Deutercanonical Citations in the New Testament

[SpyderByte]

The problem is that, while we hold that Jerome was doctor of the Church, it doesn't mean that he carries any authority.

So you just answered the question you asked me. Even though he was the one who could speak the languages the of the original manuscripts, those "in authority" disregarded his expertise and went their own way. Yet we're supposed to simply believe they had a better grasp of it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

So you just answered the question you asked me. Even though he was the one who could speak the languages the of the original manuscripts, those "in authority" disregarded his expertise and went their own way. Yet we're supposed to simply believe they had a better grasp of it?

It had nothing to do with the translation, which Jerome supplied. It had to do with the use of the Deuterocanon in Liturgy.

 

[SpyderByte]

It had nothing to do with the translation, which Jerome supplied. It had to do with the use of the Deuterocanon in Liturgy.

*sigh* While an interesting discussion, we've swerved away from the op and purpose of this thread. Will you respond to the points by bbbbbbb?

 

[Root of Jesse]

One. More. Time. Jerome carried no authority to do away with the DeuteroCanonicals, so his opinion doesn't matter. Just as the pope cannot change the priesthood to include women. He doesn't have the authority to do it.

I've stated many times, that citation in the NT has nothing to do with the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, but we do have many cases where they are cited, whether BBBBBBB agrees, or not.

 

[SpyderByte]

One. More. Time. Jerome carried no authority to do away with the DeuteroCanonicals, so his opinion doesn't matter. Just as the pope cannot change the priesthood to include women. He doesn't have the authority to do it.

I've stated many times, that citation in the NT has nothing to do with the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, but we do have many cases where they are cited, whether BBBBBBB agrees, or not.

Why not quote him and his reply instead of simply broad brushing an amorphous response? He laid it out pretty nicely. It shouldn't be much for you to show every instance mentioned is in fact mentioned in the nt, right? And what is "that citation"? I was under the impression there were dozens of citations. As I said, will you respond to what bbbbbbb has posted or not?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'll ask again, will you address bbbbbbb's point?

Which point is that? Concerning alleged Deuterocanonical citations in the New Testament? Since I haven't claimed there are any I don't know what about it you want me to say.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SpyderByte]

Which point is that? Concerning alleged Deuterocanonical citations in the New Testament? Since I haven't claimed there are any I don't know what about it you want me to say.

-CryptoLutheran

Just trying to get the thread back on track...

 

[sunlover1]

The problem is that, while we hold that Jerome was doctor of the Church, it doesn't mean that he carries any authority.

Actually many did, and we're excoriated for it. That's all beside the point, as it was an act of addition by the rcc to include the apocrypha. This means the apocrypha was not a part of the original canon. This leaves the rcc without a footing.

Thank you

 

[Thekla]

I suppose this comes down to whether or not one has a text-based faith or not; the teachings of Christianity preceded the inspired writing of the NT, and Christianity received the OT primarily as the LXX (which includes both proto-canon and deuterocanon).

That the Holy Scriptures are the crown of what was received is undisputed I would think across Christianity; that the Holy Scriptures were part of what was received is the view of the earliest Christians (as, indisputably, they had no NT). The holding as a precious deposit what was received is a responsibility.

The (modern) view of a culture heavily marked by literacy is certainly demonstrated in threads disputing the references in the NT of the deuterocanon (which here also utilizes a selective, ie inconsistent, application of the claimed standard regarding its own shorter canon) literate cultures tend to require a form of citation that is unlike mixed-literate and pre-literate cultures. (And literate cultures may miss that even citations that conform to their standards are meant in a different way in mixed-and-pre-literate cultures, where the citation is not a 'stand-alone quote, but often meant to bring the entire context of the quote to mind, not just the quoted line; so, for example, where a Psalm is quoted it is the entire Psalm that is "meant" by the quote.)

 

[Thekla]

Finally, there are some Churches that have experienced martyrdom trying to protect Christianity from the influence of Islam, which named Christians "people of the Book". If you want to accept this understanding of Christianity and import it into your theology (in the form of literate-culture worldview etc.), there's nothing I can do about it. But as one whose Christian and familial inheritance is surviving the influence of the Ottoman yoke, I won't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why not quote him and his reply instead of simply broad brushing an amorphous response? He laid it out pretty nicely. It shouldn't be much for you to show every instance mentioned is in fact mentioned in the nt, right? And what is "that citation"? I was under the impression there were dozens of citations. As I said, will you respond to what bbbbbbb has posted or not?

It's not written in stone, brother. He renounced his error later. I did quote it earlier, if you bother to look.

