FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Canon Defined by Matt. 23:35?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Could anyone give a proper defense for the Protestant canard that Christ gave the chronological extent of the OT Canon by His words found in Matt. 23:25:
 
Quote:And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
The best argument against the Protestant interpretation I have seen so far is that Christ, in repudiating the Pharisees, was utilizing their acknowledged Scriptures but was by no means limiting the canon of Scripture to the books contained therein.  Thoughts?
FifthMark Wrote:Could anyone give a proper defense for the Protestant canard that Christ gave the extent of the OT Canon by His words found in Matt. 23:25:
 
Quote:And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
The best argument against the Protestant interpretation I have seen so far is that Christ, in repudiating the Pharisees, was utilizing their acknowledged Scriptures but was by no means limiting the canon of Scripture to the books contained therein.  Thoughts?

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/...elight.htm
Hold the phone, I think I answered my own question (Lumen can verify this).
 
The name mentioned by Christ in Matt. 23:35 is "Zechariah son of Berekiah," whom Protestants equate with "Zechariah son of Jehoiada" found in 2 Chr. 24:20-21.  They then extrapolate the conclusion that as 2 Chronicles is the last book in the canon used by the Pharisees, Christ is confirming this canon by His mention of the slain Zechariah.  I would contend that to equate the two Zechariahs found above is tenuous, at best.  If these two are not the same person, then this argument fails completely.
FifthMark Wrote:The name mentioned by Christ in Matt. 23:35 is "Zechariah son of Berekiah," whom Protestants equate with "Zechariah son of Jehoiada" found in 2 Chr. 24:20-21 ... I would contend that to equate the two Zechariahs found above is tenuous, at best.  If these two are not the same person, then this argument fails completely.

From the article linked above:
 
Quote:Let's move to the next part of Mr. Scheifler's rebuttal where he tried to interpret the phrase "from Abel to Zechariah, son of Barechiah" in Matthew 23:35 to mean "from Genesis to Chronicles".  His interpretation (the standard among Protestants) would be wrong if either one or both of the following is true: (1) Zechariah, son of Jehoiada of 2 Chronicles was not the one Jesus meant; (2) Chronicles was not the last book of the Jewish Scripture in Jesus' time.  Granted, most commentaries (including the Catholic Encyclopedia) favour the position that Zechariah of 2 Chronicles was the one Jesus meant.  A few scholars have proposed the prophet Zachariah, the son of Berachiah and who, together with Haggai and Malachi, were the last Jewish prophets [4]. 

 
So, am I to understand that "Berekiah" and "Jehoiada" are the same person?  Is that the position you hold, Lumen?
 
Quote:...most commentaries favour the position that Zechariah of 2 Chronicles was the one Jesus meant.
Alright - but on what basis?  Here are some quotes from the Church Fathers on the passage:
 
Quote:But who is this Zacharias? Some say, the father of John; some, the prophet; some, a priest with two different names, whom the Scripture also calls, the son of Jehoiada.  (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 74 on the Gospel of Matthew)
Quote:The prophets, however, could even in those times die for the truth, as the Lord Himself says, "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharia."  (St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book XXII, 76)
Here's what St. Jerome wrote. He says that "Barachias" means "Blessed of the Lord", and is thus a title for Jehoiada.

St. Jerome, Book 4, Commentary on chapter 23 of Matthew
It is a subject of dispute amongst commentators as to what is meant by Zacharias the son of Barachias, for we read of several persons of this name.  But in this passage, as if to prevent any mistake, is added : Whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.  I have read various opinions in various places upon this question, and I will give you each.  First, some hold that this Zacharias was the eleventh of the twelve Minor Prophets, which same is called the son of Barachias.  But the Bible nowhere telleth us that this Prophet was slain between the temple and the altar ; and it is hardly possible in his day that even the ruins of the temple were in existence.  Secondly, others maintain that this Zacharias was the father of John the Baptist.  Such an interpretation is derived from certain vain imaginations of the apocryphal Gospels, wherein it is asserted that he was martyred for preaching the Saviour's coming. A third school will have it that this Zacharias, the son of Barachias, was that Zacharias of whom we read in the second Book of Chronicles, that he was slain by Joash, King of Judah, in the court of the house of the Lord, which same might be understood as between the temple and the altar.  However, that Zacharias was not the son of Barachias, but of Jehoiada the priest, whence it is written : Joash the King remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son.  The question therefore ariseth, if this opinion be true, why the manner of death agreeth with this explanation but the name doth not, since Zacharias is called the son of Jehoiada rather than of Barachias.  The Hebrew word Barachias signifieth Blessed-of-the-Lord, and this might be an honourific title for Jehoiada, used to imply his righteousness, inasmuch as our Lord was making reference to the shedding of righteous blood.  Further, we might find that in the Gospel used by the Nazarenes the name of Jehoiada is used instead of Barachias.
Quote:The Hebrew word Barachias signifieth Blessed-of-the-Lord, and this might be an honourific title for Jehoiada, used to imply his righteousness, inasmuch as our Lord was making reference to the shedding of righteous blood.  Further, we might find that in the Gospel used by the Nazarenes the name of Jehoiada is used instead of Barachias.
That at least gives some basis for the assertion, although the former argument ("honourific title"?) is a little weak.  Do you mind if I ask your source for this quote?
 
Also, if we agree with St. Jerome on this point, what becomes the main argument against the Protestants using this as a means of defining the OT Canon?
FifthMark Wrote:Also, if we agree with St. Jerome on this point, what becomes the main argument against the Protestants using this as a means of defining the OT Canon?

Seriously.  Read the article I linked.  He explains the answer (2 Chronicles cannot be shown to have been the last book of the OT in Jewish times), but it's detailed enough that I don't feel like reproducing it all here.
Read it, even before you posted it.  I was just looking to see if more ammo was sitting around.  I didn't feel his defense did the topic much justice, but perhaps that's because the initial Protestant claim is just that lame.
Why multiply rumors when there is a bible?
Pages: 1 2