Christianity and how the bible was put together

[DHK]

I'm sorry that sounds like don't confuse me with the facts. However it was to prove a point on a statement you made with regards to Jerome and the Church now. This is what you said.

I am just saying read the quote again. It is a bit ambiguous and may not be saying what you think it is saying. Besides that, I gave you another quote which clears up all ambiguity of what Jerome's position is. Did you read that one?

Which I responded that wasn't true and then you said:

Which contradicts your previous statement with regards to the DC. If Jerome was forced to do it then obviously there was discussion brought up about it at his time. Logical.

The issue is with the RCC. Jerome disagreed with the RCC, and did not want to be pressured by them to put the Apocrypha into the Bible. The RCC has maintained all along that the RCC is part of the Bible. Why shouldn't they? It supports their doctrine of purgatory and other heretical doctrines.

I can say you don't get it. It was an obvious referrence to 2 Macc. Which is in the DC. And it's a quote from the NT.

There is no quote from 2Mac. in the NT, nowhere. You can't prove that. There was nothing there even remotely similar--no similarity whatsoever. To say that there was is just nonsense.

My point was that you are going to sources outside of Christianity to develop your point. Ask yourself this. When were the Masoretic text written? After the establishment of Christianity after a school our council regarded all writings that supported Christianity to be excluded from their canon (books that can defile the hand.

The Masoretes took care in copying the Scriptures. Though they lived in the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, they did not change any of the content. What they did do is put in the vowel pointing for those of us who study the Hebrew language to make it easier to study. (We would be lost without it). Before that time trained scribes took great pains in copying the Scriptures, even counting all the letters that were on each page. The Jewish scribes were very meticulous. The Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which date back to 150 B.C. verify the accuracy of the transmission of the OT canon.

Luke 11:50-51 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
What is Jesus teaching here?
Abel was considered to be the first prophet.
Zecharias was the last prophet.

Jesus was saying from the first to the last prophet, their blood would be required on this (that generation) of people.
There was no prophet after Zecharias, not until John the Baptist.
There was a period of 400 years of silence where God spoke to no one. It is called the intertestamental period. In that period arose the Pharisees, the Saducees, the LXX, the synagogues, Herod's Temple, and a few other things. But God was silent.

The OT Canon was completed ca. 400 B.C.
There had to be an OT in place for a translation to be made.
The LXX was the first translation that was ever made. It was made in 250 B.C.
It is quite evident then, that the OT Canon was in place before that date.
As with the OT, so with the NT. God did not see fit for the originals to survive. I believe this was in his will. When original documents or other such things survive man has the propensity to worship them. God doesn't want man to fall into the temptation of idolatry, but He has promised to preserve His Word, which he has done.

This quote makes assertions that it hasn't developed verification that this is entirely so. It may be true but what sources are they refering to. I would like to know. I don't think it is prudent to look outside of Christianity after the establishment of it for support . I look plainly just a Christianity. I will be on board with you if you can show (verify) that the bible was accepted as being closed before the time of Christ. What document are you referring too? Its a simple question and request.

See above, unless you are looking for more.
What exactly are you looking for. Are you looking for a quote from Jesus?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I found this to be an interesting play so I joined in.

Uh, Matt, I did not say that Tobit was a fairy tale because it is not in Scripture.

I said what I said. I do not think what I wrote is that hard to read.

I am reading what I wrote again, and I just do not see any words to that effect. Perhaps you chose to imagine them there so that you can make it appear that you had a rebuttal.

Jonah is not a fairy tale.

The Bible teaches that Jonah lived three days in the belly of a giant sea creature. Therefore, it happened.

