Deutercanonical Citations in the New Testament

[narnia59]

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...

Shattered in the minds of those who already agreed with him no doubt.

No I'm not a KJV only. I'm someone who believes those books belong in Scripture. The only other alternative is the Bible didn't come into its correct form until 1600 years after Christ, when previously included books were removed. All the attempts 2000 years later to "scholar" things to fit our personal preference doesn't change that.

It's pretty simple really. Either those books belong, or there was no correct Bible for 1600 years. I think the latter is a pretty indefensible position for a Christian to take, especially when trying to convince an unbeliever that Scripture is inspired and inerrant.

 

[SpyderByte]

Shattered in the minds of those who already agreed with him no doubt.

No I'm not a KJV only. I'm someone who believes those books belong in Scripture. The only other alternative is the Bible didn't come into its correct form until 1600 years after Christ, when previously included books were removed. All the attempts 2000 years later to "scholar" things to fit our personal preference doesn't change that.

It's pretty simple really. Either those books belong, or there was no correct Bible for 1600 years. I think the latter is a pretty indefensible position for a Christian to take, especially when trying to convince an unbeliever that Scripture is inspired and inerrant.

No. You are starting with a flawed assumption, and if in fact those books are canon, then you would have had to wait 1577 years after Christ's birth for the first infallible ruling in them at Trent. I suggest the articles here: http://michaeljkruger.com/articles/

 

[narnia59]

No. You are starting with a flawed assumption, and if in fact those books are canon, then you would have had to wait 1577 years after Christ's birth for the first infallible ruling in them at Trent. I suggest the articles here: Articles | Canon Fodder

Infallible rulings by ecumenical councils normally only occur when a long standing belief has come into question. The first infallible ruling on the Trinity doesn't occur until the 4th century for that reason. A non-Trinitarian will use the same argument you are making to disprove the validity of the Trinity you know. It wasn't ruled infallibly until the 4th century, so therefore it was made up in the 4th century and not true. Instead of the fact that people were beginning to teach that Christ was not God, leading the Church to formalize the dogma of the Trinity in response.

The reality is the first attempt by the Church to officially canonize the Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) occurs at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century and is accepted by Pope Damascus. That canon includes those books. Compare the list between those councils and Trent. It's the exact same list of books. Those councils are also the first official canonization of the NT, resolving several disputed books. Those books are included in the Latin Vulgate and in the canon down through the centuries. They're in the first printing of the Bible in Gutenberg. They're in the original KJV. And then they're removed.

All the Council of Trent did was affirm the same books that were in place from the very first canonization of Scripture from those local councils. Why? Because Protestants were removing books from the originally accepted canon of the Church. Just like people were denying that Christ was not God, requiring a formal council to declare the truth of the Trinity in the 4th century. It's the same game.

Those books are also in the canon of the Ethiopian Jews, who migrated to Ethiopia a few centuries before Christ was born. So the idea that they were never in any Jewish canon is false.

However, Jews do remove them from their canon in the 1st century. They also reject the Gospels as being canonical Scripture at the same time.

So, who has the authority to determine which books are valid in your view? A Jewish council or school which rejects the validity of the Gospels, or a Christian council that correctly canonizes the New Testament?

I can tell you who it's not. It's not people 2000 years later on the internet trying to prove or disprove references between the books.

And my original point remains. Those books are in every official canon of Scripture that begins in the 4th century. So yes, if you believe they don't belong, then Christianity had to wait 1600 years before having a correct Bible. Try to explain that to someone you want to convince the Bible is inspired and inerrant, assuming they have done their homework of course.

 

[narnia59]

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).

This is true. Several OT books would need to be removed because they are never quoted in the NT. Assuming that is the standard for inclusion.

 

[Radagast]

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

Really?

Matthew 6:7: "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words."

Sirach 7:16: "Number not thyself among the multitude of sinners, but remember that wrath will not tarry long."

That's no quotation, that's not even a "gentle allusion." I'm not even going to bother looking up the others.

 

[narnia59]

Really?

Matthew 6:7: "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words."

Sirach 7:16: "Number not thyself among the multitude of sinners, but remember that wrath will not tarry long."

