In his recent debate with Hayden Carroll (LDS), Daniel Ortner (ex-LDS now Protestant, and someone who makes Lionel Hutz seem intelligent) claimed that (1) Luke 24:44 and (2) Luke 11:50-51//Matt 23:35 were Old Testament canon markers. Such claims, though popular among pop-level Protestant apologists, only show that Ortner has never cracked open a book on the formation of the Old Testament canon.
Luke 24:44:
Luke 24:44 is the only NT reference to three parts in the Jewish Scriptures, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that it included other books that were later included in the collection of Writings in the Tanak. However, some of those later designated Writings are cited in the NT as “prophetic” scriptures, e.g., Matt 24:15 citing Dan 9:27 and Jesus’ citation of Dan 7:13 in Mark 14:62. However, Leiman, Beckwith, and Bruce contend that “psalms” in this passage refers to the first book of the Writings that is not representative of that whole collection of the Writings. There is, however, no NT evidence that supports that assertion and there is no evidence that a three-part canon existed in the NT era or that the later third part began with the Psalms. These scholars impose a later notion that emerges only in the rabbinic era, but it cannot be demonstrated earlier. The Psalms were important in their own right and could easily have been given their own place of prominence in any collection of Scriptures. After all, the Psalms were among the three most frequently cited Scriptures in the NT (Isaiah, Psalms, and Deuteronomy), as well as at Qumran, and in the early churches. Also, there were more copies of the Psalms scrolls (thirty-six or thirty-seven) discovered at Qumran than any other book of the HB. . . . had all of the books of the HB had been formed as a fixed collection of scriptures before the first century CE, it is remarkable that the Christians, who adopted the scriptures of their first-century CE Jewish siblings in the first century, also welcomed other books than those that were later included in the HB, as in the cases of the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Enoch, Sirach, and others. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:277, 285)
Scholars who argue for an earlier closure of the HB/OT often appeal to the prologue of Sirach, 2 Macc 2:13-15, Philo, 4QMMT, and Luke 24:44, but a careful analysis of these texts does not reflect a clear tripartite canon before or during the first century CE. Even if there was an emerging Jewish scriptural canon at the end of the first century CE (Josephus and the author of 4 Ezra), that is not a major focus of the majority of rabbinic sages until much later. The same can be said of the early church. For example, the author of Heb 1:1 begins with a reference to God having spoken “to our ancestors . . . by the prophets” and then throughout cites texts from the Pentateuch, the Prophets, Psalms, and Wisdom of Solomon without distinction (see Heb 1:3 citing Wisdom 7:25). All these works are cited as scripture and are introduced as “prophets.” There are no scriptural designations for these cited texts like “as the scripture says” or “it is written” throughout the book except in Heb 10:7, a quote from Ps 40:7. Apparently the only closed divisions of books that were widely accepted in the first century were Torah, or Pentateuch, and the Twelve (Minor Prophets). It is difficult to argue that there was a third division of Jewish scriptures in the first century CE since even the parameters of the second division, “Prophets,” is not yet clear. For the rabbinic Jews, the formation of the HB canon took centuries, and disagreements over its shape continued even later. For instance, the Karaite Jews (8th c. CE, Babylon) chided rabbinic Jews and their successors in the ninth to eleventh centuries because they recognized the Tanak scriptures instead of only the Torah (Pentateuch). Before the ninth century CE it is unlikely that Jews in Diaspora accepted the rabbinic traditions that were written only in Hebrew and Aramaic or only the books in the HB canon instead of the books in the LXX. The Diaspora Jews, who spoke only Greek or Latin until well into the ninth century CE, would have adopted the LXX books as their scriptures. (Lee Martin McDonald, “Recognizing Jewish Religious Texts as Scripture,” in Ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New Developments in Canon Controversy, ed. John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and Lee Martin McDonald [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020], 68)
Gallagher, however, has shown that this interpretation depends on Chronicles standing last in the HB manuscripts and that there is only one antecedent that supports that place in HB manuscripts before the twelfth century, namely the second-century CE baraita, the b. Baba Batra 14b text that has 2 Chronicles in the last place in the HB. However, there is no evidence that this was the order of the Jewish Scriptures in the first century and Gallagher contends that only after the HB was published in print, and I might add in a codex, was such a position possible. Codices L (Leningrad) and A (Aleppo), for instance, have Chronicles on the first place in the Writings, not the last. Gallagher concludes that “neither Jesus nor anyone else could assert the same [order or sequence] until the late fifteenth century” after the printing press was invented. He also draws attention to the lack of any church father drawing from Matt 23:35 or Luke 11:51 that Jesus had in mind the scope of the biblical canon. Jesus’ point rather was his focus on the heinous acts taken against pious Jews in antiquity. (Gallagher, “Blood from Abel to Zechariah) . . . No ancient discussion or interpretation of the identity of Zechariah in Luke or Matthew is without its problems, but it is important that no church father identified these two texts as references to the scope of the Jewish scriptures. Also, this passage referred to all the prophets that were executed from the time of Abel (who is not called a prophet in the HB/OT) to Zechariah, but identifying him as an Old Testament figure would be strange