Deutercanonical Citations in the New Testament

[bbbbbbb]

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

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.

You are correct. I do not accept the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[tz620q]

7b's,
I get the feeling that you are doing this for the exegetical work and not so much as an apologetics track, so I will go ahead and post this. I looked up this list; because I was wondering who came up with it. It appears that a poster on Fisheaters.com called CatholicDad compiled it in 2008.
defend deutro-canonical books

He was reminded in the responses of the errors that people found in it. Some of the items on the list, I have seen before and responded to you about. Many of them are rather nebulous and probably not suited to use in apologetics. It's one of those things where if you are looking for parallels they seem obvious; but hard to defend against someone who does not share your perspective.

Here is what I found about the original list and posted in post #64.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are correct. I do not accept the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books.

What criteria determines this for you?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

My point is that lack of citation of the OT in the NT doesn't mean that the OT book is not canonical, so why does it matter if (or if not) the Deuterocanoical books are cited in the NT?

The canonicity of a book was determined, primarily, by whether or not it was used in liturgy.

 

[SummaScriptura]

My point is that lack of citation of the OT in the NT doesn't mean that the OT book is not canonical, so why does it matter if (or if not) the Deuterocanoical books are cited in the NT?

The canonicity of a book was determined, primarily, by whether or not it was used in liturgy.

agreed

 

[bbbbbbb]

What criteria determines this for you?

Actually, there are a number of criteria, including the following:

1. The content of the DC. Although much of it is innocuous there are some relatively mythical stories such as Bel and the Dragon.
2. The absence of its use by the NT authors, as we have seen in this thread. This stands in glaring contrast with the use of other OT source material in the NT.
3. The Jewish Masoretic canon. Although it can be shown that the NT writers used the Septuagint, it appears that they used the canon of the Masoretes.
4. Saint Jerome's arguments against its canonicity. These are really quite convincing to me.
5. The broad support of a wide range of OT scholars.

 

[tz620q]

Actually, there are a number of criteria, including the following:

1. The content of the DC. Although much of it is innocuous there are some relatively mythical stories such as Bel and the Dragon.

If you read the story about the Babylonian idol, Bel, and how Daniel was able to destroy it, it is more of a mystery story than a fable. As far as the "dragon", was it a mythical fire breathing dragon or just a great serpent? Worship of serpents in the ancient world was common. I find these stories no more incredible than a man being eaten by a fish and surviving three days.

2. The absence of its use by the NT authors, as we have seen in this thread. This stands in glaring contrast with the use of other OT source material in the NT.

This was not a criteria for those who selected the Christian canon. Why stand on this now?

3. The Jewish Masoretic canon. Although it can be shown that the NT writers used the Septuagint, it appears that they used the canon of the Masoretes.

Well, that would have been impossible, since the Masoretes did not exist for another 600 years. I find it baffling that Christians would use the Masoretes as guides for our canon. It seems that the main purpose of the Masoretes was to codify Hebrew grammar and pronunciation. They used this to produce their Masoretic text of the bible, which rejected all Greek writings. So if these scribes are to be the authority on the Christian canon, anything written in a language other than Hebrew would need to be rejected. No Christian group does this though and so we have a bifurcated argument that the Masoretes should be trusted on the contents of the OT; but completely rejected on the contents of the NT. To me it would be as if we asked the Muslims to be the authority for what is in the Christian Bible.

4. Saint Jerome's arguments against its canonicity. These are really quite convincing to me.

This is just my own conjecture; but we know that Jerome was selected because he had a facility for language and was a Greek scholar. He did not know Hebrew well, so he traveled to Palestine to learn. From 382 - 405 C.E. he lived and worked there to complete his translation. My theory is that this Jewish influence is what caused him to use the Hebrew texts and not rely exclusively on the Greek Septuagint as had been done prior. His Hebrew teachers taught more than grammar and pronunciation; but attitudes to their language that affected Jerome's choices. Was he wrong in favoring the Hebrew texts? It seems that his predominant thought was to use the earliest texts he could find. He felt that the Hebrew was purer to the sources, an attitude that is common in Judaism from the time of the Rabbinic rise after the fall of Jerusalem to today. It is my opinion that he was more concerned with accuracy than canon. After all, he adamantly used the Hebrew texts when other scholars disagreed; yet he caved without much of a fight when the Pope told him to include the deuterocanonical books.

