Why did Protestants remove books from the Bible?

[Fish and Bread]

The modernist love of getting the Bible translated out of the Original Languages, even it that means that the ealiest manuscrits avalilable in Hebrew are far newer that some of the Greek translations.

It's modern, but I'm not quite sure it qualifies as modernist in the "condemned by Saint Pope Pius X" sense, which is the connotation I normally associate with the term modernist. I see your point, though.

I want to buy the New Vulgate that comes from the Septuagint (someone please confirm this)

My understanding is that the Vulgate incorporates various sources, including Hebrew and Greek texts, but tends to lean more heavily on the Septuagint than a lot of modern English translations do. It's not a straight Septuagint translation as far as I am aware. I know at least for the original Vulgate, St. Jerome worked with other languages in addition to Greek at times, and I doubt that would have changed with the Nova Vulgate (Though I guess I can't say I know with absolutely certainty that it didn't).

One interesting data is that Masoretic text use the YHWH (translated in spanish Catholic Bibles as Yawé and in protestants english/spanish Bibles as Jehovah) while the Septuagint usually uses the word Kyrios in the same passages (spanish Señor/English Lord). But I saw a Gideons RCV protestant Bible with a protestant (masoretic) canon use the word LORD as in a Septuagint OT text. Weird.

In the English language, the tradition is to use Lord in the place of the name of God as an act of reverence, regardless of which source material is being used for the translation. Even if the Masoretic texts are the primary or sole text used, they usually just replace the original words with "Lord" anyhow and make a note in the forward or translator notes section, if there is one. The only English-language bibles I've heard of that use Yaweh and so forth are the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. There many be others that do as well, but those are the only two I've heard of.

 

[InTheCloud]

"In the English language, the tradition is to use Lord in the place of the name of God as an act of reverence, regardless of which source material is being used for the translation. Even if the Masoretic texts are the primary or sole text used, they usually just replace the original words with "Lord" anyhow and make a note in the forward or translator notes section, if there is one. The only English-language bibles I've heard of that use Yaweh and so forth are the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. There many be others that do as well, but those are the only two I've heard of."
Interesting fact.
Look here is one reason why early christians used the deuterocanonicals in their polemics with the Pharisees.

Quote for him Wisdom 2:12-20 It is the most explicit prophecy of Jesus in the OT.


1 For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell:

2 For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart,

3 Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof:

4 And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works.

5 For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth.

6 Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth.

7 Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us.

8 Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot.

9 Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot.

10 Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged.

11 But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth.

12 Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.

13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.

14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts.

15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.

16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.

17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.

18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.

19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience.

20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them.

22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.

23 For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him.

24 But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world:

25 And they follow him that are of his side.
__________________

 

[InTheCloud]

I got this OT deuterocanon NT concordances from
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Scripture

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

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.
James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.
1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.
2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.
1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.
2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.
Sirach and 2 Maccabees – some Protestants argue these books are not inspired because the writers express uncertainty about their abilities. But sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:40 – Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God. The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

 

[david01]

Resoto,

Thank you for all the cross-references. I will take more time and examine them. I have found both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 to be more explicit than Wisdom 2:12-20 regarding prophecies concerning Christ.

Thanks again.

 

[InTheCloud]

But well, my point is that the deutoerocanonicals, contrary to the Reformer's opinion were heavily referenced in the New Testament. Thats the reason and the fact that most of the copies available were in Greek, just like the NT, that Palestinian Jews did not like those books in the Canon.

 

[david01]

Resoto, your point is well taken and until I actually examine the cross references I am unable to comment intelligently. I will make one cursory statement at the outset. There is a significant difference to allusions and quotations. I always smile when I have discussions with my Muslim friends and they confidently assert that there are no less than 120 direct references to Mohammed in the Bible. I tell them that allusions are slippery things and direct references are much less so.

Again, thank you for supplying the list and for your patience as I exmaine it.

