Jesus Quotes From The Deuterocanon?

[AJB4]

I just read this:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=558419&postcount=10

how good do y'all think this is?

[E.C.]

At first glance, it appears to be private interpretation at its finest.

But I've been wrong before...

[Kristos]

I see what the poster is trying to do. He's basically trying to use Protestant arguements against them, but then he's falling into the same trap of not recognizing the obvious: There was not such thing as deuterocannonical (sp?) for Christ and the Apostles. They either quoted from the Greek or Hebrew - only the Greek, LXX, survives today. Christ knew exactly which books were included in the LXX - if any of them didn't belong, He would have pointed that out. End of discussion in my book!

[E.C.]

Good enough for me!

[Jacob4707]

I think the argument would fall apart if one could show that similar phraseology exists in books in the standard Jewish/Protestant Old Testament canon. Only if a text/phrase could unarguably be shown to have come only from a deuterocanonical source, and not from one of the 39 books (22 Jewish) in the Protestant OT, would there be a basis for showing that Jesus or the Apostles quoted from the deuterocanonicals as if they were Scripture.

[Shubunkin]

I read some where years ago (years and years ago!) that the Deuterocanonicals pre-dated the New Testament. I could be wrong, though. :sorry: Because my memory is faulty to begin with!

[E.C.]

If I remember correctly, when Ptolemy had all the Hebrew texts translated to Greek; thus giving birth to the Greek Septuagint; the Deuterocanonical texts were a part.

However, sometime after Pentecost, the Jewish leadership took out those books for some odd reason. King James and other Westerners used these Hebrew texts while we've kept with the Greek Septuagint. So, yes, the Deuterocanonicals pre-date the New Testament because the Greek Septuagint came out in ye olde BC days.

Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Kristos]

If I remember correctly, when Ptolemy had all the Hebrew texts translated to Greek; thus giving birth to the Greek Septuagint; the Deuterocanonical texts were a part.

However, sometime after Pentecost, the Jewish leadership took out those books for some odd reason. King James and other Westerners used these Hebrew texts while we've kept with the Greek Septuagint. So, yes, the Deuterocanonicals pre-date the New Testament because the Greek Septuagint came out in ye olde BC days.

Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16)

Of course when Paul said this he was refering to the LXX.

You're right, the Jews removed these books from their canon 30 years after Paul's death at the council of Jamnia.

[Matrona]

So, yes, the Deuterocanonicals pre-date the New Testament because the Greek Septuagint came out in ye olde BC days.

Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Not quite, as some of the Deuterocanonical books weren't written yet when the LXX first came out. However, they all predated the NT era.

[E.C.]

Not quite, as some of the Deuterocanonical books weren't written yet when the LXX first came out.
Really?

hmm... I must have heard incorrectly then...

Where did they come from?

[buzuxi02]

There are parallels between many NT passages and deuterocannonical books in general.

There also quotes in the NT from OT pseudographical writings such as the Assumption of Moses and the Ascension of Enoch.

[Shubunkin]

Not quite, as some of the Deuterocanonical books weren't written yet when the LXX first came out. However, they all predated the NT era.
When did the LXX come out?

[Kristos]

It was translated in Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st century BC
.

[Ioan cel Nou]

It was translated in Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st century BC
.
And that's how some of Deuterocanonical texts ended up being part of the Septuagint even though they didn't exist yet when it was first commissioned - the original translation was added to and the whole thing took 2 centuries to complete. The fact that the Septuagint that Christ and the Apostles would have known did contain them, though, speaks volumes.

James

[buzuxi02]

Ptolemy in 280 a.d. commissioned the hebrew scripture to be translated for:

1. Jews who lived in the diaspora but no longer spoke hebrew.

2. To have a copy for his great library in Alexandria.

Scholars arent sure if the commisioned work "the torah" meant that only the first five books (pentateuch) were originally translated or it included other books which now makes up the OT.
As time went on more were added.
The deuterocanonical were written between 300-50bc.

After 70 a.d. and 110 a.d. the hebrew scriptures were lost due to the romans destroying all their writings. Thus the LXX was the sole OT even for jewry.

This is why the dead sea scrolls are so important to the jews, they are the only manuscripts left dating to before the destruction of jerusalem in 70a.d.
The dead sea fragments are comparable in age as to the LXX BETWEEN 280-50 BC

[Macarius]

What the linked post shows is that the primary (or one of the primary) protestant arguments for the extreme version of sola scriptura (the type followed by a lot of evangelicals) is unsuitable.

The scriptures do not give any reliable way, on their own, for coming to an understanding of what the OT canon is (let alone the NT canon). There was NO good reason for them to reject the deuterocanonical texts within sola scriptura.

This is an important point for me, because the formation of the canon (and how the Holy Spirit chose to act through council to bring the canon together) was the end of my belief in sola scriptura and the beginning of my real pursuit of Orthodoxy.