Gary Michuta on the Zechariah of Luke 11:51

Protestant apologists are fond of appealing to Matt 23:35//Luke 11:48-51 as "proof" of Jesus defining the limits of the Old Testament, understood by later Jews to end at 2 Chronicles where the murder of one Zecharias is recounted. Commenting on the (1) identity of the Zechariah mentioned by Jesus and (2) whether ancient Jews actually believed 2 Chronicles to be the final book of the Old Testament, Gary Michtua wrote the following:

There was an understanding in the Church that Zechariah died a martyr's death. When Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees that "all the righteous bloodshed upon the earth [will come upon you], from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar," (Matthew 23:35) some early fathers believed Jesus was speaking about John the Baptist's father, Zechariah. Seeing that no other person mentioned in Scripture perfectly fits the description of this Zechariah, John's father is certainly a possible candidate.

Apocryphal writings that contain accounts about Zechariah's martyrdom in the temple area also circulated in the early Church. In fact, one of them, the Protoevangelium of James, was written sometime in the first quarter of the second Christian century, which is quite early since it is traditionally believed that St. John the Apostle died only a few decades earlier. According to this apocryphal writing, King Herod was searching for John the Baptist and sent guards to Zechariah to find out where he was. Zechariah replied that he is always in the temple area serving God and had no idea where John could be. When threatened with death, Zechariah is said to reply: "I am God's martyr, if you shed my blood; for the Lord will receive my spirit, because you shed innocent blood at the vestibule of the temple of the Lord." (Protoevangelium of James, 23). According to this story, the guards killed him and his body was found later on . . . It's also possible that Jesus was referring to an otherwise unknown Zechariah who had recently been murdered. After all, this would be no different than the other times Jesus mentions contemporary events that are not otherwise recorded in Scripture, such as the 18 people being killed by the falling tower of Siloam (Luke 13:4). Maybe Jesus is doing the same here? In any case, identifying Jesus' Zechariah is not as easy as it seems. But even if Jesus did refer to the Zechariah in Second Chronicles, was Chronicles always the last book in the Jewish Bible?

This point is [speculative]. There is only one Jewish list in all of antiquity that places Chronicles at the end of the Hebrew Bible (b. Baba Bathra, 14b). Every early Church fathers who attempted to reproduce the contents of the Jewish Bible, ended his list with either Esther or Ezra-Nehemiah. One of them put Chronicles last. Even the oldest complete Hebrew Bibles (the Aleppo and Leningrad codices) place Chronicles first among the Writings, not last. The earliest evidence of any Jewish writing putting Chronicles last, outside of b. Baba Bathra 14b, is from the 13th century! (Gary Michuta, Behind the Bible: What the Bible Assumes you Already Know [Livonia, Mich.: Nikaria Press, 2017], 108-9, 147-48)

 As I wrote in my book Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura, pp. 111-13:

  

[S]ome Protestant apologists often use Luke 24:44 with Matt 23:35 (“From the blood of the righteous Abel . . . to the blood of Zechariah”) as evidence that the Old Testament was closed at the time of Jesus. Proponents claim that this verse defined the limits of the entire Old Testament, understood by Jews to end at 2 Chronicles where the murder of one Zarcharias was recounted; some (e.g., Norman Geisler) have used this “fact” against Latter-day Saint claims (see his essay, “Scripture” in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1998], p. 17). This, however, simply muddies the water on the concept of both inerrancy and Sola Scriptura because Jesus referred to Zachariahs, the son of Barachias. The Zacharias referred to in 2 Chron 24:20 was the son of Jehoiada. But remember that such is used to support a closed canon--which would also place the New Testament outside the limits of scripture. It is likely that Jesus’ quotation referred not to the Zacharias of 2 Chronicles but to another Zacharias who lived much later and had been killed by the Jews in Jesus’ time. The Lord accused the Jews in his audience of being the murderers of Zacharias by stating, “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt 23:35). If those Jews were the murderers, the Lord’s comments cannot apply like some (e.g., F.F. Bruce, Canon of Scripture) have contended.

Another problem, among many others, to such a line of argument is the a priori assumption that there was a fixed and clearly identifiable order of the Hebrew Bible by the time of Jesus and that the reference in Luke 24:44 to “the Law of Moses, prophets, and the psalms” does not interfere with that order. If the order of the Writings (Hebrew--Ketubim) was already set by the time of Luke’s writings (after 70 C.E.), it is strange that Josephus (around 95-100 C.E.) does not have such an ordering in his writings (Against Apion 1.37-41). Also, it is strange that none of the early Christians picked up on this three-part biblical canon, and it is not found in any of the church fathers. The best explanation of this, of course, is that the three-part biblical canon of the Jews was developed in the second century C.E., long after the Jews ceased having an influence on the scope of the Christian Scriptures.