 

[david01]

Resoto,

Just a quick update. Because I no longer have a Bible with the deuterocanonical books, I thought I could look them up on-line. Interestingly, the website, catholic.org, lists a number of Bibles and I looked at the New Jerusalem Bible. They only provide the books of the Bible that we Protestants recognize. I found that rather surprising so I called them for a source. The receptionist had never heard of the deuterocanonical books, or even the apocrypha, and said this was the first time anyone had ever asked about them. After checking with their programmer she came back and said they had been unable to locate any source for them to put online. By that, I take it to mean that there is no ready, programmed source to plug in.

This helps confirm in my own mind that in the vast majority of Catholic minds, this whole issue is completely foreign and of no actual significance.

 

[jream]

So are any of you going to heaven?

 

[Fish and Bread]

Just a quick update. Because I no longer have a Bible with the deuterocanonical books, I thought I could look them up on-line.

Unfortunately, the translation I prefer (NRSV) isn't online either. However, here are three online sources for reading the deuterocanonical books:

New American Bible:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

Douay-Rheims Bible:
http://www.drbo.org/

King James Version Bible (deuterocanonicals in a separate section listed after the Old and New Testaments on the page):
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

Interestingly, the website, catholic.org, lists a number of Bibles and I looked at the New Jerusalem Bible. They only provide the books of the Bible that we Protestants recognize. I found that rather surprising so I called them for a source. The receptionist had never heard of the deuterocanonical books, or even the apocrypha, and said this was the first time anyone had ever asked about them. After checking with their programmer she came back and said they had been unable to locate any source for them to put online. By that, I take it to mean that there is no ready, programmed source to plug in.

This helps confirm in my own mind that in the vast majority of Catholic minds, this whole issue is completely foreign and of no actual significance.

I do think this issue is foreign to a lot of Catholics, but actually, oddly enough, it's foreign because they aren't aware that Protestants exclude these books, in my cases. I've seen a lot of Catholic reference, say, a book like Tobit in a discussion with a Protestant and the Protestant will reply "Huh, what?" and the Catholic will say "You know, from the bible" "That's not in the bible" "You should look again, it's in there", etc.. It's entirely possible that receptionist didn't know what you meant because she didn't know that there were bibles out there that didn't include the books she was familiar with. She may have thought you were talking about the Gnostic gospels or something.

Similarly, my guess is that there are a lot of casual Protestant worshipers who have no idea that there are books in the Roman Catholic canon that aren't in the Protestant canon. Not everyone is familiar with church history and other traditions.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Just a simple suggestion, but one which I have found to be quite handy. When I want to learn an answer to a question I have about other Christians I usually check out their forum and see if it isn't addressed there. If it isn't, I usually PM someone there who I think can answer it for me and, occasionally, as the situation warrants, will actually post a thread with that question.

I suggest (and it is only my suggestion) that if you want to know "why did Protestants remove books from the Bible" you ask a Protestant or a Lutheran (if you think Luther was the culprit). You might not agree with their answers, but at least you will know why, rather than hearing the standard responses in the OBOB forum.

Luther felt that St Jerome was correct in his assesment thru his Judaic teaching that Hebrew was the only inspired tongue.

BUT if that were true... according to the Jews, the Apostles were wrong also for writing mostly in Greek.

The Jews also lost the authority over scriptures when Jesus gave the authority to His Apostles [and Church]
Establishing a new priesthood.

St Jerome however; unlike Luther, conceded to the Pope and Church and did not break away from either.
Instead he did as the council demanded and kept the Septuagint intact.

Luther perhaps did not like the content of the Duetero's because everything he was accusing the Church of, was in scriptures. So instead of adhering to the Church as did St Jerome, he used his argument to remove the books as inspired.

Luther used the idea of a man who got the idea from the Jews.

But the Jews didn't accept Christ anyway...so 100 AD their opinion to remove those books... REMOVE them... really should not effect the Christians.

Furthermore, Jesus celebrated the Festival of Lights...Hanukkah. SO if the Festival was
NOT Inpsired... would Jesus really have celebrated it?
That came from Machabees.