5. The broad support of a wide range of OT scholars.

I think we would have to get into a kettle of worms pitting one scholar against another. Suffice it to say, I can see the argument for using Hebrew texts; but does this have to be a "one or the other" type of deal. Why not use both, after all Jerome translated the Septuagint Greek into Latin prior to translating the Hebrew texts. He translated the Hebrew "almah" into the Latin "virgo" in Isaiah 7:14 thereby ignoring the Jewish insistence that it was referring to a young woman and not a virgin. So it seems he was not above using both.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, there are a number of criteria, including the following:

1. The content of the DC. Although much of it is innocuous there are some relatively mythical stories such as Bel and the Dragon.

So why not throw out Ruth, as well?

2. The absence of its use by the NT authors, as we have seen in this thread. This stands in glaring contrast with the use of other OT source material in the NT.

That, then, also excludes Ecclesiastes, and several others.

3. The Jewish Masoretic canon. Although it can be shown that the NT writers used the Septuagint, it appears that they used the canon of the Masoretes.

So we should look the Jews, who killed Jesus, and didn't have a canon until after the Catholic Church developed theirs, who continued to persecute Christians after and up to the destruction of the Temple? I don't think so.

4. Saint Jerome's arguments against its canonicity. These are really quite convincing to me.

What about Jerome's example of submitting to what the Church believes and teaches? That's convincing to me!

5. The broad support of a wide range of OT scholars.

Not Catholic scholars, though...

 

[Radagast]

Well, that would have been impossible, since the Masoretes did not exist for another 600 years. I find it baffling that Christians would use the Masoretes as guides for our canon.

Well, the issue is what the Masoretes can tell us about what 1st century Jews thought the canon was.

So why not throw out Ruth, as well?

Because it's part of the Hebrew canon that everyone accepts? Because it's referred to in Matthew 1:5?

 

[tz620q]

Well, the issue is what the Masoretes can tell us about what 1st century Jews thought the canon was.

I can see your argument and to some degree agree with it. Just because the Masoretes did their codification in the time frame of 600-900 C.E. doesn't mean that the belief in a Hebrew-only Jewish Canon didn't exist before that. What finally turned me against considering the Masoretic Canon as valid for Christians was in studying the rise of Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. The growing schism between the mainline Jewish faith and "The Way" was turned to hatred when the Christians took Jesus' prophecy about the abomination of desolation to heart and fled to the hills when Jerusalem was besieged. When the city fell and the temple was destroyed, the Jewish faith lost the very center their religion and the priests lost their raison d'etre. Judaism had to reinvent itself centered around the Pharisaic traditions. So they re-entrenched around Hebrew purity of language, birth, and custom. That pretty much did it for any ties between the Christians and the Jews. The Christians didn't want to be vilified with the now banned in the Roman Empire Jewish religion and the Jews didn't want a bunch of Gentiles in their religion. So the purpose of Jamnia was to distance the Jews from the Christians and go back to pure Judaism. So why accept their canon if their canon was selected to show why Christianity is wrong?

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>So why accept their canon if their canon was selected to show why Christianity is wrong?

A question Catholics and Protestants don't seem to think is important. Jerome was all goo-goo for the Hebrew as more original and the reformers bought that line of reasoning.

We now know from the Dead Sea Scroll scriptures, neither the MT or LXX traditions contain the whole picture. I mean, yes, the MT preserves a text tradition of Isaiah that goes back to before the Church, but when Jesus reads from Isaiah in the synagogue the (Aramaic?) scroll he uses leans toward the LXX text tradition...!

 

[tz620q]

A question Catholics and Protestants don't seem to think is important. Jerome was all goo-goo for the Hebrew as more original and the reformers bought that line of reasoning.

We now know from the Dead Sea Scroll scriptures, neither the MT or LXX traditions contain the whole picture. I mean, yes, the MT preserves a text tradition of Isaiah that goes back to before the Church, but when Jesus reads from Isaiah in the synagogue the (Aramaic?) scroll he uses leans toward the LXX text tradition...!