Rather than Chronicles being the last book in the Hebrew biblical canon, however, Noel A. Freedman argues convincingly that Chronicles stands in first place in the Writings, and he supports this by reference to the major medieval manuscripts, including the standard Masoretic Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex (Noel A. Freedman, “The Symmetry of the Hebrew Bible,” Studia Theologica 46 (1992): 83-108, here, pp. 95-96). Rather than concluding with 1-2 Chronicles, the Writings end with Ezra-Nehemiah (treated as one book in the Hebrew canon). A further argument against the position of F.F. Bruce is Freedman’s assertion (ibid., 96) that because 2 Chron 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 are identical, the books were separated spatially since, had they been consecutive, there would have been no need for the repetition. By contrast, the primary historical books that are consecutive (i.e., 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings), have no repetitive texts connecting them.

For more on Matt 23:35 (cf. Luke 11:48-51), see Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 96-100.

The common Protestant appeal to these texts to support Sola Scriptura is based on eisegesis, not exegesis, as is so much of their theology.

Kermit Zarley on Colossians 1:16

Kermit Zarley, author of The Restitution of Jesus Christ, wrote the following about Col 1:16 in a blog post, “The Bible Does Not Say God Created the Angels”:

First, the Greek text of Colossians 1.16 has tois ouranois. It can be translated either “the heavens” or “(the) heaven.” I think it is rightly translated “the heavens” in the NASB and wrongly translated “heaven” here in the NRSV as well as the NIV and ESV. These latter three versions translating it “heaven” makes it refer to the heaven where God and angels dwell. On the contrary, whenever “(the) heaven(s) and (the) earth” are mentioned together in the Bible, this phrase refers to everything in the universe besides the earth as “the heavens.” In that case shamayim/ouranos should be translated in the plural. Thus, Colossians 1.16 does not mean God created everything in the heaven where he and angels dwell. It doesn’t say anything about that.

Second, it is unlikely that the twice-mentioned expression “all things” in Colossians 1.16, which is panta in the Greek text, refers to angels. For instance, most modern Bible versions translate archai in v. 16 as “rulers,” which would indicate persons such as humans or angels. But archai here can be translated “principalities” or the like, as the KJV does, which does not indicate personalities but rather the realm of rule of personalities. This corresponds better to the two previous nouns in the Greek text, which are thronoi and kuriotetes, here translated “thrones” and “dominions” respectively, because they do not indicate personalities either. The same issue arises concerning the last of these four Greek nouns, exousia, which are here in the NRSV and in the KJV translated as “powers.” The NASB, NIV, and ESV here translate it “authorities,” indicating personalities. But it also can be translated “powers,” as it is here in the NRSV and the KJV, which does not indicate personalities. Thus, all four nouns are better understood as referring to position rather than person.

Third, the final words “for him” in Colossians 1.16 mean that everything God created during the creation period described in Genesis 1 was for Jesus. If that includes the angels, of which there are two types—God’s angels and Satan’s angels—then we must understand Paul to be saying that Satan’s angels were created for Jesus, that is, that they belong to him, which is ludicrous and therefore must be incorrect.

 For my "take" on Col 1:15-20, see the section entitled Jesus as the "spirit brother" of Satan in my article, Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"

Fireside on the Biblical Foundations of an Ordained Priesthood in the New Covenant

Last night I gave a fireside on the topic of The Biblical Foundations for an Ordained, Ministerial New Covenant Priesthood. I have posted the slides online here.

I also recorded the audio, so for those who want to hear what an Irish accent actually sounds like (😋), here you go:

The Biblical Foundation for An Ordained, Ministerial New Covenant Priesthood

J.B. Lightfoot and the Epiphanian View of the Brothers/Sisters of Jesus

J.B. Lightfoot wrote a commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. My copy, a revised edition, dates to 1900. One can read it online on Archive.org:

St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, a Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations (1870)

While it is dated, I tracked down a copy due to one of the dissertations therein:

The Brethren of the Lord

This essay is important for two main reasons:

(1) It is a sound critique of the Hieronymian view of the brothers/sisters of Jesus (the view, advocated by Jerome and most Roman Catholics, that the brothers/sisters of Jesus were near-relatives or cousins) and

(2) A defence of the Epiphanian view, wherein the brothers/sisters of Jesus were children from a previous marriage of Joseph, which is the predominant view of Eastern Orthodoxy (it should be noted that Lightfoot did not hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary).

