Deutercanonical Citations in the New Testament

[SpyderByte]

That's a statement of very approximately where you want to draw a line. You haven't justified drawing it there. The implication seems to be: this is modern practice in referring to texts so this the model we should impose back on ancient texts.

No, that is how language and logic work. If I mention a boat in a story, and a person you know has taken a cruise, does that necessarily mean I'm mentioning the same boat?

 

[SpyderByte]

While having looked at lists of supposed references and quotes from the Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament and finding them rather strained and lacking, I do find the reference to people being tortured with hope of future resurrection in Hebrews 11:35 to be a pretty good allusion to the martyrdom of the seven sons mentioned in 2 Maccabees ch. 7.

In looking at long lists, this is the only one that seems to have some real validity in claim; certainly the story would have been familiar to the author of Hebrews and so the likelihood that it is what the author has in mind seems pretty likely.

-CryptoLutheran

Even so, even if an allusion, it in no way implies it is inspired. Paul makes use of Greek philosophers, that doesn't make them inspired works does it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Even so, even if an allusion, it in no way implies it is inspired. Paul makes use of Greek philosophers, that doesn't make them inspired works does it?

I didn't say it made it inspired.

You'll note from earlier in this thread where I pointed out that I find arguments on both sides of the discussion rather lacking.

But since, as you pointed out, this discussion is about references of the Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament (or lack thereof), then it seemed wholly appropriate to mention that this seems like a case where it exists.

I don't hold to the position that being quoted in the New Testament is a necessary requirement for canonical acceptance, as that would result in many universally accepted Old Testament books, such as Ruth, Esther, and Song of Songs, being rejected. And, as you noted, allusions and quotations of a text doesn't make something canonical Scripture, such as St. Paul's quoting Aratus and Epimenides, or St. Jude quoting the book of Enoch.

So it would seem that canonical status is a moot point as far as what I've brought up here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebia]

No, that is how language and logic work. If I mention a boat in a story, and a person you know has taken a cruise, does that necessarily mean I'm mentioning the same boat?

One can demand "citations" that approach 20th century academic standards of explicitness and unambiguity if one so chooses, but is that a reasonable demand to put back onto 1st century texts, where the culture is to use much more gentle allusions?

It looks an awful lot to me like "this is the standard my culture expects, so its what I want, so it should be there".

 

[SpyderByte]

One can demand "citations" that approach 20th century academic standards of explicitness and unambiguity if one so chooses, but is that a reasonable demand to put back onto 1st century texts, where the culture is to use much more gentle allusions?

It looks an awful lot to me like "this is the standard my culture expects, so its what I want, so it should be there".

You're missing the point. This isn't a 20th century academic standard, it's basic communication. There will be things that appear to be similar, but are in fact in no way related. Atheists like to use what your describing, to claim that Jesus and the Christian religion are simply constructs of men's minds pulled together from earlier myths. Using very similar levels of parallelomania*. If I say I took a boat ride, and your friend says they took a cruise, does that mean it was the same boat? No, of course not. If a text mentions resurrection from the dead, and another mentions being tortured to death and being resurrected, does that mean one is a citation of the other? Of course not! Is it possible that one verse is alluding to the excerpt from the apocrypha? Sure, but as I said before, a single allusion does not equate to the inspired status of a text. It certainly doesn't lend any weight to the numerous other dubious texts of the apocrypha. If that's the best we have, a possible allusion to a single excerpt of a previously rejected text, as to the canonicity of the entire apocrypha, there is a major problem...

* parallelomania: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania

In case you're not familiar with the term.

 

[ebia]

You're missing the point. This isn't a 20th century academic standard, ...

expecting it and setting it as a required standard is.

Yes, other forms are ambiguous. Some are more clearly references to another text, some are less certain, some are very uncertain. But you need to work with what you have, not what you would like. To set a standard that is not how people wrote at that time is anachronistic.

If you are going to worry about whether an OT text is referred to by an NT text at all as a criteria for judging the OT text, they you need to accept that most of those references will not be clear cut. Or you stop considering reference to be a criteria at all. Its anachronistic to look for, and only for, unambiguous citations.

 

[SpyderByte]

expecting it and setting it as a required standard is.

And again, no it isn't. This is basic speech and communication across every language. It all has to do with content and context and not with the language or (necessarily) time frame. This is basic linguistics.

Yes, other forms are ambiguous. Some are more clearly references to another text, some are less certain, some are very uncertain. But you need to work with what you have, not what you would like. To set a standard that is not how people wrote at that time is anachronistic.