There is a key difference between Jonah and Tobit. Jonah has never been doubted by Bible-believing Jews and Bible-believers in the church. Tobit, on the other hand, was not accepted by the Jews and further has never been accepted by the entire church.
Again, if you have the intellectual courage to address what I REALLY posted, go ahead and try

Ok. (Though I'm not Matt)


The Bolded statement is in question. You are assuming by your statement that

1. Tobit was accepted by Jews. - Strange at how the literature at that time such as the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses refer to at least one angels listed in Tobit. So the term never is in doubt. The qumran find includes text from the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as well as the DC. Just in case that you know the Qumran find was on the North Western Part of the Dead sea so at Palistine at the time of Jesus. So you have yet to show that the Jews at the time of Jesus did not accept the book of Tobit. Early Christians (and I dare say) "bible believing" Christians did accept the book of Tobit as you can see as early as 100 AD in the writings of Clement. So there is a divergence a deviation as you will (a standard deviation?) from evidence that Tobit may have been accepted rather than evidence to the contrary where there is no statement of closed OT with in Jewish literature at the time of Jesus. So contrary to your statement - Jews may have included Tobit at the time of Jesus.

2. You make a statement about bible believing Jews which is a misnomer. The bible or the Biblios is Greek indicating the entire book (books were not in use until hundreds of years later and initially identified as codex). The Jews believed in their scrolls which exclude the NT. So there were never entirely whole bible believing Jews. There were Jews who believed in their scrolls of Law, Prophets, History, etc... Which some evidence has shown may very well included the DC at the time of Jesus.

Also many modern christians have the misconception that Judea of Jesus' day was like the modern world in the sence that every one had a copy of the OT. Just isn't true for several reasons. I'll give two. Most people were illiterate. The copied scrolls were expensive. So you can't view the ancients as having their back pocket copy of a Gideons bible they got from Howard Johnsons. They relied heavily on what they were taught by the synagogue leaders and their liturgy which re enforced memorization. Which is why you see in the Gospels that people did not teach authoritatively they referred to a teacher or a school. Jesus amazed them by referring to his own authority.

The Masoretic text were copied after Christianity was established which is what sent me on this journey. I couldn't get over the fact that bible teachers, text books (which DHK are constantly update for better and more accurate information. They are only as reliable as the information they hold) etc... Seem so reliant on anti Christian Jewish literature from hundreds of years after Christianity was established. So I went to see what the early christians said and they quote from the DC. You see my point. If the Massoretic text were made before Christ I might have have accepted it but that is not the case. Then I viewed Christianity and get this the oldest christian churches Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic and even a Protestant one (Anglican) accept the DC. This perplexed me because you cannot get me to believe that christianity was dormant from Constantine until Luther. If you follow the writings (and Yes even that of Jerome) You see that the DC have been a part of Christianity. Has anyone here read the side notes on the masoretic texts? Some of them are whay out there. Because of the difficulty of the Jews accepting Jesus.

So back to Jonah and Tobit. The argument here is you say Jonah was always believed by bible believing Jews (not really) and that Tobit was not (not really either). Both are Fantastical stories. How do you chose one over the other? Jesus quoted from Jonah. This is true. Ok. So do we take out all the OT books Jesus did not quote from?

 

[Darron Steele]

...There is a key difference between Jonah and Tobit. Jonah has never been doubted by Bible-believing Jews and Bible-believers in the church. Tobit, on the other hand, was not accepted by the Jews and further has never been accepted by the entire church....

I found this to be an interesting play so I joined in.


Ok. (Though I'm not Matt)


The Bolded statement is in question. You are assuming by your statement that

1. Tobit was accepted by Jews. ...

Huh? I think my words actually denied that.

Read it again. Reading it might help avoid your apparent confusion.

Second, I do not see how you can deny what I posted. Do you know of any Jews that rejected Jonah? It Tobit in the Jewish Bible? Was the early church united in accepting what Rome called the "deuterocanonicals?" Did any large group within the church reject Jonah?

I know of no Jews that rejected Jonah except the Sadducees, who rejected everything but the first five books. My copy of the Jewish Bible does not have Tobit in it, and the evidence denies that Palestinian Jews accepted it as Scripture even in Jesus' time. The early church was not united in accepting Tobit or any other so-called "deuterocanonical" book. To my knowledge, all early church people who rejected the Old Testament as Scripture were rejected.