While I disagree with the Epiphanian view, Lightfoot’s defence is one of the best I have encountered and, to be fair, his interaction with the other perspectives demonstrated much integrity in giving them a fair hearing.

Perhaps the best defence of the Epiphanian view one will encounter will be that of Laurent A Cleenewerck, Aiparthenos Ever-Virgin? Understanding the Orthodox Catholic Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and the Identity of James and the Brothers and Sisters of the Lord

Answering an objection to the personal pre-existence of Jesus

Anthony F. Buzzard, a leading proponent of Socinian Christology, wrote the following:

The so-called “preexistence” of Jesus in John refers to his “existence” in the Plan of God. The Church has been plagued by the introduction of non-biblical language. There is a perfectly good word for “real” preexistence in the Greek language (prouparchon). It is very significant that it appears nowhere in Scripture with reference to Jesus, but it does in the writings of Greek Church Fathers of the second century. These Greek commentators on Scripture failed to understand the Hebrew categories of thought in which the New Testament is written. (Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound [Lanham, Md.: International Scholars Publications, 1998], 165-66, emphasis in bold added)

While it is true that προϋπάρχω ("to exist before") is not used of the nature of Christ's pre-existence in the Greek New Testament, Buzzard is obfuscating with respect to the meaning of this term. Note how προϋπάρχω is used in the New Testament:

And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before (προϋπῆρχον) they were at enmity between themselves. (Luke 23:12)

But there was a certain man, called Simon, which before time (προϋπῆρχεν) in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one. (Acts 8:9)

In the LXX, it appears once in the book of Job:

And it is written that he will rise again with those the Lord raises up. (17b) This man is interpreted from the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausitis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia, and previously (προϋπῆρχεν) his name was Iobab . . . (Job 42:17, NETS)

This should be compared with following from the pseudepigrapha:

This is translated from the Syrian scroll. He earlier (προϋπῆρχεν) lived under the name of Jobab, settling in the land of Uz, along the boundaries of Idumea and Arabia. (Aristeas the Exegete 2:2)

In all three instances of the term in the LXX and Greek NT, it is not used of one preexisting their conception, but a past event in their mortal lives.

That the author of the Gospel of John believed in the personal pre-existence of Jesus can be found in passages such as John 8:58 and 17:5.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

While I disagree with him on Christology and, to a lesser extent, Mariology (he holds to the Epiphanian view of the brothers and sisters of Jesus), Richard Bauckham wrote one of the most important volumes in recent years defending the reliability of the New Testament Gospels:

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006, 2017).

I read the first edition shortly after it came out and thought it was great (I don't have the 2d ed yet, but if anyone wants to send a copy my way, I won't object 😏)

N.T. Wright praised the volume thusly:

Richard Bauckham draws on his unparalleled knowledge of the world of the first Christians to argue not only that the Gospels do indeed contain eyewitness testimony but that their first readers would certainly have recognized them as such. This book is a remarkable piece of detective work, resulting in a fresh and vivid approach to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of well-known problems.

I should note, however, that Brent Metcalfe (click here for a listing of his academic training in biblical studies) offered the following review and response to Bauckham's volume. Perhaps one should forward this to Bauckham--it may result in a retraction of this book . . .

For the Bauckham/Ehrman radio debate on the reliability of the Gospels ("Are the Gospels Based on Eyewitness Testimony?"), check out:

Bart Ehrman vs Richard Bauckham - Round 1

Bart Ehrman vs Richard Bauckham - Round 2

Another Evangelical sounding very "Mormon"

Quiz time:

Who would say such a "Mormon" thing as the following?

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because God's spirit, that has taken out my heart of stone and given me a heart of flesh, draws me to His word and gives me faith to believe what his word says.

Yep, you guessed it: James R. White

As I document in my book, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura, pp. 9-14 (Web version here), and elsewhere (e.g., The Evangelical "Testimony": Feelings, nothing more than superficial feelings and Anti-Mormon Hypocrisy and Emotion-driven "Conversions" to Evangelical Protestantism), such is part-and-parcel of Reformed epistemology and the true basis of the belief Protestants have in the Bible and their theology.