If you are going to worry about whether an OT text is referred to by an NT text at all as a criteria for judging the OT text, they you need to accept that most of those references will not be clear cut. Or you stop considering reference to be a criteria at all. Its anachronistic to look for, and only for, unambiguous citations.

The onus is upon you to prove the apocrypha are being sited. You are making the positive assertion. A single possible allusion to a single excerpt does not validate all of the apocrypha. Now please back up your assertion with verifiable facts and not vague, misty allusions.

 

[ebia]

And again, no it isn't. This is basic speech and communication across every language. It all has to do with content and context and not with the language or (necessarily) time frame. This is basic linguistics.



The onus is upon you to prove the apocrypha are being sited. You are making the positive assertion. A single possible allusion to a single excerpt does not validate all of the apocrypha. Now please back up your assertion with verifiable facts and not vague, misty allusions.

I'm not making any assertion about the apocrypha being cited either way.

I'm asserting that "it must be cited in an unambiguous way" is an anachonistic test.

The kinds of references 1st century and biblical texts make of each other rarely fit that pattern. They are "vague and misty allusions". If that makes it hard to tell whether they are there or not that's tough - you need to live with it or drop the "references are necessary for canonicity" criteria altogether. Which is fine - it's a-historical nonsense anyway.

 

[SpyderByte]

I'm not making any assertion about the apocrypha being cited either way.

I'm asserting that "it must be cited in an unambiguous way" is an anachonistic test.

No, it isn't. Those quotes from the old testament are unambiguous citations. The fact that others aren't cited is irrelevant because there are other factors which make them part of the canon. The apocrypha doesn't even have this to fall back on. If the rcc (or its apologists) are going to assert that the apocrypha is cited, then the onus is on them to prove such citations beyond parallelomania.

 

[ebia]

No, it isn't. Those quotes from the old testament are unambiguous citations. The fact that others aren't cited is irrelevant because there are other factors which make them part of the canon. The apocrypha doesn't even have this to fall back on. If the rcc (or its apologists) are going to assert that the apocrypha is cited, then the onus is on them to prove such citations beyond parallelomania.

In other words "my criterion for inclusion is completely ad-hoc - whatever it takes to get the result Ive already decided upon.

 

[Radagast]

One can demand "citations" that approach 20th century academic standards of explicitness and unambiguity if one so chooses, but is that a reasonable demand to put back onto 1st century texts, where the culture is to use much more gentle allusions?

The problem with "gentle allusions" is that it's far too easy to imagine them.

And the standard being used here is the standard applied to evaluate quotations from the Canonical Old Testament -- the quotation has to be pretty close to word-for-word for us to confidently identify a specific OT book (and in some cases, also to distinguish between the LXX and the Hebrew text).

Those Canonical Old Testament quotations are generally not "gentle allusions" at all -- they are typically close to word-for-word quotations, although sometimes with phrases omitted and with words replaced by synonyms (either by an NT author quoting from memory, or because the NT author was quoting a variant text).

To argue, on the basis of NT uses, that the Deuterocanonical books have the same status s the Canonical ones, one has to establish that they are being quoted in the same way as the Canonical ones. To argue for "gentle allusions" is to admit that that isn't the case.

 

[ebia]

The problem with "gentle allusions" is that it's far too easy to imagine them.

And the standard being used here is the standard applied to evaluate quotations from the Canonical Old Testament -- the quotation has to be pretty close to word-for-word for us to confidently identify a specific OT book (and in some cases, also to distinguish between the LXX and the Hebrew text).

Those Canonical Old Testament quotations are generally not "gentle allusions" at all -- they are typically close to word-for-word quotations, although sometimes with phrases omitted and with words replaced by synonyms (either by an NT author quoting from memory, or because the NT author was quoting a variant text).

If you've picked only ones that are more explicit then it's a truism that those ones are more explicit.

There a masses of "gentle allusions" to the OT in the NT. And only a relatively small number of explicit quotations and near quotations.

To argue, on the basis of NT uses, that the Deuterocanonical books have the same status s the Canonical ones, one has to establish that they are being quoted in the same way as the Canonical ones. To argue for "gentle allusions" is to admit that that isn't the case.

 

[Radagast]

There a masses of "gentle allusions" to the OT in the NT. And only a relatively small number of explicit quotations and near quotations.