That's no quotation, that's not even a "gentle allusion." I'm not even going to bother looking up the others.

Try Sirach 7:14 "Do not prattle in the assembly of the elders, nor repeat yourself in your prayer."

It simply looks like the reference is off by two verses. Not that it isn't there.

 

[Radagast]

Try Sirach 7:14 "Do not prattle in the assembly of the elders, nor repeat yourself in your prayer."

It simply looks like the reference is off by two verses. Not that it isn't there.

My bad. But it's still not a quotation at all. The only Greek word in common I can see is μὴ. Now it could be a "gentle allusion," but it's just as likely (if not more so) to be a reference to 1 Kings 18 or to something else. After all, the Sirach passage makes no reference to Gentiles. I think you have to either have an over-active imagination, or be misled by the Latin, to see a Deuterocanonical reference here.

Matthew 6:7: "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words -- Προσευχόμενοι δὲ μὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, δοκοῦσιν γὰρ ὅτι ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰσακουσθήσονται.

Sirach 7:14: "Use not many words in a multitude of elders, and make not much babbling when thou prayest" -- μὴ ἀδελέσχει ἐν πλήθει πρεσβυτέρων καὶ μὴ δευτερώσῃς λόγον ἐν προσευχῇ σου

 

[narnia59]

My bad. But it's still not a quotation at all. The only Greek word in common I can see is μὴ. Now it could be a "gentle allusion," but it's just as likely (if not more so) to be a reference to 1 Kings 18 or to something else. After all, the Sirach passage makes no reference to Gentiles. I think you have to either have an over-active imagination, or be misled by the Latin, to see a Deuterocanonical reference here.

Matthew 6:7: "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words -- Προσευχόμενοι δὲ μὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, δοκοῦσιν γὰρ ὅτι ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰσακουσθήσονται.

Sirach 7:14: "Use not many words in a multitude of elders, and make not much babbling when thou prayest" -- μὴ ἀδελέσχει ἐν πλήθει πρεσβυτέρων καὶ μὴ δευτερώσῃς λόγον ἐν προσευχῇ σου

I'm not trying to argue that the quotes are direct. Simply that the original KJV contains more than a hundred such cross references to the deuterocanonical books.

If we're interested in direct quotes, it's estimated somewhere between half and 2/3 of the OT quotes in the Greek NT are copied directly from the Septuagint translation, which indicates its acceptance among the apostles. And it of course includes those books.

It still comes down to if you're willing to believe an accurate Bible didn't exist until 1600 years after Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Infallible rulings by ecumenical councils normally only occur when a long standing belief has come into question. The first infallible ruling on the Trinity doesn't occur until the 4th century for that reason. A non-Trinitarian will use the same argument you are making to disprove the validity of the Trinity you know. It wasn't ruled infallibly until the 4th century, so therefore it was made up in the 4th century and not true. Instead of the fact that people were beginning to teach that Christ was not God, leading the Church to formalize the dogma of the Trinity in response.

The reality is the first attempt by the Church to officially canonize the Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) occurs at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century and is accepted by Pope Damascus. That canon includes those books. Compare the list between those councils and Trent. It's the exact same list of books. Those councils are also the first official canonization of the NT, resolving several disputed books. Those books are included in the Latin Vulgate and in the canon down through the centuries. They're in the first printing of the Bible in Gutenberg. They're in the original KJV. And then they're removed.

All the Council of Trent did was affirm the same books that were in place from the very first canonization of Scripture from those local councils. Why? Because Protestants were removing books from the originally accepted canon of the Church. Just like people were denying that Christ was not God, requiring a formal council to declare the truth of the Trinity in the 4th century. It's the same game.

Those books are also in the canon of the Ethiopian Jews, who migrated to Ethiopia a few centuries before Christ was born. So the idea that they were never in any Jewish canon is false.

However, Jews do remove them from their canon in the 1st century. They also reject the Gospels as being canonical Scripture at the same time.

So, who has the authority to determine which books are valid in your view? A Jewish council or school which rejects the validity of the Gospels, or a Christian council that correctly canonizes the New Testament?

I can tell you who it's not. It's not people 2000 years later on the internet trying to prove or disprove references between the books.