The most interesting thing is... the Jews still celebrate that Festival..even tho it was removed from most Jewish canon. BUT not all Jews allowed it to be removed.

So... was Jesus correct to celebrate?

Were the Apostles correct to quote the books?

Apparently they felt they were inspired. AND they were the ones to whom Christ handed over authority to KNOW.

 

[david01]

Thanks, Fish and Bread, for the helpful sites. I managed to download the books successfully, but it will take quite a bit of time to look up all the references.

As for the receptionist, it wasn't merely that she was unaware of what I was talking about, but the reason for my call is that the listing of the books of the Bible on catholic.org excluded these books entirely. I thought that, surely, someone who set up the site would have recognized the mistake. However, I was apparently the first to contact them about it and I listed some of the books that were missing to her. She had never heard of them, nor did their programmer. I even spelled out d-e-u-t-e-r-c-a-n-o-n-i-c-a-l for her and added a new word to her vocabulary (along with the dreaded a-word).

Thanks again.

 

[InTheCloud]

I heard that there are copyright problems with the Bible of Jerusalem. The french publisher has become picky. Is not available on line in Spanish.
Maybe the receptionist in not catholic. Is a big issue on most sites, like catholic.com the canon issue.
I remember a post on forum.catholic.org about a boy that was reading the Bible and he was reading Tobit and he got in a discussion with some Protestant kids about the books. Neither part knew that books were removed from the Bible during the Reformation! So you can imagine the confusion.
You also should investigate in a Orthodox site. The prayer of Manasseh is a beautiful prayer.

 

[Fish and Bread]

So are any of you going to heaven?

I probably will not be going there. I am not quite sure what this has to do with the topic of the thread, though.

You also should investigate in a Orthodox site.

My NRSV w/apocrypha actually includes the Eastern Orthodox deutrocanonicals as well as the Roman Catholic ones. I don't know of a similar resource online, but you can definitely get it in paper format.

 

[rrguy]

The reason the apocryphal books are not universally accepted is because they are not extant in Hebrew and are not part of the Jewish Old Testament.

Although they were only universally added to the Catholic Bible at the Council of Trent, they had appeared in many copies of the Bible as early as the 4th and 5th centuries. Eastern Rite Churches also include these apocryphal books in the Bible.

And, apparently, the early King James Bible also included these books in a separate section for apocryphal books.

Here some info I understand.

At the time those 7 books being written in the Greek language which became the international language after the conquests of Alexander the Great in 332BC (Alexander died 323BC). So after some time many spoke Greek & no longer understood Hebrew. So they were originally written in Greek. While the other books were translated from Hebrew so they could understood. Around 100 AD the Jews no longer accepted the books originally written in Greek. I have not seen any history of an official Bible until around 400ad which included all 46 of the OT those 7 books were never added later?

 

[rrguy]

Here is an interesting link.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The Catholic Church and the Bible.htm

 

[InTheCloud]

Sthepen Langton, the one that added Chapter and Versicle numbers to the Bible. And posible author of Carta Magna? One of history forgoten figures. Funny thing, he was catholic. That means that the Bible's divisons in chapters and versicles are a evil's man made Romanist Tradition?. Why the Reformers did not realized that? So is the word Jehovà, a traduction mistake by Raymundo Marini in 1270.

 

[david01]

I am back after an interesting sojourn in the deutercononical books. I have given the set of cross references between them and the New Testament gospels as provided earlier, an examination.

In doing so, I classified each cross reference as one of the following:

1. A direct quotation as, for example, Romans 3:10-18 quotes from Psalms 14 and 53.
2. A direct reference as, for example, Roman 4:1 which references Abraham by name.
3. An allusion as, for example, Romans 2:29 where Jews and circumcision are alluded to by name.
4. An indirect allusion as, for example Romans 10:1 where the word "truth" is used. "Truth" can be found in many Old Testament texts, none of which bear the same context.

Using these four categories I discovered the following:

Matthew 2:16 may be an indirect allusion to Wisdom 11:9 in which the context is water (pure and polluted) and thirst.

