would have good reason to think they were included. After all, Jesus used a greek source of the OT, or at least a source that closely paralleled the greek source. I would to say if I were a betting man, the deutero's would have been included in the list that Jesus provided, since he relies on what we know to be the greek translations so often.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And by the way, who says there was no temple when Zecharia the minor prophet died? By all sources i've found, Zecharia started his prophetic career after the restoration began with the return and rebuilding of the Second Temple under Zerubbabel in 515 B.C.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Sorry, I beat you to that. About a week ago I said someone's lacking wisdom!

Well that's awkward.

 

[Noxot]

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.

well who said he died of old age? because if Jesus Christ is referring to the minor prophet Zecariah in matthew, then who is telling the truth? Jesus or some other man? did Jesus make a mistake? you know that murderers often hide the fact that they murdered someone?

Matt 23:35 (ESV)
(23:35) so 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.

Luke 11:51 (ESV)
(11:51) from 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.

now some manuscripts omit "the son of Barachiah" in matthew, perhaps because they thought Jesus made an error or maybe they felt the need to correct the manuscript because it obviously had an error in it ( or so they thought)

but I do believe that Jesus Christ was referring to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah and to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.

there is Matthews Zechariah

Zech 1:1 (ESV)
(1:1) In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, saying,

and there is Lukes Zechariah

2Chr 24:20 (ESV)
(24:20) Then the Spirit of God clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, ‘Why do you break the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”


also I think this is very important, it is what origen says in his letter to africanus:

9. But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take the story told about Esaias; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword” (Heb 11:37) To whom, I ask, does the “sawn asunder” refer (for by an old idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said in the plural, although it refers to but one person)? Now we know very well that tradition says that Esaias the prophet was sawn asunder; and this is found in some apocryphal work, which probably the Jews have purposely tampered with, introducing some phrases manifestly incorrect, that discredit might be thrown on the whole.
However, some one hard pressed by this argument may have recourse to the opinion of those who reject this Epistle as not being Paul’s; against whom I must at some other time use other arguments to prove that it is Paul’s.6 At present I shall adduce from the Gospel what Jesus Christ testifies concerning the prophets, together with a story which He refers to, but which is not found in the Old Testament, since in it also there is a scandal against unjust judges in Israel. The words of our Saviour run thus: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partaken with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore be ye witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.” And what follows is of the same tenor: “O Jerusalem; Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Mat 23:29-38)
Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion, that while the Saviour gives a true account of them, none of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” (Mat 23:30) In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders.

so then what kind of man should we trust to deliver to us our canon? the pharisees and scribes who kill the prophets or men that die for Jesus Christ?

 

[Montalban]

Well that's awkward.

Except you were more game; in naming names

All I wrote was

Who's lacking Wisdom?

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

also I think this is very important, it is what origen says in his letter to africanus:

9. But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). -snip-

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.

 

[Standing Up]

And by the way, who says there was no temple when Zecharia the minor prophet died? By all sources i've found, Zecharia started his prophetic career after the restoration began with the return and rebuilding of the Second Temple under Zerubbabel in 515 B.C.

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.)

 

[Standing Up]

well who said he died of old age? because if Jesus Christ is referring to the minor prophet Zecariah in matthew, then who is telling the truth? Jesus or some other man? did Jesus make a mistake? you know that murderers often hide the fact that they murdered someone?

Matt 23:35 (ESV)
(23:35) so 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.

Luke 11:51 (ESV)
(11:51) from 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.

now some manuscripts omit "the son of Barachiah" in matthew, perhaps because they thought Jesus made an error or maybe they felt the need to correct the manuscript because it obviously had an error in it ( or so they thought)

but I do believe that Jesus Christ was referring to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah and to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.

there is Matthews Zechariah

Zech 1:1 (ESV)
(1:1) In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, saying,

and there is Lukes Zechariah

2Chr 24:20 (ESV)
(24:20) Then the Spirit of God clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, ‘Why do you break the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”


-snip-

So, you propose both? Sorta like Jesus riding both foal and colt per Matthew?