Did Jesus establish the canon of scripture?

[NathanH83]

In Matthew 23, Jesus mentioned Abel to Zechariah. Zechariah is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:21, which chronologically is the same time as Malachi.

 

[Josiah]

No. As far as anyone (then or now) knows, Jesus did not declare what Books are and are not canonical.


.

 

[NathanH83]

No. As far as anyone (then or now) knows, Jesus did not declare what Books are and are not canonical.


.

But what about Abel to Zechariah Matthew 23?

 

[atpollard]

Did Jesus establish the canon of scripture?​

I think so.

 

[Josiah]

But what about Abel to Zechariah Matthew 23?

Can you quote from Jesus where He lists all the Books to be regarded as canonical and perhaps all those not to be so regarded?



.

 

[Origen]

In Matthew 23, Jesus mentioned Abel to Zechariah. Zechariah is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:21, which chronologically is the same time as Malachi.

I know my post has nothing to do with your question concerning the canon, but there is a problem with something you said.

In Matthew 23 Jesus identifies that Zechariah as the son of Barachiah. Zechariah 1:1 places the beginning of his prophecy "in the second year of Darius" (i.e. Darius I (Hystaspes), king of Persia 522-486 B.C.). The Zechariah's death mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 takes place during the reign Jehoash king of Judah. He is also identified as the son of Jehoiada.

 

[NathanH83]

I know my post has nothing to do with your question concerning the canon, but there is a problem with something you said.

In Matthew 23 Jesus identifies that Zechariah as the son of Barachiah. Zechariah 1:1 places the beginning of his prophecy "in the second year of Darius" (i.e. Darius I (Hystaspes), king of Persia 522-486 B.C.). The Zechariah's death mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:21-22 takes place during the reign Jehoash king of Judah. He is also identified as the son of Jehoiada.

But the Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:21 was chronologically the same time as Malachi’s day.

 

[Origen]

But the Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:21 was chronologically the same time as Malachi’s day.

The book Malachi doesn't give us any specific time reference nor is he mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. The general consensus among scholars place him after the books of Zechariah and Haggai.

 

[NathanH83]

The book Malachi doesn't give us any specific time reference nor is he mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. The general consensus among scholars place him after the books of Zechariah and Haggai.

Listen to the Bible expert in this video (it’s a 30 second clip). He says that the Zechariah from 2 Chronicles 24 lived during the time of Malachi.

The expert says so, therefore there’s no questioning it.

 

[Origen]

Listen to the Bible expert in this video (it’s a 30 second clip). He says that the Zechariah from 2 Chronicles 24 lived during the time of Malachi.

The expert says so, therefore there’s no questioning it.

I never suggested simply because an expert says something it cannot be questioned, so I don't know where you are getting that idea. As for the scholars I referenced, they supply reasons\evidence for the views they hold. They don't just state "believe us because we are experts." No one should accept anyone's view simply because they claim it is correct\true. Instead one should evaluate the claims based upon the best available evidence.

However the facts are the facts and your source offers nothing that which changes them.
The Zechariah's death mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 takes place during the reign of Jehoash king of Judah. That would place him before the exile. This Zechariah is identified as "the son of Jehoiada the priest."

Zechariah 1:1 places the beginning of his prophecy "in the second year of Darius" (i.e. Darius I king of Persia 522-486 B.C.). That places him in the post-exilic period. This Zechariah is identified as "the son of Barachiah."

Jehoash king of Judah ruled ca. 300 years before Darius I (Hystaspes) king of Persia came to the throne in 522 B.C.

In fact you made the exact same points eight months ago.

Did Jesus quote the Apocrypha?

Just to add confusion, isn’t there evidence that Jesus might have generally quoted from the Septuagint? I remember reading that the wording of Jesus’ OT quotes more closely matches the Septuagint than the Hebrew Old Testament (as a word for word quote). I know that the writer of Hebrews...

christianityhaven.com

So have you REALLY changed your mind?

 

[Josiah]

Listen to the Bible expert in this video (it’s a 30 second clip). He says that the Zechariah from 2 Chronicles 24 lived during the time of Malachi.

And how does that prove that Jesus authoritatively declared exactly what books are and are not canonical?



.

 

[Andrew]

I never suggested simply because an expert says something it cannot be questioned, so I don't know where you are getting that idea. As for the scholars I referenced, they supply reasons\evidence for the views they hold. They don't just state "believe us because we are experts." No one should accept anyone's view simply because they claim it is correct\true. Instead one should evaluate the claims based upon the best available evidence.