And my original point remains. Those books are in every official canon of Scripture that begins in the 4th century. So yes, if you believe they don't belong, then Christianity had to wait 1600 years before having a correct Bible. Try to explain that to someone you want to convince the Bible is inspired and inerrant, assuming they have done their homework of course.

The fact is, as CaliforniaJosiah has pointed out repeatedly, that the RCC has a unique canon of scripture which is not accepted by any other body of Christians. This canon was concocted at the Council of Trent and did not exist prior to the Council, although, of course, the various portions of it did. You can argue until you are blue in the face that this canon existed since the fourth century. It did, indeed, as did a large variety of canons. Even though the canon was under active discussion for centuries prior to 1577 it took the Protestant Reformation to stir the RCC into action to set itself entirely apart from the remainder of Christendom in this matter (not to mention several others). If the RCC has decided to be heterodox it is not on any great concern to the rest of us.

Now, to fall back to the lame argument about the KJV. None of us here seem to hold the KJV in utmost reverence nor its commentators. The argument does not rest at all upon the translation, but upon the commentator's addition. There is nothing inspired about commentaries, so it is meaningless to think that one holds them in utmost reverence.

As Spyder has correctly pointed out, I have discussed the alleged references made by the KJV commentators already and have not received any rebuttal to my observations.

The point of this thread is not to discuss the canonicity of the DC, per se, but to discuss the list of alleged citations of the DC in the NT. I look forward to those discussions.

 

[Radagast]

I'm not trying to argue that the quotes are direct. Simply that the original KJV contains more than a hundred such cross references to the deuterocanonical books.

And I'm saying that the basis for those "cross references" is very, very shaky.

If we're interested in direct quotes, it's estimated somewhere between half and 2/3 of the OT quotes in the Greek NT are copied directly from the Septuagint translation

I'm not sure about 2/3, but I've repeatedly said here on CF that the NT usually quotes the Septuagint. None of those direct Septuagint quotes are from the Deuterocanonical books, however, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

It still comes down to if you're willing to believe an accurate Bible didn't exist until 1600 years after Christ.

What?

I've repeatedly argued against that idea. I am totally opposed to the KJV-only position.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And I'm saying that the basis for those "cross references" is very, very shaky.

I'm not sure about 2/3, but I've repeatedly said here on CF that the NT usually quotes the Septuagint. None of those direct Septuagint quotes are from the Deuterocanonical books, however, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

What?

I've repeatedly argued against that idea. I am totally opposed to the KJV-only position.

What I am seeing here is a particular effort to obfuscate the issue by being obtuse. The undisputed fact is that no Catholic poster on this thread has yet shown a single direct citation or quotation of the DC in the NT. The fact that the Septeptuagint included the DC hardly means that Jews of the first century believed it to be inspired scripture any more than the fact that Martin Luther included the DC in his Bible means that he considered to be on a par with the 37 canonical books of the NT.

 

[narnia59]

The fact is, as CaliforniaJosiah has pointed out repeatedly, that the RCC has a unique canon of scripture which is not accepted by any other body of Christians. This canon was concocted at the Council of Trent and did not exist prior to the Council, although, of course, the various portions of it did. You can argue until you are blue in the face that this canon existed since the fourth century. It did, indeed, as did a large variety of canons. Even though the canon was under active discussion for centuries prior to 1577 it took the Protestant Reformation to stir the RCC into action to set itself entirely apart from the remainder of Christendom in this matter (not to mention several others). If the RCC has decided to be heterodox it is not on any great concern to the rest of us.

The Samaritans have a unique canon of OT Scripture which is not accepted by any other Christians. The Orthodox have a unique canon of OT Scripture which is not accepted by any other Christians. The Syriacs have a unique canon of OT Scripture which is not accepted by any other Christians. The Ethiopians have a unique canon of OT Scripture which is not accepted by any other Christians. The Protestants have a unique canon of OT Scriptures which is not accepted by any other Christians.

So perhaps rather than trying to frame this as the Catholics being outside the boat so to speak from everybody else, we should work within the correct context. If we're going to frame it in those terms, it is just as correct to say that when the Protestants removed those books from their canon, they decided to set themselves apart from the rest of Christendom. As for who is heterodox, I'm sure you recognize that would be a matter of opinion.

