Preaching from the apocrypha

BornAgainRN

Active member
After all, the Apostle Paul quoted a Greek poet in Acts 17, yet does anyone say those works were theopneustos?

--Rich
Exactly! That is why Catholics saying the NT alludes to the Deuteros doesn't take into account it also alludes to writings from pagan poets...but neither of these writings as Scripture.
 

Theophilos

Active member
I'm afraid you just argued in a circle. Again, the Masoretic texts not quoted in the NT as Scripture were either originally attached to one that was (like Jeremiah), or it was part of the canon of the Jews (like Esther). Again, while the Deuterocanonical books are alluded to in the NT: 1) they are not quoted as Scripture; and 2) not all of them are alluded to in the NT. And, again, there are other books the NT directly quotes that are neither from the Masoretic Text nor from the Deuteros. The "OT CANON the ancient Christians used" was the books from the Masoretic Text, not the Deuteros, since: 1) it was not in the canon of the Jews that were laid up in Temple; and 2) they were not in the OT of "ancient Christians" until after the first century.
There are several scripture quotes in the New Testament that are found only in the LXX:

1) Let all God’s angels worship him. Hebrews 1:6, Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX

2) According to Luke, Jesus read from the scroll in the synagogue in Nazareth and quotes from the LXX:
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind . . . Luke 4:18, Isaiah 61:1 LXX

3) The apostle met in Jerusalem to discuss gentile converts and quoted this passage from LXX Amos:
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name . . .
Acts 15:17, Amos 9:12 LXX

The modern Hebrew text says nothing about gentiles seeking the Lord:

That they may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name . . .
Amos 9:12 NKJV

Greek-speaking Jews, such as the Bereans and the Timothy's family, used the LXX as their scriptures and it had a larger canon than that used by the Pharisees in Jerusalem. These scriptures were the original Christian bible and became the basis for the Christian Old Testament. They are the scriptures that Paul specifically praises in this passage:

. . . from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . . 2 Tim 3:15-16 NKJV
 
Last edited:

ziapueblo

Active member
I'm afraid you just argued in a circle. Again, the Masoretic texts not quoted in the NT as Scripture were either originally attached to one that was (like Jeremiah), or it was part of the canon of the Jews (like Esther). Again, while the Deuterocanonical books are alluded to in the NT: 1) they are not quoted as Scripture; and 2) not all of them are alluded to in the NT. And, again, there are other books the NT directly quotes that are neither from the Masoretic Text nor from the Deuteros. The "OT CANON the ancient Christians used" was the books from the Masoretic Text, not the Deuteros, since: 1) it was not in the canon of the Jews that were laid up in Temple; and 2) they were not in the OT of "ancient Christians" until after the first century.
The ancient Christians used the Septuagint, especially since Greek was the "lingua franca" of the time. Nobody was walking around speaking Hebrew except for a few. When the New Testament quotes the Old, more that 90% of the time these quotes come from the Septuagint, which the "Deuterocanonical" books are part of. If the Septuagint was good enough for St Paul and the other NT writers, its good enough for me.
 

BornAgainRN

Active member
There are several scripture quotes in the New Testament that are found only in the LXX:

1) Let all God’s angels worship him. Hebrews 1:6, Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX

2) According to Luke, Jesus read from the scroll in the synagogue in Nazareth and quotes from the LXX:
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind . . . Luke 4:18, Isaiah 61:1 LXX

3) The apostle met in Jerusalem to discuss gentile converts and quoted this passage from LXX Amos:
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name . . .
Acts 15:17, Amos 9:12 LXX

The modern Hebrew text says nothing about gentiles seeking the Lord:

That they may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name . . .
Amos 9:12 NKJV

Greek-speaking Jews, such as the Bereans and the Timothy's family, used the LXX as their scriptures and it had a larger canon than that used by the Pharisees in Jerusalem. These scriptures were the original Christian bible and became the basis for the Christian Old Testament. They are the scriptures that Paul specifically praises in this passage:

. . . from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . . 2 Tim 3:15-16 NKJV
Yes, and all of these are from books from the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible. None from the Deuterocanon.
 