 

[Matt Black]

Jesus left no room for the Apocrypha. The OT is divided into three parts.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

...which rather leaves out the other genre, history, eg: 1 & 2 Kings etc

The Hebrew Bible (OT) had 22 books and was divided into three sections as noted above.

But the Greek Bible (OT) has more - and this was the OT used by Christians from the earliest times of the Church

Quotations, allusions, or references to almost all the OT books can be found in the NT. There is no reference to any Apocryphal book in the NT--not the current apocrypha as we know it today.

What about the quote from 2 Maccabees referenced in Hebrews 11 to which TS has referred?

The OT that the Hebrews used was naturally in Hebrew, the language of the Jews, the same that I have today. It does not contain the Apocrypha. There are some good reasons for that.
1. The OT canon was written in Hebrew; the Apocrypha was written in Greek. No Greek writing would have ever been accepted as inspired Scripture.

Shame about the NT then...

2. The OT canon was completed ca.425 B.C., and no book written after 400 B.C. would even be considered for canonicity.

Why not? Where's your evidence of such a decision being made? Please produce the document or canons of the Jewish council (prior to Yavneh) that made this decision. Canonisation of the OT by the Jews was still in process up to Yavneh itself, with the Torah being generally agreed c.400BC, the Prophets c.200BC and the Writings not until Yavneh c100AD

3. This can easily be verified as all the books in the current OT are written 450 B.C. or before, Malachi being one of the last books of the Bible to be written.

Except the LXX

4. Our current OT is translated directly from the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Depends which Bible you have. The KJV, for example, uses the TR which is based on the Greek LXX. If you use only the MT (which is way, way after the time of Jesus BTW), then you lose some of the essential doctrine of the OT Messianic prophecies eg: Isaiah 7:14, "a virgin shall conceive and bear a child" (LXX) becomes "a young woman shall conceive and bear a child" (MT). Not only is the LXX rather than the MT version quoted by Matthew (Matt 1:23) but the MT version denies the virgin birth (as one would expect given that no unbelieving Jew would want to affirm that doctrine!)

5. No translation of the Scriptures is inspired. That includes the KJV. And it includes the LXX. The LXX is not inspired. Only the Hebrew Scriptures were.

What is your authority for believing that? The only authority I can think of is the Yavneh school; don't forget that these were the same guys who threw the Christians out of the synagogues (John 9:22) and who Jesus calls the 'synagogue of Satan' (Rev 2:9; 3:9) - not exactly appropriate theological bedfellows for a Christian!

Why are the DC books in the OT? If they are part of the OT Scriptures then one must go with Jewish sources, do they not.

Not if it's Yavneh, for the reasons above. If you want to align yourself with a bunch of anti-Christian Jews, then that's up to you, but as a Christian I prefer to go with the decisions of the first Christians, thank you very much.

The reason I equate it with the RCC, is because it is primarily a RCC problem or issue. They are the primary religion that advocates the addition of the Apocrypha. In fact in most Christian book stores today, if you want a copy of the Apocrypha one must purchase a Catholic Bible.

That doesn't address my point re the Orthodox

Case not closed. You have made a false and misinformed statement.
The LXX did not contain the DCs, and it was impossible for them to have the DCs since the LXX was translated back in 250 B.C. before the DCs came into existence. There were some later copies of the LXX made around the time of Christ in which the DCs were inserted, but the original LXX did not have the DCs and could not have them. History forbad it. Books written between 200 B.C. and 30 A.D. cannot make its way into a book written 250 B.C.--physically impossible; and they certainly could not make it into the OT canon finished before 400 B.C. Your arguments hold no water.

You adduce no evidence concerning this dating; if you are referring to the dates of the earliest LXX MSS (4th-5th centuries AD), then you might as well say that Caesar's Gallic Wars was written in the 11th century AD, since that is the date of the earliest MSS for that work. Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain about two-thirds of Sirach.

Certainly it existed before that date. I don't deny that. It has been a primarily a RCC issue, and in that context the Apocrypha was not officially accepted as Scripture until the Council of Trent.