You can claim all you want that canon was "concocted" at the Council of Trent, but that has no basis in history, anymore than the doctrine of the Trinity was "concocted" at the first council of Nicaea. The canon from the Council of Trent did indeed exist prior, as you admit. For centuries. Was it one of multiple canons? Yes, especially if you count the various Jewish OT canons.

So, how exactly did the Catholic Church set itself apart from the entire of Christendom by reaffirming the canon it has used for centuries, any more than the Protestants set themselves apart from the entire of Christendom by removing those books to create an OT canon that is shared by no other Christians and had not been used by Christians for centuries?

Now, to fall back to the lame argument about the KJV. None of us here seem to hold the KJV in utmost reverence nor its commentators. The argument does not rest at all upon the translation, but upon the commentator's addition. There is nothing inspired about commentaries, so it is meaningless to think that one holds them in utmost reverence.

I never said there was. I merely pointed out there are cross-references.

As Spyder has correctly pointed out, I have discussed the alleged references made by the KJV commentators already and have not received any rebuttal to my observations.

The point of this thread is not to discuss the canonicity of the DC, per se, but to discuss the list of alleged citations of the DC in the NT. I look forward to those discussions.

What is the point of the discussion if not related to canonicity?

My sole question is what determines whether or not a book should be included in the canon of Scripture. Can you answer that please?

 

[narnia59]

What I am seeing here is a particular effort to obfuscate the issue by being obtuse. The undisputed fact is that no Catholic poster on this thread has yet shown a single direct citation or quotation of the DC in the NT. The fact that the Septeptuagint included the DC hardly means that Jews of the first century believed it to be inspired scripture any more than the fact that Martin Luther included the DC in his Bible means that he considered to be on a par with the 37 canonical books of the NT.

The Ethiopian Jews consider them to be inspired Scripture. Of course they were separated from the Jews in Judaea before Christ was born, well before the Jews reverted back to a canon without those books. So the question might be asked as to why they were once considered canonical by at least some Jews, and then why they decided they were not in the first century.

So is the criteria for a book to be considered canonical Scripture is that is accepted by the Jews? And if so, which particular group of Jews?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Samaritans have a unique canon of OT Scripture which is not accepted by any other Christians. The Orthodox have a unique canon of OT Scripture which is not accepted by any other Christians. The Syriacs have a unique canon of OT Scripture which is not accepted by any other Christians. The Ethiopians have a unique canon of OT Scripture which is not accepted by any other Christians. The Protestants have a unique canon of OT Scriptures which is not accepted by any other Christians.

So perhaps rather than trying to frame this as the Catholics being outside the boat so to speak from everybody else, we should work within the correct context. If we're going to frame it in those terms, it is just as correct to say that when the Protestants removed those books from their canon, they decided to set themselves apart from the rest of Christendom. As for who is heterodox, I'm sure you recognize that would be a matter of opinion.

You can claim all you want that canon was "concocted" at the Council of Trent, but that has no basis in history, anymore than the doctrine of the Trinity was "concocted" at the first council of Nicaea. The canon from the Council of Trent did indeed exist prior, as you admit. For centuries. Was it one of multiple canons? Yes, especially if you count the various Jewish OT canons.

So, how exactly did the Catholic Church set itself apart from the entire of Christendom by reaffirming the canon it has used for centuries, any more than the Protestants set themselves apart from the entire of Christendom by removing those books to create an OT canon that is shared by no other Christians and had not been used by Christians for centuries?

I never said there was. I merely pointed out there are cross-references.

What is the point of the discussion if not related to canonicity?

My sole question is what determines whether or not a book should be included in the canon of Scripture. Can you answer that please?

My point about the uniqueness of the Catholic canon of the OT was not to make it appear that all other denominations share another canon, which, as you correctly pointed out, is not the case at all, but merely to put to rest the oft-repeated claim that Protestants created a unique canon of the OT in contradistinction to a commonly-held canon by all other denominations.