Proverbs 23:4,5 is a much closer (and older) allusion to Matthew 6:19,20 than Sirach 29:11.

Matthew 7:12 and Tobit 4:15 have entirely different contexts so that any comparison is merely coincidental.

Psalm 1:3 is a much better and older source for Matthew &;16,20 than Sirach 24:6.

There is little doubt that Ezekiel 34:7-16 is the reference for Matthew 9:36 rather than Judith 11:19 where the conqueror brutally drives the sheep (the conquered people).

The contexts of Matthew 11:25 and Tobit 7:18 are entirely different and the only relationship between the two is the coincidental use of the same phrase.

It stretches one's credulity to think that the Queen of Sheba travelled all the way to Jerusalem to obtain a copy of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (which had not yet been written) but did not actually go to meet Solomon himself, as recorded in I Kings 10:1-13. It is absurd to compare the book with this event as mentioned by Christ in Matthew 12:42.

Wisdom 16:13 speaks of God whereas Matthew 16:18 speaks of the church and of Peter. The objects in both verses are radically different.

Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 relates a tale of a poor woman who had seven uncosummated marriages, cut short by an evil demon who slew the seven brothers before they were able to consummate the marriage. The question posed by the Pharisees to Jesus in Matthew 22:25 relates to seven actual (comsummated) marriages of seven brothers to the same wife without any description as to how they met their ends. The only thing the two passages have in common are seven brothers and a wife.

In Matthew 24:15, 16 Christ Himself makes the direct reference to Daniel and not to anything in I Maccabees.

Matthew 27:43 is taken directly Psalm 22:8. It is likely that Wisdom 2:18 was also derived from the same source.

Mark 4:5,16,17 speaks of the good seed springing up on rocky ground and withering in the sun, but SIrach 40:15 compares the children of the ungodly (not good seed at all) the unclean roots.

Mark 9:48 and Judith 16:17 both speak of fire and worms, but there the comparison ends. In Judith there is no reference to hell at all.

If Judith 13:18 is to be believed, then it is Judith herself that is "blessed of the most high God above all the women of the earth" and not Mary, as in Luke 1:42. I would think that serious Catholics would have a real problem with the verse in Judith.

There is a close similarity between Luke 1:52 and Sirach 10:14, but their contexts are at considerable variance.

Baruch 4:37 appears to be a loose paraphrase of Isaiah 49:12, which appears to be the source for Luke 13:29.

The only thing Luke 21:24 and Sirach 28:18 have in common is the phrase "falling by the edge of the sword." In Luke it is set in an apocalytpic prophecy and in Sirach it is part of a generic proverb.

The only thing that Luke 24:4, Acts 1:10, and II Maccabees 3:6 have in common are two men. In the Maccabees verse these two are scourging a man continually and giving him many stripes - which is an activity utterly foreign to the New Testament passages. Why not toss in Revelation 11:3, as well?

Genesis 1:1 is doubtless the source for John 1:1-3, not Wisdom 9:1

Baruch 3:29 personifies Wisdom as a woman, as in the early chapters of the Proverbs whereas John 3:13 speaks of the Son of Man (Christ Jesus). It would be absurd to cross reference the verse in John to any in Proverbs, much less this one in Baruch.

Similarly, WIsdome 8:8 also speaks of Wisdom personified as a woman and is hardly the only, nor even the first, Old Testament passage to speak of "signs and wonders". For example, Jeremiah 32:20 uses the same phrase.

The concept of God being the father of a person predates Wisdom 2:16 as, for example, in Isaiah 63:16. Therefore, at best, the Wisdom verse is indirectly alluded to in John 5:18.

Amazingly, John 6:35-39 and Sirach 24:21 are exact opposites of each other - Jesus claiming to satisfy the thirst of those who come to Him versus a parching and gnawing thirst which can never be quenched in the Sirach citation.

That the Feast of Dedication is mentioned in the New Testament and that Jesus celebrated it is of little more consequence than the celebration of Thanksgiving in the USA or its mention in literature that postdates its institution.

