Brief Overview
- This article examines the claim that Matthew 23:35 limits the Old Testament canon to the Palestinian canon, excluding books like the Maccabees.
- It explores the meaning of Jesus’ reference to “from Abel to Zechariah” and its relationship to the canon of Scripture.
- The discussion addresses whether this verse implies Jesus rejected the deuterocanonical books recognized by Catholics.
- It also considers the use of Josephus’ Contra Apion 1.38 as evidence for a restricted canon.
- Catholic teaching on the canon, rooted in tradition and Church authority, will be clarified.
- The analysis aims to provide a factual, scholarly response to this question from a Catholic perspective.
Detailed Response
The Context of Matthew 23:35
Matthew 23:35 occurs within Jesus’ critique of the scribes and Pharisees, where He says, “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.” This statement follows a series of woes against the religious leaders for their hypocrisy. Some argue it reflects the boundaries of the Palestinian canon, with Abel’s death in Genesis and Zechariah’s in 2 Chronicles. The Palestinian canon, used by many Protestants, excludes the deuterocanonical books like Maccabees. However, this interpretation assumes Jesus intended to define the canon, which requires closer examination. The verse is part of a broader condemnation, not a treatise on Scripture’s limits. Jesus accuses the Pharisees of complicity in the murder of the righteous across history. The phrase “from Abel to Zechariah” likely uses the traditional Jewish order of books to make a rhetorical point. This order places Genesis first and 2 Chronicles last in the Ketubim (Writings). Thus, the reference may simply reflect a literary device, not a canonical endorsement.
The Structure of the Jewish Canon
The Jewish Tanakh is divided into three sections: Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketubim (Writings). This structure differs from the Christian Old Testament in arrangement, though not always in content. In this order, 2 Chronicles appears as the final book of the Ketubim. The death of Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, where he is stoned for rebuking the people. Abel’s murder by Cain is found in Genesis 4:8, the first book. Jesus’ mention of these events could align with the Tanakh’s bookends for emphasis. However, this does not inherently exclude other books from being Scripture. The Catholic Old Testament includes the deuterocanonical books, such as Maccabees, affirmed by early Church councils. The Pharisees’ canon was not universally fixed in Jesus’ time, as evidenced by debates among Jewish sects. Therefore, tying Matthew 23:35 to a strict canon overlooks historical and textual complexity.
Chronology and the Zechariah Question
A key flaw in the argument is the assumption that “Zechariah” marks the last chronological murder in Scripture. The Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 lived centuries before the events in Maccabees. For example, 2 Maccabees 7 describes the martyrdom of seven brothers under Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC. If Jesus meant the latest historical death, Maccabees would supersede Zechariah. Yet, Jesus’ reference is not about chronology but about the scope of guilt. The phrase “from Abel to Zechariah” spans the Tanakh’s narrative arc, not a timeline. Other Zechariahs, like the prophet in Zechariah 1:1, are post-exilic but not killed in the text. Confusion sometimes arises with Zechariah, son of Barachiah, from Zechariah 1:1, but this is likely a conflation. The context of Matthew 23 prioritizes rhetorical impact over historical sequence. Thus, the verse does not exclude later writings like Maccabees.
Jesus’ Rhetorical Strategy
Jesus often tailored His arguments to His audience’s frame of reference. In Matthew 22:23-34, He refutes the Sadducees, who accepted only the Torah, using Exodus 3:6. He proves the resurrection from their own texts, not endorsing their limited canon. Similarly, in Matthew 23, He addresses the Pharisees using their scriptural order. This approach mirrors His method of exposing inconsistency within their beliefs. The phrase “from Abel to Zechariah” indicts them using their own books, not all Scripture. Catholic theology holds that Jesus, as divine, knew the full canon, including deuterocanonical texts. His silence on Maccabees here is not a rejection but a strategic choice. The argument hinges on His intent, which the text suggests is condemnation, not canon definition. This undermines the claim that Matthew 23:35 limits the Old Testament.