The Protestant canon is a core set of scriptures used by Christians since the beginning. I am unaware of any church which does not use these books as part and parcel of their canon. Many Protestant denominations such as the Lutherans and Anglicans also include the DC, but do not regard it as equal to the other OT books. The discussion of the canonicity of the DC in the RCC was relatively fluid until the Council of Trent ended the discussion once and for all. If it was not open to discussion Saint Jerome surely would not have been so outspoken on his views.

This thread is primarily a discussion of a list of alleged citations used by a particular poster to show that the DC is referenced frequently in the NT. I believe that his point for pasting the list was to "prove" the canonicity of the DC. It is not my contention that the canonicity of the DC is dependent upon the frequency, or lack thereof, of citation in the NT. However, the canonicity of the DC is, most definitely, related to this list, at least in the minds of many Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No. You are starting with a flawed assumption, and if in fact those books are canon, then you would have had to wait 1577 years after Christ's birth for the first infallible ruling in them at Trent. I suggest the articles here: Articles | Canon Fodder

There was already a canon in the early Church, agreed on by several local councils. Besides, the only reason to place it into canon law, for the Catholic Church, is because someone outside is questioning. So when the question came up about whether Christ was really a man, or when the question came up about whether he was really God, the Church infallibly declared that he was true God and true man. When the question about God in three Persons came up, it was infallibly declared. This does not indicate that it wasn't believed before-hand. Likewise, the canon was canon-ized because of the Protestant attempt to say that the Deuterocanon wasn't canon.

Again, I ask, what difference does it make whether the Deuterocanon was quoted or referenced by the NT?

 

[Radagast]

Again, I ask, what difference does it make whether the Deuterocanon was quoted or referenced by the NT?

Because supporters of the Deuterocanon always seem to list these somewhat dubious "references" as evidence for canonicity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Because supporters of the Deuterocanon always seem to list these somewhat dubious "references" as evidence for canonicity.

Exactly! This is the entire reason for this thread. Had it not been for the mindless pasting of the list on another thread as a means of authenticating the veractiy of the DC as part of the canon of scripture there would have never been the slightest interest on my part to look into these allegations.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>
Originally Posted by barryatlake

bb,

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

​

<snip>

1. I accept the deuteros as being valid to include in the Bible.
2. Your post does not help the argument however.

That list has been endlessly copied and pasted again and again. Let me Google that for you. I challenge you to find the true original poster. It starts off with a fallacy in its first assertion... Please read Wisdom of Solomon chapter 11 here... Isn't this talking about Pharaoh destroying the baby Hebrew boys?

The list seems to be an attempt to prove its point, and overwhelm the reader with such a large number of citations, yet it begins right off the bat in error.​

 

[Radagast]

That list has been endlessly copied and pasted again and again. Let me Google that for you. I challenge you to find the true original poster. It starts off with a fallacy in its first assertion... Please read Wisdom of Solomon chapter 11 here... Isn't this talking about Pharaoh destroying the baby Hebrew boys?

The list seems to be an attempt to prove its point, and overwhelm the reader with such a large number of citations, yet it begins right off the bat in error.

I think that that is exactly bbbbbbb's point. The list is so full of errors and imaginary "references" that it proves absolutely nothing.

The reference in Wisdom is to the command by Pharaoh to kill all male children at the time of the birth of Moses. This is in the context of the exodus from Egypt. It is not related to Matthew 2:2-16 other than in a very vague manner - command to kill male children.

You two are in agreement on that, obviously.

However, I don't think bbbbbbb accepts the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books. I certainly don't.

 

[bbbbbbb]

<snip>

1. I accept the deuteros as being valid to include in the Bible.
2. Your post does not help the argument however.

That list has been endlessly copied and pasted again and again. Let me Google that for you. I challenge you to find the true original poster. It starts off with a fallacy in its first assertion... Please read Wisdom of Solomon chapter 11 here... Isn't this talking about Pharaoh destroying the baby Hebrew boys?

The list seems to be an attempt to prove its point, and overwhelm the reader with such a large number of citations, yet it begins right off the bat in error.

Yes, I also attempted to find the true original poster and also failed. I am frankly surprised that something so blatantly in error would be so widely accepted. To me, it seems as if a whole lot of people want to grasp at straws without making the slightest effort to see if this straw has the slightest veracity to it.