There is no real comparison between John 10:36 and I Maccabees 4:36, try as hard as I could to see one other than the most passing and evanescent possibilities.

John 15:6 might be an indirect allusion to Wisdom 4:5 although their contexts are entirely and completely different.

My question, then, is, have any of you actually looked at these references yourselves? Or have you just plucked them out of cyberspace for my enjoyment?

The bottom line at this point is that I am startled and amazed at the extremely low quality of these references. I now see why the Reformers maintained their position that the New Testament does not contain any references to the deutercanonical books.

Shall I proceed with the remaining references?

 

[Fish and Bread]

I'm impressed that you took the time to look all that up. Honestly, I haven't, but I never posted a list of direct references (That was other people). I accept the deterocanonicals because I accept the authority of the Christian Church over post-Pentecostal Judiasm when it comes to determining Christian scriptural canon. That's pretty much it, when I boil it down. I've always heard there are references, but if there aren't, that's not really the crux of where I am coming from in why I accept these books -- I accept the right of Christians to make decisions on Christian scripture.

Well, that, and I love the Book of Tobit. It's probably my favorite book of the bible.

 

[InTheCloud]

Remember, the fact that many quotes of the deutercanonicals are predated in other biblical texts do demostrate there is commonality, or better, intertextuality on biblical text. The fact that some quotes seen to have a different context is not limited to the deuterocanonicals, many OT teaching and expectations were radically changed of context by the NT. If not all the Jews will be Christians now. Ever gone to a Jewish coutermissionary web?
The fact remains that in my opinion the reformer commited one of the Original Sins of the Reformation, they claim to need the Bible alone as source of faith while at the same time they are modifiying the chrisitian Bible. So is the Bible inerrant of not? They in fact demostrated that the Bible, the sole source of faith according to most Protestants, can be tampered with, either adding books and texts by mistake as according to the Reformers the African Councils did, or taking books out of it as the Catholics and the Orthodox charge. If the Bible can be tampered with, how do you know somebody did not tamper with the Bible from the begining? And now we enter Da Vinci Code territoire.
I believe that the Reformers move of taking books out of the Bible that had been cannonized by the early church, and remember linguistic evidence support the fact that the Septuagint was used by the early christians and evangelists, unwittingly challenges the whole authenticity of the NT, as some Jewish apologist say.
On one had the reformers proclaimed the Bible inerrant and complete as source of faith, in the other hand the reformers proclaimed that the Shul of Janna was right about the Septuagint cannon and the Councils of Hippo and Alexandria wrong. Then why the Shul of Janna was wrong about the NT and the councils of Hippo and Alexandria right about the NT? Do you realize that the Reformers actions cast doubts on the legitimacy of the whole NT and then all Christianity?

 

[david01]

My problem is not that there are some possible indirect allusions to New Testament verses in the cited verses from the Deuterocanonical books, but that a handful of these verses, when taken in their contexts, actually contradict either New or Old Testament verses, as I cited above. An example would be the glorious description of Judith which, if taken literally, must put Mary into another category which is impossible to do, given the fact that the phraseology is so hyperbolic in both cases.

Many Jews have become Christians through the Old Testament (sans deutercaanonical books) and have not perceived contradictions in the New Testament citations from the Old. I would almost guess that the rate of conversion today among Jews is probably higher than Gentiles,

The Reformers were neither malicious nor capricious in their decisions. If one chooses to perceive that the whole of Christianity depends on the acceptance of the seven books in question as inspired scripture, then one, indeed, is on very shaky ground.

As noted earlier in this thread, the only doctrine that is said to come from these books is that of Purgatory. However, it was readily admitted that this doctrine, in its fullness, is extrabiblical, depending on the fiat of the Roman Catholic Church. To this I would add that, if anything, these books might be used to bolster the Protestant view that Mary is not as exalted in reality, especially in relation to Judith.

Again, I ask the questions: Have any of you actually investigated these alleged comparisons? Have any of you actually read these seven disputed books in their entirety?