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?
Upvote
0
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.
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.
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?
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?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".
expecting it and setting it as a required standard is.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.
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.
In other words "my criterion for inclusion is completely ad-hoc - whatever it takes to get the result Ive already decided upon.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.
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?
If you've picked only ones that are more explicit then it's a truism that those ones are more explicit.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.
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
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.
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.
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?