had Jesus intended to say to his current listeners that “this generation” was accountable for the death of Zechariah when he had been executed hundreds of years earlier. . . . Since it is unlikely that Mathew and Luke are referring to the Zechariah of 2 Chr 24, what other possibilities are there? Although some have suggested that Zechariah is a reference to the author of one of the latest books in the Minor Prophets, no one before the eighth century CE concluded that and no one today makes that suggestion. The first church father to suggest that Jesus referred to the Zechariah of 2 Chr 24:20-22 was apparently Jerome in the late fourth century (Commentary on Matthew 23.35), but he never draw from this that Jesus was describing the boundaries of the OT canon. . . . Rather than Chronicles being the last book in the Hebrew biblical canon, Freedman argues convincingly that Chronicles stands in first place in the Writings, and he supports this with references to the major medieval manuscripts, including the standard Masoretic Aleppo and Leningrad Codices. Rather than Writings concluding with 1-2 Chronicles, he contends that they end with Ezra-Nehemiah. (Freedman, “Symmetry of the Hebrew Bible,” 95-96. The order of books in the Aleppo Codex is as follows: Genesis to Judges [same as usual], 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve [in the standard sequence], 1-2 Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. [Ezra includes Nehemiah. Freedman does not mention Song of Songs]) Freedman adds that since 2 Chr 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 are almost identical, this suggests that the books were separated spatially since, had they been consecutive, and that order remained there, there would have been no need for the repetition. (Ibid., 96) By contrast, the primary historical books (Former Prophets, are consecutive (i.e., Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings) and have no repetitive texts connecting them. More importantly, Chronicles is in the last place only in the b. Baba Batra text before the tenth-century classical Tiberian codices of the Masoretic text of the HB (Codices Aleppo and Leningrad) that place Chronicles last in the Ketubim. Although the Talmud places Chronicles in the first place in the Ketubim, all Tanak Bibles in use today have Chronicles at the end of the Ketubim more out of habit and based on Codices A and L. . . . In conclusion, Luke 11:49-51 and Matt 23:34-35 do not reflect a fixed biblical canon in the first century CE and that conclusion is no longer as convincing as previously thought. The precise boundaries and contents of the Jewish scriptures cannot be discerned in the first century CE from these two texts. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:287-88, 288, 290, 292-93)
Much has been made over the completion and order of the HB canon, based on Luke’s and Matthew’s reference to the blood of Zechariah (Matt 23:35; Luke 11:51), but that argument has not been convincing. The argument goes thus: since Abel represents the first book of the HB canon (Genesis) and Zachariah the last (2 Chronicles), Jesus had the whole scriptural collection in view. They argue that Chronicles was the last book of the OT canon seen both by internal and external evidence, but this has been significantly challenged in both areas. While Chronicles is in the last place only in b. Baba Bathra 14b, it does not reappear in the last place in the HB canon until its place-place position in the tenth-century Aleppo and Leningrad codices. Other Jewish catalogs or manuscripts of the HB books generally conclude with Esther; none of the known Christian canon catalogs conclude the OT canon with Chronicles. The argument that the HB scriptures concluded with Chronicles, based on the Matthew and Luke references to Zachariah, is therefore unconvincing. While ending the HB with Chronicles conveniently ties the two collections of the church’s scriptures together, it is not found in the earliest canonical catalogs up through the medieval period, and concluding the OT canon with Malachi is rarely found in any Christian OT canon. Similarly, the identity of the Zachariah in Matthew and Luke is not easily made the same as the Zachariah in Chronicles, including the way that he died. Ancient interpretations of Luke 11:48-51 and Matt 23:35 never conclude that Jesus referred to the beginning and end of the OT. (Lee Martin McDonald, “Recognizing Jewish Religious Texts as Scripture,” in Ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New Developments in Canon Controversy, ed. John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and Lee Martin McDonald [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020], 75-76)
With respect to to the identity of the "Zechariah" in the Luke 11:50-51/Matthew 23:35 texts, Catholic Gary MIchuta wrote the following:
The more he read, Ortner says he was struck by some of the doctrines of
the church, especially what the church believed about Jesus Christ.
"The idea that those who died not knowing about God, not knowing
about Jesus Christ, not knowing about God's plan would still have a chance
after this life to accept it. Immediately I kind of latched onto that and knew
it was true," Ortner says.
Ortner had found an answer to a question that had plagued him growing
up: What happens to people in the afterlife who don't believe in Jesus?
He decided he wanted to join the church, but he says it's a choice his
father resisted.
. . .
"Why would you not save your life? Why would you sacrifice ...
yourself for a belief?," Ortner asks. "And it was only after I went
out as a missionary and I dedicated two years of my life to everyday getting up
and serving — serving God, serving others — that I really came to understand
how belief and faith can motivate and change your life."
"I really came to appreciate, you know, religious believers of all
faiths, how they live their life according to divine principles they embrace
and how it pushes them to be a better person every day." (Sophia Alvarez
Boyd, "I'm
Converting: How One Man's Missionary Trip Reconnected Him To His Family's Past,"
NPR, August 25, 2019)