But that doesn't address the use by the Orthodox, who had nothing to do with Trent, and had been using the DCs long before that - in fact since the first century

 

[Matt Black]

Huh? I think my words actually denied that.

Read it again. Reading it might help avoid your apparent confusion.

Second, I do not see how you can deny what I posted. Do you know of any Jews that rejected Jonah?

Er...yes: the Sadducees, as you yourself admit

Was the early church united in accepting what Rome called the "deuterocanonicals?"

Yep

Did any large group within the church reject Jonah?

Nope, at least not until after the Yavneh rabbis had done their work

 

[BRIANH]

The books of the LXX were in flux up until the 4th century.
I would contend, and I am not alone, that Origen is the first proof, 200 years later I will add, that we have of some of the Deuterocanonicals being included in the LXX but certainly still indicating it was in flux by not naming all of them as being part of it.

The LXX containing all of the Deuterocanonicals in 30 AD...
No proof.

 

[Matt Black]

The Hexapla? So what, when we have numerous examples of the NT quoting from the DCs...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Huh? I think my words actually denied that.

Read it again. Reading it might help avoid your apparent confusion.

Second, I do not see how you can deny what I posted. Do you know of any Jews that rejected Jonah? It Tobit in the Jewish Bible? Was the early church united in accepting what Rome called the "deuterocanonicals?" Did any large group within the church reject Jonah?

I know of no Jews that rejected Jonah except the Sadducees, who rejected everything but the first five books. My copy of the Jewish Bible does not have Tobit in it, and the evidence denies that Palestinian Jews accepted it as Scripture even in Jesus' time. The early church was not united in accepting Tobit or any other so-called "deuterocanonical" book. To my knowledge, all early church people who rejected the Old Testament as Scripture were rejected.

Sorry I missed typing not. If you look at the context of what I wrote you will see I meant you said Tobit was not accepted by the Jews. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Also note that I did not say the Jews did not accept Jonah they do. That wasn't an issue either. Your responding to all the wrong parts of the post imagine the word "not" in their and then read agian so you understand what I am saying. My point is I think you will find it difficult to prove that all Jews a the time of Jesus catagorically denied the book (scroll) of Tobit. You can try.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

FWIW, Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians also quoted Tobit (in the same manner he quoted protocanonical Scripture).

 

[BRIANH]

The Hexapla? So what, when we have numerous examples of the NT quoting from the DCs...

There is not a single reputable scholar who sees numerous. The general number given is 3 to 6.
When you compare the number of quotes from the OT with the possible quotes, and they are all possible quotes, not confirmed, there is no comparison.
We are all familiar with how the NT introduces and quotes the OT.

Regardless,
A quote from a book does not mean it is in the LXX. The NT only quotes from the LXX? No. Of course not. However, it is certainly possible that a few of the DC were in the LXX at the time of Christ but everyone I have EVER read said it was in flux until much later.
The earliest existing copies have different books. Because, it was in flux.

Polycarp. Yes, it is certainly possible that Polycarp used a copy of the LXX with Tobit 120 years after the timeframe we are referring to. On the other hand, Irenaeus a few years later calls Shepherd of Hermes scripture as well. The ECF..fun bunch to quote

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me start here first:

Luke 11:50-51 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
What is Jesus teaching here?
Abel was considered to be the first prophet.
Zecharias was the last prophet

There is an obvious problem with this statement. If your logic is correct then Nehimiah and Malichi and possibly Joel should be excluded from the OT. Strangely, your bible includes them in the OT as well as refering to them as prophets. Hmmmmmm. So again should we take out any books that Jesus didn't directly refer to from the OT?