BornAgainRN

Active member
The ancient Christians used the Septuagint, especially since Greek was the "lingua franca" of the time. Nobody was walking around speaking Hebrew except for a few. When the New Testament quotes the Old, more that 90% of the time these quotes come from the Septuagint, which the "Deuterocanonical" books are part of. If the Septuagint was good enough for St Paul and the other NT writers, its good enough for me.
Yes, and when it quotes from the Septuagint, it only quotes books - as Scripture - from the books from the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible. The Deuterocanon was in the Septuagint in the days of the apostle Paul & the NT writers.
 

Theophilos

Active member
Yes, and when it quotes from the Septuagint, it only quotes books - as Scripture - from the books from the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible. The Deuterocanon was in the Septuagint in the days of the apostle Paul & the NT writers.
The New Testament includes quotes from the Old Testament that only survive in the LXX.

How does that reconcile with the idea that the Old Testament based on Hebrew scriptures used by modern Jews is complete?
 
Last edited:

BornAgainRN

Active member
The New Testament includes quotes from the Old Testament that only survive in the LXX.

How does that reconcile with the idea that the Old Testament based on Hebrew scriptures used by modern Jews is complete?
Because the only books FROM the Septuagint that the NT quotes from as Scripture are from the books from the Hebrew Scriptures. IOW, it does not quote from books OUTSIDE of the boundaries of the Hebrew Scriptures as Scripture, such as Sirach, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Greek additions of Daniel & Esther, Baruch, Judith, nor Tobit.
 

Theophilos

Active member
Are the books from the modern Hebrew scriptures really complete if the New Testament quotes passages that exist only in the LXX?

Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the New Testament. Should they be deleted from Christian bibles?
 
Last edited:

ziapueblo

Active member
Yes, and when it quotes from the Septuagint, it only quotes books - as Scripture - from the books from the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible. The Deuterocanon was in the Septuagint in the days of the apostle Paul & the NT writers.
Whether a book is quoted or not is not the litmus test of whether it is Scripture or not. St Paul quotes texts that are not Scripture. Should they be added to the Scriptures, because he quotes them?
 

BornAgainRN

Active member
Are the books from the modern Hebrew scriptures really complete if the New Testament quotes passages that exist only in the LXX?

Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the New Testament. Should they be deleted from Christian bibles?
I'm afraid you aren't understanding the argument, which is not that a book is only Scripture if the NT quotes it. Rather, we know that a book is Scripture if the NT quotes it with phrases like "it is written." There are dozens of books that the NT quotes that are in neither Protestant nor Catholic Bibles. That doesn't make them Scripture. But there are other ways we know those books you mentioned that are not quoted in the NT are Scripture, because either they were part of a book that was (like Lamentations originally being a part of Jeremiah, or Nahum being part of the single book of "the 12 minor prophets" of which Hosea, Zechariah, & Malachi were quoted as Scripture in the NT), or it was part of the books of the Hebrew Bible, like Esther. And only the books of the Hebrew Bible, including the ones you listed, were laid up in the Temple. But none of the books from the Deuterocanon were.
 

BornAgainRN

Active member
Whether a book is quoted or not is not the litmus test of whether it is Scripture or not. St Paul quotes texts that are not Scripture. Should they be added to the Scriptures, because he quotes them?
No, because that is not the argument being made. As I mentioned to Theophilos, when the NT quotes a book with a phrase like "it is written," we can be certain that it is quoting it as Scripture. But those that the NT doesn't quote with a phrase like this, we can be certain if it is, if either it was part of a book that the NT does quote as Scripture, or it was part of the Hebrew Bible that was laid up in the Temple. See my more detailed explanation to Theophilos above.
 
Top