The Deuterocanonical Books in Jesus’ Teaching
Evidence suggests Jesus and the New Testament writers knew the deuterocanonical books. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20 parallels Jesus’ Passion strikingly, describing a righteous man persecuted. Scholars note allusions to Sirach in the Sermon on the Mount, such as Sirach 28:2 and Matthew 6:12 on forgiveness. Tobit’s themes of charity (Tobit 4:7-11) echo Matthew 25:35-40. These connections imply familiarity with texts beyond the Palestinian canon. Catholic tradition, as in CCC 120, affirms these books as inspired. The early Church, including councils like Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), included them. Jesus’ lack of explicit quotes from Maccabees in Matthew 23 proves nothing about their status. Absence of citation is not evidence of rejection. Thus, His teaching likely embraced a broader canon.
Josephus and the Palestinian Canon
Josephus’ Contra Apion 1.38 is often cited to support a 22-book Jewish canon, matching the Protestant Old Testament. He writes that Jews have “only twenty-two books” of divine origin, fixed since ancient times. This aligns with the Palestinian canon, excluding Maccabees and others. However, Josephus, writing after 70 AD, reflects a post-Jamnia perspective, not Jesus’ era. Jewish canon debates persisted in the 1st century, with sects like the Essenes accepting broader texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls include deuterocanonical fragments, showing their use. Josephus’ count combines books (e.g., Judges-Ruth) to reach 22, a symbolic number. His testimony is not definitive for Jesus’ view. Catholic tradition relies on apostolic usage, not Josephus, for its canon. Therefore, his text does not prove Matthew 23:35 excludes Maccabees.
Catholic Teaching on the Canon
The Catholic Church defines the canon through Tradition and Magisterium, not sola scriptura. CCC 120 lists 46 Old Testament books, including Maccabees, as inspired. This canon was formalized at councils like Trent (1546), affirming earlier decisions. The Church Fathers, such as Augustine, endorsed the deuterocanonical books. Protestant reformers, like Luther, later excluded them, favoring the Palestinian canon. The Catholic view sees Scripture as a living tradition, not a self-evident list. Jesus entrusted canon determination to the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (CCC 111). Matthew 23:35, then, is not a canonical boundary but a moral critique. The Church’s authority supersedes arguments from this verse alone. This reflects a holistic approach to revelation.
Historical Use of the Deuterocanonical Books
Early Christians widely used the deuterocanonical books in liturgy and teaching. The Septuagint, a Greek translation, included these texts and was prevalent in Jesus’ time. Most New Testament quotes of the Old Testament reflect Septuagint wording, not the Hebrew Masoretic text. For example, Hebrews 11:35 alludes to 2 Maccabees 7 on martyrdom and resurrection. Clement of Rome (c. 95 AD) cites Wisdom and Judith as Scripture. This usage predates Josephus’ narrower canon. The Palestinian canon emerged later as a Jewish response to Christianity. Catholic tradition preserves the Septuagint’s broader scope. Jesus’ Jewish context likely included exposure to these texts. Thus, Matthew 23:35 does not negate their authority.
Misinterpreting Silence as Exclusion
The argument that Jesus’ silence on Maccabees implies rejection is weak. He does not quote many protocanonical books, like Esther or Judges, either. Silence proves neither acceptance nor denial in ancient rhetoric. The New Testament cites only a fraction of the Old Testament, yet all are Scripture. Catholic theology views inspiration as a Church discernment process, not a quote tally. CCC 107 notes Scripture’s unity, not its self-definition. Jesus’ mission was salvation, not canon listing. The Pharisees’ guilt, not the canon’s extent, drives Matthew 23. Assuming exclusion from silence misreads His intent. This error underlies the Protestant claim.
Conclusion: A Broader Perspective
Matthew 23:35 does not determine the Protestant canon or exclude Maccabees. Jesus uses a Pharisaic book order for rhetorical effect, not canonical ruling. Chronology, context, and tradition refute the restrictive interpretation. The Catholic canon, rooted in Church authority, embraces the deuterocanonical books. Josephus’ testimony, while informative, is not decisive for Christian Scripture. Jesus’ broader teachings suggest familiarity with these texts. The Church’s consistent use of the Septuagint reinforces this view. Arguments from Matthew 23:35 reflect a Protestant lens, not Catholic doctrine. The passage condemns hypocrisy, not additional books. Thus, the claim lacks foundation in Catholic understanding.