I would like to study Jerome closer some day. While he lived in Alexandria, he translated the Greek Septuagint OT into Latin. Then he moved on to Palestine and decided that he now had to redo that work and use the Hebrew OT. I would accuse the guy of wanting a very extended vacation (nearly 30 years) but he often lived like a hermit, even though he was being sponsored by the wealthy Roman widow, Paula. I thought about this earlier today and realized that for one man to translate the whole Bible from one language to another is a incredible feat by itself. Add to that that he was tracking down manuscript after manuscript in an obsessive drive to get the best sources and it was a monumental task. I realized that many of the manuscripts that he used have been lost to time. So we owe him a debt and have to overlook his personality traits. His life reads like Augustine's in many ways, a profligate youth followed by a dramatic conversion that led to a keen mind being totally dedicated to Christianity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would like to study Jerome closer some day. While he lived in Alexandria, he translated the Greek Septuagint OT into Latin. Then he moved on to Palestine and decided that he now had to redo that work and use the Hebrew OT. I would accuse the guy of wanting a very extended vacation (nearly 30 years) but he often lived like a hermit, even though he was being sponsored by the wealthy Roman widow, Paula. I thought about this earlier today and realized that for one man to translate the whole Bible from one language to another is a incredible feat by itself. Add to that that he was tracking down manuscript after manuscript in an obsessive drive to get the best sources and it was a monumental task. I realized that many of the manuscripts that he used have been lost to time. So we owe him a debt and have to overlook his personality traits. His life reads like Augustine's in many ways, a profligate youth followed by a dramatic conversion that led to a keen mind being totally dedicated to Christianity.

Yes, all of those things helped me to overcome my ingrained Protestant dislike of all things Catholic and realize that here is a man for all of Christianity who sought God and His truth with all of his heart. I pray that I might be found to be as faithful as Jerome.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, the issue is what the Masoretes can tell us about what 1st century Jews thought the canon was.

But they differ with other Jewish groups regarding canon...

Because it's part of the Hebrew canon that everyone accepts? Because it's referred to in Matthew 1:5?

But Ruth is a story, with nothing historical, a morality tale. So because part of Daniel seems too fantastic, it might be a tale, so the same criterion exists. But why worry about what the 1st century Jews thought? They didn't care about Christianity, and in fact persecuted the Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, all of those things helped me to overcome my ingrained Protestant dislike of all things Catholic and realize that here is a man for all of Christianity who sought God and His truth with all of his heart. I pray that I might be found to be as faithful as Jerome.

= Catholic.

 

[bbbbbbb]

= Catholic.

Yes, catholic in the truest sense of the word.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I would like to study Jerome closer some day. While he lived in Alexandria, he translated the Greek Septuagint OT into Latin. Then he moved on to Palestine and decided that he now had to redo that work and use the Hebrew OT. I would accuse the guy of wanting a very extended vacation (nearly 30 years) but he often lived like a hermit, even though he was being sponsored by the wealthy Roman widow, Paula. I thought about this earlier today and realized that for one man to translate the whole Bible from one language to another is a incredible feat by itself. Add to that that he was tracking down manuscript after manuscript in an obsessive drive to get the best sources and it was a monumental task. I realized that many of the manuscripts that he used have been lost to time. So we owe him a debt and have to overlook his personality traits. His life reads like Augustine's in many ways, a profligate youth followed by a dramatic conversion that led to a keen mind being totally dedicated to Christianity.

Agreed.

 

[Thekla]

You might want to take a look at some of the Greek OT manuscripts used by Greek speaking Jews through the Middle Ages (the project is ongoing):

Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism: Background

 

[SummaScriptura]

"A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death — the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, and murders we are not going to be judged." Czeslaw Milosz

I just noticed this...

Congrats! You just knocked my socks off!

 

[SummaScriptura]

You might want to take a look at some of the Greek OT manuscripts used by Greek speaking Jews through the Middle Ages (the project is ongoing):

Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism: Background

Thanks for the resource. I'll definitely check it out.