Really? But there are many, many explicit quotations and near quotations of the Canonical OT in the NT (especially of the prophets), and (as far as I can tell) no explicit quotations or near quotations of the Deuterocanonical books; so there's a clear difference there.

And there are certainly strong NT allusions to the Canonical OT that are made unambiguous by a name or other identifier being given verbatim, as in:

Hebrews 11:17: "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son..."

1 Peter 3:20: "because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water."

Hebrews 11:29: "By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned."

However, any allusions much more gentle than that run the risk of being imaginary, as I said. Having a "Deuterocanonical vibe" is not enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gls09kO-8DE

 

[bbbbbbb]

Really? But there are many, many explicit quotations and near quotations of the Canonical OT in the NT (especially of the prophets), and (as far as I can tell) no explicit quotations or near quotations of the Deuterocanonical books; so there's a clear difference there.

And there are certainly strong NT allusions to the Canonical OT that are made unambiguous by a name or other identifier being given verbatim, as in:

Hebrews 11:17: "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son..."

1 Peter 3:20: "because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water."

Hebrews 11:29: "By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned."

However, any allusions much more gentle than that run the risk of being imaginary, as I said. Having a "Deuterocanonical vibe" is not enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gls09kO-8DE

Thank you. I could not have said it better myself.

 

[narnia59]

The original printing of the King James Version (1611) had 11 cross references from the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament and more than 100 within the Old Testament. The NT references are:

Mat 6:7 - Sirach 7:16
Mat 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16
Luke 6:31 - Tobit 4:15
Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7
John 10:22 - 1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21 - Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34 - Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7 - Sirach 35:9
Heb 1:3 - Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35 - 2 Maccabees 7:7

You can view these in this scanned image of the 1611 KJV. For example, I've linked to the reference of Wisdom 7:26 to Hebrews 1:3. You may have to expand the screen size by choosing the Image Size buttons on the right to see it.

sceti | furness | King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611): Page X1v

 

[Steve Petersen]

Paul names Pharaoh's magicians. He did get that from the Bible.

 

[SpyderByte]

The original printing of the King James Version (1611) had 11 cross references from the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament and more than 100 within the Old Testament. The NT references are:

Mat 6:7 - Sirach 7:16
Mat 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16
Luke 6:31 - Tobit 4:15
Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7
John 10:22 - 1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21 - Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34 - Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7 - Sirach 35:9
Heb 1:3 - Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35 - 2 Maccabees 7:7

You can view these in this scanned image of the 1611 KJV. For example, I've linked to the reference of Wisdom 7:26 to Hebrews 1:3. You may have to expand the screen size by choosing the Image Size buttons on the right to see it.

sceti | furness | King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611): Page X1v

The 1611 has multiple issues to begin with. I wouldn't trust it's cross references at face value. Not before serious investigation. Besides, those appear to be ones that bbbbbbb has already put to bed.

 

[narnia59]

The 1611 has multiple issues to begin with. I wouldn't trust it's cross references at face value. Not before serious investigation. Besides, those appear to be ones that bbbbbbb has already put to bed.

It merely shows that prior to the removal of those books from the Bible, scholars did indeed believe there were references. People are certainly welcome to different opinions, but that is hardly putting anything "to bed".

Opinion doesn't change the fact that in the Latin Vulgate, those books were there. And in the first Bible ever printed, those books were there. In the 1611 KJV, they are there and cross-referenced to other books (albeit in that printing they were separated into a different section). And then after that, they were completely removed from Protestant Bibles. I'm not really sure why people would be comfortable believing that an accurate Bible didn't show up until 1600 years after Christ.

 

[SpyderByte]

It merely shows that prior to the removal of those books from the Bible, scholars did indeed believe there were references. People are certainly welcome to different opinions, but that is hardly putting anything "to bed".

Opinion doesn't change the fact that in the Latin Vulgate, those books were there. And in the first Bible ever printed, those books were there. In the 1611 KJV, they are there and cross-referenced to other books (albeit in that printing they were separated into a different section). And then after that, they were completely removed from Protestant Bibles. I'm not really sure why people would be comfortable believing that an accurate Bible didn't show up until 1600 years after Christ.

Are you a KJV onlyist perhaps? There were many many problems with the KJV around that time, which could be discussed on another thread, but suffice to say, it isn't an authoritative reference for its links. As I said, bbbbbbb has already shattered them...

 

[Thekla]

Of course, given the standard of inclusion here (quoted in the NT), the OT protocanon would be much smaller and some of the remaining protocanonical books would need to include both versions (LXX and Masoretic).