The Masoretes took care in copying the Scriptures. Though they lived in the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, they did not change any of the content. What they did do is put in the vowel pointing for those of us who study the Hebrew language to make it easier to study. (We would be lost without it). Before that time trained scribes took great pains in copying the Scriptures, even counting all the letters that were on each page. The Jewish scribes were very meticulous. The Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which date back to 150 B.C. verify the accuracy of the transmission of the OT canon

I agree the Masorites took care to copy faithfully their scripture yet with the Jewish convention already established to exclude Messianic prophesies that could relate to Jesus Specifically Isaiah 7:14 You will find the term young woman in the Masoretic texts rather than virgin. Why? Because of Jamnia Yaveneh. Jewish scholars working hard to exclude messianic prophesies fulfilled by Jesus. A comparison has been made by the Masorectic texts and those found at Qumran regarding the book of Is. and they found the LXX was closer and more comprable to the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls than the Masoretic texts!

That is not an isolated example. Such variances between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text are fairly numerous. In fact, one of the cardinal teachings of Christianity turns on one of these variances. We have all read Matthew's quotation from Isaiah 7:14: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel'" (Matt. 1:22,23). What I did not realize until recently was that the Hebrew Masoretic text does not say, "the virgin shall be with child." It says, "the young woman shall be with child." No wonder the apostles and their disciples chose the Septuagint over the Masoretic text.

Unless you use the Revised Standard Version, if you look up Isaiah 7:14 in your Old Testament, you will probably find that it reads "virgin" instead of "young woman." That's because translators have fudged on their use of the Masoretic text in order to conform to the cardinal Christian doctrine of the virgin birth. But how honest is that? Can we ignore the Septuagint and treat it as "a translation full of errors," but then when one of those "errors" supports a major Christian doctrine, go over and borrow from it? Are we really seeking truth when we do that? - Oxford University. A New English Translation of the Septuagint

(You can use this as a text book BTW).

. It is a bit ambiguous and may not be saying what you think it is saying. Besides that, I gave you another quote which clears up all ambiguity of what Jerome's position is.

Uh. I think it is very clear he's using the Jewish argument not saying he agrees with them.

The OT Canon was completed ca. 400 B.C.
There had to be an OT in place for a translation to be made.
The LXX was the first translation that was ever made. It was made in 250 B.C.
It is quite evident then, that the OT Canon was in place before that date.
As with the OT, so with the NT..

You're close of the OT seems to be rolling. 450 -425-400. Which is a problematic issue since there is no clear evidence of it. The LXX translators translated the documents they had which included the DC. Evidence that the DC existed at the time of Christ is clear by the use of them in the NT. Which your argument

There is no quote from 2Mac. in the NT, nowhere. You can't prove that. There was nothing there even remotely similar--no similarity whatsoever. To say that there was is just nonsense.

Is ludicrous because you will have to ask your self what women is the author talking about. Most scholars believe that this is in referrence to 2 Macc. even if they don't believe the DC are inspired.

So don't you think the LXX translators would take special care as did the Masorites with the bonus of not having to worry about those "problematic Christians" that believe the Messiah has come? Check the Masoretic text against the Dead Sea Scrolls and then check the LXX against it what do you find?

See above, unless you are looking for more.
What exactly are you looking for. Are you looking for a quote from Jesus?

That would be extremely helpful.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is not a single reputable scholar who sees numerous. The general number given is 3 to 6.
When you compare the number of quotes from the OT with the possible quotes, and they are all possible quotes, not confirmed, there is no comparison.
We are all familiar with how the NT introduces and quotes the OT.

Regardless,
A quote from a book does not mean it is in the LXX. The NT only quotes from the LXX? No. Of course not. However, it is certainly possible that a few of the DC were in the LXX at the time of Christ but everyone I have EVER read said it was in flux until much later.
The earliest existing copies have different books. Because, it was in flux.

Polycarp. Yes, it is certainly possible that Polycarp used a copy of the LXX with Tobit 120 years after the timeframe we are referring to. On the other hand, Irenaeus a few years later calls Shepherd of Hermes scripture as well. The ECF..fun bunch to quote

You missed the point. They were referred to in the NT maybe not all but some therefore there is evidence of their existance at the time of Christ. Their inclusion in the NT and how they were used is evidence that they could have been considered authoritative. The fact that the NT does not quote all the books of the DC does not mean they wern't in existance or consider authoritative by the early church just like not all of the OT books were quoted either. Do we get rid of them? If that is your case then we should have only some of the OT books with some of the DC. And the argument for their authority is therefore stronger the the argument against it especially when you consider the use of the DC in the Early Church writings. Which is the point. Show me in the NT where it says that the DC unequivically is not authoritative in some respect.