However the facts are the facts and your source offers nothing that which changes them.
The Zechariah's death mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 takes place during the reign of Jehoash king of Judah. That would place him before the exile. This Zechariah is identified as "the son of Jehoiada the priest."

Zechariah 1:1 places the beginning of his prophecy "in the second year of Darius" (i.e. Darius I king of Persia 522-486 B.C.). That places him in the post-exilic period. This Zechariah is identified as "the son of Barachiah."

Jehoash king of Judah ruled ca. 300 years before Darius I (Hystaspes) king of Persia came to the throne in 522 B.C.

In fact you made the exact same points eight months ago.

Did Jesus quote the Apocrypha?

Just to add confusion, isn’t there evidence that Jesus might have generally quoted from the Septuagint? I remember reading that the wording of Jesus’ OT quotes more closely matches the Septuagint than the Hebrew Old Testament (as a word for word quote). I know that the writer of Hebrews...

christianityhaven.com

So have you REALLY changed your mind?

No he hasn't changed his mind, he is using a counterargument method of jest to make a point, we have had long threads in the past where a few members here concluded that Jesus set canon from Abel to Zechariah thus the Masoretic canon of books is more accurate than the set of books that made up the Septuagint -which was translated from an earlier and far more accurate Hebrew text that is no longer around anymore

 

[Origen]

No he hasn't changed his mind, he is using a counterargument method of jest to make a point, we have had long threads in the past where a few members here concluded that Jesus set canon from Abel to Zechariah thus the Masoretic canon of books is more accurate than the set of books that made up the Septuagint -which was translated from an earlier and far more accurate Hebrew text that is no longer around anymore

That is rather pointless given the fact there are already "long threads" on the topic.

 

[Andrew]

That is rather pointless given the fact there are already "long threads" on the topic.

It's a new topic none the less, the subject is specific

 

[NathanH83]

 

[atpollard]

I have not conducted one iota of scholarly study to verify it (since I don’t really care one way or another about the Apocrypha), but I once read that Rabbinical tradition (which predates both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts) divided the OT into the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (aka. Histories) and the third book (writings) ended with 2 Chronicles. Under that line of thinking, the quote in Matthew 23 is a reference to Genesis (the first death in the first book of the Law) to 2 Chronicles (the last death in the last book of the Writings) making it one of those all inclusive “bookend” figures of speech that mean “and everything in between” ... like “Heaven and earth”.

Does anyone know for sure, one way or another, of a Rabbinical breakdown of the Writings?

 

[Origen]

I have not conducted one iota of scholarly study to verify it (since I don’t really care one way or another about the Apocrypha), but I once read that Rabbinical tradition (which predates both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts) divided the OT into the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (aka. Histories) and the third book (writings) ended with 2 Chronicles. Under that line of thinking, the quote in Matthew 23 is a reference to Genesis (the first death in the first book of the Law) to 2 Chronicles (the last death in the last book of the Writings) making it one of those all inclusive “bookend” figures of speech that mean “and everything in between” ... like “Heaven and earth”.

Does anyone know for sure, one way or another, of a Rabbinical breakdown of the Writings?

The Babylonian Talmud is the only Jewish document that lists the books by name. There are a couple of points to note. First, in the Babylonian Talmud this is a baraita. That means it is a tradition not incorporated in the Mishnah. However the phrase "Our Rabbis taught" is the standard phrase introducing a tannaitic tradition (i.e. placing in the 2nd century A.D.). Second, the Babylonian Talmud dates to ca. sixth century.


Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra 14b–15a.
Our Rabbis taught: The order of the Prophets is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Let us examine this. Hosea came first, as it is written, God spake first to Hosea [Hos. 1:2]. But did God speak first to Hosea? Were there not many prophets between Moses and Hosea? R. Joḥanan, however, has explained that [what it means is that] he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at that period, namely, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah. Should not then Hosea come first?—Since his prophecy is written along with those of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi came at the end of the prophets, he is reckoned with them. But why should he not be written separately and placed first?—Since his book is so small, it might be lost [if copied separately]. Let us see again. Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed first?—Because the Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation and Isaiah is full of consolation; therefore we put destruction next to destruction and consolation next to consolation.

The order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles. Now on the view that Job lived in the days of Moses, should not the book of Job come first?—We do not begin with a record of suffering. But Ruth also is a record of suffering?—It is a suffering with a sequel [of happiness], as R. Joḥanan said: Why was her name called Ruth?—Because there issued from her David who replenished the Holy One, blessed be He, with hymns and praises.