But what difference does it make? The answer is, none at all. The fact is that there are books in your canon which have zero attestation in the NT, so that doesn't matter as to whether or not a book is canonical.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thank you

For what? Being wrong? The facts are these: The canon, as decided in at least two local councils, included the Deuterocanonical books. Jerome, while he thought that the "Council of Jamnia" (which never occurred, BTW) took the Deuterocanon out of the Jewish canon (which never existed), was obedient to the Councils which named the Canon, which included the Deuterocanonical books. Jerome did translate those books, too. As anyone, he was entitled to his opinion, but when it came down to it, he was bound to obey the Church. That, I understand, is a concept Protestants do not get-if something happens in your church which you don't agree with, you go to another. We trust Holy Mother Church to be True in matters of faith and morals. We don't leave out books that have inconvenient items in them.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I suppose this comes down to whether or not one has a text-based faith or not; the teachings of Christianity preceded the inspired writing of the NT, and Christianity received the OT primarily as the LXX (which includes both proto-canon and deuterocanon).

That the Holy Scriptures are the crown of what was received is undisputed I would think across Christianity; that the Holy Scriptures were part of what was received is the view of the earliest Christians (as, indisputably, they had no NT). The holding as a precious deposit what was received is a responsibility.

The (modern) view of a culture heavily marked by literacy is certainly demonstrated in threads disputing the references in the NT of the deuterocanon (which here also utilizes a selective, ie inconsistent, application of the claimed standard regarding its own shorter canon) literate cultures tend to require a form of citation that is unlike mixed-literate and pre-literate cultures. (And literate cultures may miss that even citations that conform to their standards are meant in a different way in mixed-and-pre-literate cultures, where the citation is not a 'stand-alone quote, but often meant to bring the entire context of the quote to mind, not just the quoted line; so, for example, where a Psalm is quoted it is the entire Psalm that is "meant" by the quote.)

Exactly. I wonder if anyone has heard the differing translations of some of the Psalms, or the attestation of some of the OT quotes in the NT? They're not always word for word...

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's not written in stone, brother. He renounced his error later. I did quote it earlier, if you bother to look.

But what difference does it make? The answer is, none at all. The fact is that there are books in your canon which have zero attestation in the NT, so that doesn't matter as to whether or not a book is canonical.

However, it apparently does make a very bid difference to some Catholics who go so far as to create lists of alleged citations of the DC in the NT. It also make a big difference to those at CF who decided to cut and paste these lists to show us benighted Protestants the legitimacy of the DC.

The reality, of course, is that, unlike many books of the OT which are quoted directlly in the NT and/or are cited directly, there are absolutely no direct quotations or citation of the DC in the NT. Instead, one is left with possible implications.

 

[bbbbbbb]

One. More. Time. Jerome carried no authority to do away with the DeuteroCanonicals, so his opinion doesn't matter. Just as the pope cannot change the priesthood to include women. He doesn't have the authority to do it.

I've stated many times, that citation in the NT has nothing to do with the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, but we do have many cases where they are cited, whether BBBBBBB agrees, or not.

So, these "many cases" do not appear on the list of the OP. Would you care to start with the first one and we will see whether or not it is actually a citation. A citation, BTW, is where Jesus would say, "As it is written in the Psalms . . ."

 

[ebia]

However, it apparently does make a very bid difference to some Catholics who go so far as to create lists of alleged citations of the DC in the NT. It also make a big difference to those at CF who decided to cut and paste these lists to show us benighted Protestants the legitimacy of the DC.

The reality, of course, is that, unlike many books of the OT which are quoted directlly in the NT and/or are cited directly, there are absolutely no direct quotations or citation of the DC in the NT. Instead, one is left with possible implications.

That's kind of true, but pretty meaningless unless the proto-canonical OT and the deuterocanonical OT each existed as well defined blocks where the whole block was either attested or not. But of course that's not a sensible starting point - each book is an entity in itself. If one is going to insist on attestation as a criterion that criterion needs to be applied separately to each book. People weren't walking around in the first century with one volume labeled OT-protocanonical, and another labeled deutocanonical. They had individal scrolls, what collection of scrolls different people had would have varied.

 

[ebia]

So, these "many cases" do not appear on the list of the OP. Would you care to start with the first one and we will see whether or not it is actually a citation. A citation, BTW, is where Jesus would say, "As it is written in the Psalms . . ."

You really need to step back one more stage - who gets to decide what constitutes a "citation", and on what grounds?

 

[SpyderByte]

You really need to step back one more stage - who gets to decide what constitutes a "citation", and on what grounds?

It's like this:
There's a report from the Department of Transportation that states that cell phones are a major contributor to car crashes.
The New York Times reports on a car crash where the driver was using a phone.
Is this a citation? No.

The department of transportation releases a report that states cell phones are a major contributor to crashes.
The New York Times reports on a crash where the driver was using a phone and says "according to the DOT, cell phones are a major cause of crashes". Is this a citation? Yes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

 

[ebia]

It's like this:
There's a report from the Department of Transportation that states that cell phones are a major contributor to car crashes.
The New York Times reports on a car crash where the driver was using a phone.
Is this a citation? No.

The department of transportation releases a report that states cell phones are a major contributor to crashes.
The New York Times reports on a crash where the driver was using a phone and says "according to the DOT, cell phones are a major cause of crashes". Is this a citation? Yes.

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.