 

[DHK]

Let me start here first:
There is an obvious problem with this statement. If your logic is correct then Nehimiah and Malichi and possibly Joel should be excluded from the OT. Strangely, your bible includes them in the OT as well as refering to them as prophets. Hmmmmmm. So again should we take out any books that Jesus didn't directly refer to from the OT?

I did not explain this point very well. Let me try it again.
The Hebrew canon (that is the OT) is arranged differently than ours. Genesis is the first book. And 2 Chronicles is the last books. Many of the books are combined together, so that while having the exact number of our books (39), they only have 22. For example the 12 Minor Prophets are all treated as one book called "The Twelve." Again, Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Canon. The last event and the last prophet to be mentioned in the Hebrew canon is Zacharias. What Jesus was saying is: From the very first prophet in the Bible to the very last prophet in the Bible, your blood will be upon them all. Malachi, of course, was included somewhere in the middle.
From the first to the last prophet. That effectively excluded the Apocrypha.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Polycarp. Yes, it is certainly possible that Polycarp used a copy of the LXX with Tobit 120 years after the timeframe we are referring to. On the other hand, Irenaeus a few years later calls Shepherd of Hermes scripture as well. The ECF..fun bunch to quote

Indeed they are, particularly in demonstrating that the status of the canon--Old and New Testaments--wasn't as need and tidy as many modern-day scholars and internet apologists might suppose. The "limits" of both the Christian OT and Chrisian NT for the first few centuries of the church was to a degree in a state of "flux". :smilewinkgrin:

 

[BRIANH]

You missed the point. They were referred to in the NT maybe not all but some therefore there is evidence of their existance at the time of Christ. Their inclusion in the NT and how they were used is evidence that they could have been considered authoritative. The fact that the NT does not quote all the books of the DC does not mean they wern't in existance or consider authoritative by the early church just like not all of the OT books were quoted either. Do we get rid of them? If that is your case then we should have only some of the OT books with some of the DC. And the argument for their authority is therefore stronger the the argument against it especially when you consider the use of the DC in the Early Church writings. Which is the point. Show me in the NT where it says that the DC unequivically is not authoritative in some respect.

I did not miss any point. The very notion...absurd
I am trying to make my point and as DT points out; it might be throwing a cold blanket on BOTH sides actually.
One cannot say the DC were in the LXX at the time of Christ.
We have no existing copies at the time.
The ECF quote some, not others, and ones that never made it in.
The earliest copies do not contain the same books.
People are trying to oversimplify the argument on one side and on the other side overstate their case...in my humble opinion...

 

[Matt Black]

There is not a single reputable scholar who sees numerous. The general number given is 3 to 6.
When you compare the number of quotes from the OT with the possible quotes, and they are all possible quotes, not confirmed, there is no comparison.

OH, quite a few more:

Matt 2:16 references Wisdom 11:7
Matt 7:16-20 ditto Sirach 27:6
Matt 16:16 - Wisdom 16:13
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - ironically, here the Sadducees, although not recognising any books outwith the Penteteuch as being canonical, nevertheless quote from Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 re the 7 brothers
Mark 9:48 - Jesus quotes from Judith 16:17
Luke 21:24 - Jesus quotes from Sirach 28:18

etc. And that's just from the Synoptic Gospels. I could go on but I think the point is made: whether or not you regard this as evidence that the DCs were accepted as authoritative in the time of Jesus, I think it should lay to rest your doubts as to their existence at that time.

However, it is certainly possible that a few of the DC were in the LXX at the time of Christ but everyone I have EVER read said it was in flux until much later.

