Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7, but many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book (and this may not be obvious in the translation,'' but only the original languages " ].
This is the same with New Testament references to the protocanonical books of the Old Testament
I can't find anything that remotely indicates that Hebrews 11:35 is a quote AT ALL..... of anything..
There are no quotes of the DEUTEROcanonical books in the NT. There are a FEW cases where similar things can be found in each but that has nothing whatsoever to do with a quote. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with an endorsement of those DEUTERO books as..... anything.
So would you say that being quoted in the NT is a necessary requirement for an OT book to be canonical?
My Protestant brothers, the first early Christians used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books.
The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagintover 300 times.
So would you say that being quoted in the NT is a necessary requirement for an OT book to be canonical?
That is not the point of this thread. Barry asserted that the DC is referenced frequently in the NT and provided a list of alleged citations. Apparently he, and others, believe that because the OT is referenced frequently in the NT there is a verification of the legitimacy of the OT as being the Word of God. It then follows that if the DC is equally referenced its legitimacy is equally valid. The converse is also true. If it is not referenced its legitimacy is called into question. We see this sort of problem in the rare citations of non-OT sources in the NT as in Paul's quotation in his sermon on Mars Hill.
CaliforniaJosiah, you haven't a clue, go back and do your homework
No. I simply responded to the claim that there are 300 QUOTES of some DEUTERO books in the NT. No one has provided even one - much less 300. It was a Catholic insisting that being quoted in the NT is proof that the RCC's unique set of DEUTER books is THEREFORE canonical; I simply noted that there are no such quotes..... of any DEUTERO book..... much less each of the unique set of them accepted currently by the individual, exclusive RC Denomination.
Thank you!
Pax
- Josiah
.
CaliforniaJosiah, you haven't a clue, go back and do your homework
I happen to agree with you in that Quotation does not equal Inspiration and hence canonicity has to have some other basis. I don't think Catholic's are alone in using that false criteria though. So does this thread have a purpose beyond you and BarryatLake looking at the deuterocanonical books from within your relative camps and saying, "I see it", "Well I don't".
Actually BarryatLake in his initial list did not use the word quote or citation. He said that one could compare a list of NT quotes with related quotes of DC books. Comparison does not mean that the NT text is a word for word citation of the DC text. It also does not mean that you cannot find other OT texts that relate to the NT quote. 7b's added the requirement of it being a citation; therefore changing the criteria. Can we all agree that this a moot argument since none of us here accept quotation as necessary for canonization?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?