Who wrote the Scriptures?—Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and [the last] eight verses of the Pentateuch. Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the Book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms, including in it the work of the elders, namely, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Yeduthun, Asaph, Korah. Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the Book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote (Mnemonic YMSHḲ) Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (Mnemonic ḲNDG) Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time. This confirms the opinion of Rab, since Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: Ezra did not leave Babylon to go up to Eretz Yisrael until he had written his own genealogy. Who then finished it [the Book of Chronicles]?—Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah."

Make of it what you will.

 

[Andrew]

@atpollard
The Prayer of Manasseh is mentioned in 2nd Chronicles and Manasseh is recorded in 2nd kings, so it should be canonized under "writings" because he became righteous through repentance in a recorded act of this prayer, but I guess unbelieving rabbis know what's best for Christians, and it's nothing to do with repentance like the 'messianic cult leader and false prophet' John preached.. oh no no no, it's through the Law whereby Jews are saved.. yes of course Rabbis would find it extremely necessary to remove this "apocrypha" writing from their canon 1rst Century.. just sounds too Christian for Jewish eyes to gaze upon, I mean come on.. a sinful king repenting to the God of Israel through prayer and God hearkening to him and blessing him? Nope sorry, that's the same heresy that John the baptist was preaching.

-------------

2nd Chronicles 33: 18-19 (LXX)
"And the rest of the acts of Manasses, and his prayer to God, and the words of the seers that spoke to him in the name of the God of Israel, behold, they are in the account of his prayer; and God hearkened to him"

-------------

...and where can we find this "account of his prayer"? In the Septuagint of course (in the book "Prayer of Manasseh"), you know, where all of those other unholy "apocrypha" books are found that the unbelieving Jews left out of their canon in 90 AD

 

[atpollard]

The Prayer of Manasseh is mentioned in 2nd Chronicles and Manasseh is recorded in 2nd kings, so it should be canonized under "writings" because he became righteous through repentance in a recorded act of this prayer, but I guess unbelieving rabbis know what's best for Christians, and it's nothing to do with repentance like the 'messianic cult leader and false prophet' John preached.. oh no no no, it's through the Law whereby Jews are saved.. yes of course Rabbis would find it extremely necessary to remove this "apocrypha" writing from their canon 1rst Century.. just sounds too Christian for Jewish eyes to gaze upon, I mean come on.. a sinful king repenting to the God of Israel through prayer and God hearkening to him and blessing him? Nope sorry, that's the same heresy that John the baptist was preaching.

You are being both deliberately and unnecessary rude.

Frankly, I don’t give a **** what books you read. It is no skin off my nose, and I do not see how it is any business of yours what books I choose to read. As a simple point of fact, I tend to avoid Daniel and Revelation because I do not particularly enjoy end-time prophecy or disciphering symbolic visions.

With respect to THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, a question was asked about where Jesus identified the Canon of scripture and I responded with an honest explanation of the orthodox understanding of the verse in question and how it implies an endorsement of Genesis to Chronicles as the totality of Holy Scripture in Jesus’ day.

I am not a Rabbi.
I am not a Jew.
I am not a heretic.
I am not a messianic cult leader or a false prophet.
I am completely indifferent to the Prayer of Manasseh.
I am completely indifferent to the Septuagint.
I am completely indifferent to all of the books in the Apocrypha.

However, I am tired of being your whipping boy because you dislike church history and feel like taking your abuse out on me ... so kiss my grits and bless someone else with your sarcasm.

I leave you to your hard won ignorance.

 

[pinacled]

You are being both deliberately and unnecessary rude.

Frankly, I don’t give a **** what books you read. It is no skin off my nose, and I do not see how it is any business of yours what books I choose to read. As a simple point of fact, I tend to avoid Daniel and Revelation because I do not particularly enjoy end-time prophecy or disciphering symbolic visions.

With respect to THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, a question was asked about where Jesus identified the Canon of scripture and I responded with an honest explanation of the orthodox understanding of the verse in question and how it implies an endorsement of Genesis to Chronicles as the totality of Holy Scripture in Jesus’ day.

I am not a Rabbi.
I am not a Jew.
I am not a heretic.
I am not a messianic cult leader or a false prophet.
I am completely indifferent to the Prayer of Manasseh.
I am completely indifferent to the Septuagint.
I am completely indifferent to all of the books in the Apocrypha.

However, I am tired of being your whipping boy because you dislike church history and feel like taking your abuse out on me ... so kiss my grits and bless someone else with your sarcasm.

I leave you to your hard won ignorance.

Have you touched courage?