Then, with all due respect, you've been reading the wrong sources; as shown above, the Gospels themselves attest to their existence

 

[Matt Black]

That is why in the synagogues, in the time of Christ, it was the Hebrew Scriptures that were always read. That was their sacred language. It was the only one that was accepted as Scripture. All the Jews were required to learn it.

Hmmm...well, that's half of Daniel out the window then, since that's in Aramaic. So, to recap, we've lost the story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three from Daniel; now we have to excise Dan 2-7. Not a lot left now, is there?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I did not explain this point very well. Let me try it again.
The Hebrew canon (that is the OT) is arranged differently than ours. Genesis is the first book. And 2 Chronicles is the last books. Many of the books are combined together, so that while having the exact number of our books (39), they only have 22. For example the 12 Minor Prophets are all treated as one book called "The Twelve." Again, Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Canon. The last event and the last prophet to be mentioned in the Hebrew canon is Zacharias. What Jesus was saying is: From the very first prophet in the Bible to the very last prophet in the Bible, your blood will be upon them all. Malachi, of course, was included somewhere in the middle.
From the first to the last prophet. That effectively excluded the Apocrypha.

I was just taking a look at the Tenakh in the Neviim and the Treisar and found Malachi after Zachariah. Hmmmmm.

 

[BRIANH]

OH, quite a few more:

Matt 2:16 references Wisdom 11:7
Matt 7:16-20 ditto Sirach 27:6
Matt 16:16 - Wisdom 16:13
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - ironically, here the Sadducees, although not recognising any books outwith the Penteteuch as being canonical, nevertheless quote from Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 re the 7 brothers
Mark 9:48 - Jesus quotes from Judith 16:17
Luke 21:24 - Jesus quotes from Sirach 28:18

Let us look at the "quotes"

Matt 2:16 references Wisdom 11:


Matthew 2:16-17

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:

18 "A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted,
Because they are no more."



Wisdom 11:7
“For a manifest reproof of that commandment, whereby the infants were slain, thou gavest unto them abundance of water by a means which they hoped not for:”

Which OT event is it referenced? One prior to Wisdom 11:7? Of course! that is what Matthew 2:17 tells us in the next verse. The wording is not even similar. Matthew is referring to an event a long time prior to the DC and the wording is not even similiar.



'Matt 7:16-20 ditto Sirach 27:6"


Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Sirach 27:6 The fruit declareth if the tree have been dressed; so is the utterance of a conceit in the heart of man.


common saying worded completely differ. Both sentences do contain the word “fruit”. That is hard to imagine that Christ could not have come up with fruit without his scroll of Sirach handy….


Matt 16:16 - Wisdom 16:13

Mat 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Wisom 16:13: For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again.


Completely different verses.



Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - ironically, here the Sadducees, although not recognising any books outwith the Penteteuch as being canonical, nevertheless quote from Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 re the 7 brothers


Tobit 3:8
8: Because that she had been married to seven husbands, whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed, before they had lain with her. Dost thou not know, said they, that thou hast strangled thine husbands? thou hast had already seven husbands, neither wast thou named after any of them.

the number “seven” is used in both…Is that what you mean? Every time a number is used it means that is quotes from a book that uses 7?



Mark 9:48 quotes from Judith 16:17

Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Judith 16:17 Woe to the nations that rise up against my kindred! the Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgment, in putting fire and worms in their flesh; and they shall feel them, and weep for ever.


Or is it quoting Isaiah 66 written hundreds of years earlier?


And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


Luke 21:24 - Jesus quotes from Sirach 28:18


And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled

18: Many have fallen by the edge of the sword: but not so many as have fallen by the tongue.

Joshua
Jos 8:24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

The phrase "edge of the sword" is all over the OT. Including fallen with it.


This is a cut and paste from many different Catholic websites. Completely discredited time and time again. Vaguely similiar words used to prove quotations. Ignoring if the SAME phrase was used hundreds of years earlier. This is the proof of the NT using the DC? I can go through all hundred Catholics use to try to prove this. They are all the same.

www.confrontingcatholicism.com

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What about Hebrews. It clearly refers to 2 Macc.