Jesus defines the canon of the OT?

[Inquirer]

Does Jesus define the canon of the OT in this verse?

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of taking away the key of knowledge.

“From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias …”. Abel was slain in the first book of the Bible (Gen 4:. Now those Protestants who anticipate the answer might begin looking for the murder of Zacharias in the book of Malachi. Why? Because Jesus is again referring to the full breadth of the scriptures (the key of knowledge, the oracles of God), from the first book of the Old Testament, to the last book of the Old Testament.

King Joash, who had Zechariah stoned within the temple’s court (2 Chr 24:20-22), was the 13th king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and he ruled from 798-782 B.C.
King Jehoiakim, who slew Urijah with a sword (Jer 26:20-23), was the 18th ruler of the southern kingdom of Judah, and he reigned from 609-598 B.C.
Had Jesus been speaking chronologically, (from the first martyr to the last) He would have said - from the blood of Able unto the blood of Urijah, but that is not what He intended. He was clearly saying from the first book of scripture, to the last book of scripture. Therefore, in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, and in Luke 24:44, Jesus was explicitly referring to the order and divisions of the books in the Hebrew Bible as the complete span of scripture.

Any comments?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I would ask where those verses say a word about Scripture.

I’d also point out that if those verses are read in context, it’s clear that Jesus is saying that the Jews will be held accountable for the blood of all these people.

I’m really not sure where the arguement lies here.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Inquirer:

“From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias …”. Abel was slain in the first book of the Bible …
King Joash, who had Zechariah stoned within the temple’s court (2 Chr 24:20-22), was the 13th king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and he ruled from 798-782 B.C.
King Jehoiakim, who slew Urijah with a sword (Jer 26:20-23), was the 18th ruler of the southern kingdom of Judah, and he reigned from 609-598 B.C.
Had Jesus been speaking chronologically, (from the first martyr to the last) He would have said - from the blood of Able unto the blood of Urijah, but that is not what He intended. He was clearly saying from the first book of scripture, to the last book of scripture. Therefore, in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, and in Luke 24:44, Jesus was explicitly referring to the order and divisions of the books in the Hebrew Bible as the complete span of scripture.
Any comments?

I think you may have misidentified the Zechariah that Jesus was refering to. In Matthew 23:35, Jesus refers to him as “Zechariah the son of Barachiah” but the Zechariah of 2 Chr 24:20-22 is “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.” The Zechariah that Jesus seems to refer to is the prophet “Zechariah the son of Berechiah” of Zechariah 1:1, who lived around 520 B.C., in which case Jesus may very well have been speaking chronologically.

 

[John_Taylor]

Inquirer:

He was clearly saying from the first book of scripture, to the last book of scripture. Therefore, in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, and in Luke 24:44, Jesus was explicitly referring to the order and divisions of the books in the Hebrew Bible as the complete span of scripture.

Matthew 23:35

And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel…

(Genesis…first book listed within the Hebrew Canon)

…to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah

(2 Chronicles ???..last book listed within Hebrew Canon)

…whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

The Zechariah in 2 Chronicles is “Zechariah son of Jehoiada”…“Zechariah son of Berekiah” is from the Book of Zechariah…is the Hebrew Canon “from Genesis to Zechariah”?

The prophet “Zechariah son of Berekiah” was not murdered as far as we know from the Hebrew Scriptures, was he?..how does this prove anything from a “Sola Scriptura” perspective?

See exodus.densem.edu/onlineclasses/12ChronNTChron.html

The only way to settle the question of Canonicity - for a believer - is to appeal to the Authority of Christ’s Church.

Keep the Faith
John

 

[Mystophilus]

Todd Easton:

The Zechariah that Jesus seems to refer to is the prophet “Zechariah the son of Berechiah” of Zechariah 1:1, who lived around 520 B.C., in which case Jesus may very well have been speaking chronologically.

Nehemiah and Malachi both post-date Zechariah, however.

 

[Mystophilus]

Inquirer:

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Had Jesus been speaking chronologically, (from the first martyr to the last) He would have said - from the blood of Able unto the blood of Urijah, but that is not what He intended. He was clearly saying from the first book of scripture, to the last book of scripture. Therefore, in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, and in Luke 24:44, Jesus was explicitly referring to the order and divisions of the books in the Hebrew Bible as the complete span of scripture.

The Tanakh was not a “complete” collection until some time in the C2nd. The Torah was canonized by the mid-5th century BC, the Prophets by 200 BC, and the Writings (and thus the complete collection) in AD 90-110. Importantly, Chronicles was in that last section.

Most of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint, some of which passages vary noticeably from the Hebrew texts. However, ‘the’ Septuagint also came in different versions. The Codex Vaticanus version (‘B’), of the (AD) C4th, lacks the four books of Maccabees, the Odes and the Psalms of Solomon, all of which the Codex Alexandrinus version (‘A’), of the C5th, has. The Codex Sinaiticus (‘S’), of the C4th, is fragmentary. Some passages within books also differ (e.g., the ordering of passages in Jeremiah, and various words or phrases in various locations).

However, I think that all of this may be irrelevant. Jesus is God: why “set” the canon when you are the canon?