Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter dje101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dje101

Guest
Hi everybody!

I’ve been doing research about the Apocrypha/Deutero-Canonical (DC) books of the Catholic Bible to see if they are scripture. I was raised Protestant so I always thought that these books were wrong in some way. Anyways, I found this really good website that shows how SO many verses in the NT refer back to the DC Books. It was a big help in moving me along with my research. I thought that it would be good to make it public for you to use. Also, if you have any other resources both for me and others here, please post! Thanks! 😃

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
 
Thank you for the link.

I enjoy Biblical history and at Christmas I researched how the Jewish Hasmonian Dynasty was dissolved by the Herodians. That period of time elasped about 140 BC on into the time of Christ, the Apostles and the Early Church.

1 and 2 Macabees are central to my understanding of the Hasmonian Dynasty, and to understanding why Herod killed the innocents after the Magi asked him, “Where is the newborn, King of the Jews?”

2 Macabees records the last mention of the wood/gold Ark of the Covenant - the prefigurement of the virgin Mother who would become the bearer of the Son of God.
 
dje101 said:
Hi everybody!

I’ve been doing research about the Apocrypha/Deutero-Canonical (DC) books of the Catholic Bible to see if they are scripture. I was raised Protestant so I always thought that these books were wrong in some way. Anyways, I found this really good website that shows how SO many verses in the NT refer back to the DC Books. It was a big help in moving me along with my research. I thought that it would be good to make it public for you to use. Also, if you have any other resources both for me and others here, please post! Thanks! 😃

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Click to expand...
See also:

How Big is Your Book of Daniel?
 
Barbkw said:
Thank you for the link.

I enjoy Biblical history and at Christmas I researched how the Jewish Hasmonian Dynasty was dissolved by the Herodians. That period of time elasped about 140 BC on into the time of Christ, the Apostles and the Early Church.

1 and 2 Macabees are central to my understanding of the Hasmonian Dynasty, and to understanding why Herod killed the innocents after the Magi asked him, “Where is the newborn, King of the Jews?”

2 Macabees records the last mention of the wood/gold Ark of the Covenant - the prefigurement of the virgin Mother who would become the bearer of the Son of God.
Click to expand...
wow, sounds like you like to do some intense studying. where did you get your information for all of that?
 
dje101 said:
wow, sounds like you like to do some intense studying. where did you get your information for all of that?
Click to expand...
Online searches 🙂 One thing lead my to the next.

Ark of the Covenant Disappears: google.com/search?q=arc+of+the+covenant+maccabees+disappears&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

Maccabean Revolt: google.com/search?q=maccabean+revolt&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

Festival of Lights Hanukkah: google.com/search?q=festival+of+lights+hanukkah&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

Hasmonean Dynasty: google.com/search?q=hasmonean+dynasty&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

Mariamne the Hasmonean: google.com/search?q=mariamne+the+hasmonean+&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

Herod the Great: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Herodian Dynasty: google.com/search?q=Herodian+dynasty+&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7
 
 
The internet makes research so much fun! Plus being able to print off or transfer the information to Word so easily.
 
dje101 said:
Hi everybody!

I’ve been doing research about the Apocrypha/Deutero-Canonical (DC) books of the Catholic Bible to see if they are scripture. I was raised Protestant so I always thought that these books were wrong in some way. Anyways, I found this really good website that shows how SO many verses in the NT refer back to the DC Books. It was a big help in moving me along with my research. I thought that it would be good to make it public for you to use. Also, if you have any other resources both for me and others here, please post! Thanks! 😃

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Click to expand...
Did youi find these two convincing…just curious…

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.
 
dje101,

An analysis has been performed of the wording used by Christ and his Apostles when they cited/referred to the OT, and the overwhelming conclusion is that they were referring to the Septuagint, which was prevalent in Palestine at that time.

For me, it has always been a matter of simple logic/faith: why would Christ and his Apostles quote from a version of an OT that contained “illicit” or “uninspired” books?

Seems very, very unlikely . . .
 
Since we’re talking about the Canon. Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 22: Who can deny that sort of Wisdom?

God bless,
 
Salvatore123 said:
dje101,

An analysis has been performed of the wording used by Christ and his Apostles when they cited/referred to the OT, and the overwhelming conclusion is that they were referring to the Septuagint, which was prevalent in Palestine at that time.

For me, it has always been a matter of simple logic/faith: why would Christ and his Apostles quote from a version of an OT that contained “illicit” or “uninspired” books?

Seems very, very unlikely . . .
Click to expand...
The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown. The earliest existing versions 300 years later disagreed so no one should be too certain about what the LXX did or did not contain 300 years earlier. There is simply no evidence either way.
Your thoughts?
 
Rightlydivide said:
The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown. The earliest existing versions 300 years later disagreed so no one should be too certain about what the LXX did or did not contain 300 years earlier. There is simply no evidence either way.
Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yeah, i’ve read that too that there is no evidence to confirm that Jesus and the apostles used the LXX. But check out the link that I’ve posted in the original post. It is a full web page of all of the verses in the NT that are either similar or word for word what is written in the DC books. Even if there is no proof that the apostles and Jesus used the LXX, that web page has seriously made me consider that they did. I have checked them all, but I checked majority of the ones in Matthew and they were correct. Check it for yourself and let me know what you think. 👍
 
dje101 said:
Yeah, i’ve read that too that there is no evidence to confirm that Jesus and the apostles used the LXX. But check out the link that I’ve posted in the original post. It is a full web page of all of the verses in the NT that are either similar or word for word what is written in the DC books. Even if there is no proof that the apostles and Jesus used the LXX, that web page has seriously made me consider that they did. I have checked them all, but I checked majority of the ones in Matthew and they were correct. Check it for yourself and let me know what you think. 👍
Click to expand...
I find the list inaccurate and unconvincing. There are good lists in good books containing up to 6-10 possible allusions to the deuterocanonical books. No direct quotes but possible allusions.
The central problem with that particular list are numerous. First of all, any phrase that has similiar wording, even when it exists in an earlier form in the 39 books we agree on, is cited as referring to the deuterocanonical books. Some phrases that appear scores of time in much older books but yet the list would lead you to believe it is from a more recent source. I also quoted two items from the list. I wish someone would address them. They, in my opinion, discredit the scholarship of the person who compiled the list.
But my other point needs to be mentioned again. No one knows what the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ were. There are no lists from that era. No copies of the LXX. The earliest ones are 300 years later and contain different books. What reason would anyone have to think that the LXX contained the DC books books? There is simply no evidence to indicate that.
 
Lets be frank, if I told you
George Washington followed President Obama in his speeches…what would you think about my credibility?
 
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.

These are on your link.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I find the list inaccurate and unconvincing. There are good lists in good books containing up to 6-10 possible allusions to the deuterocanonical books. No direct quotes but possible allusions.
The central problem with that particular list are numerous. First of all, any phrase that has similiar wording, even when it exists in an earlier form in the 39 books we agree on, is cited as referring to the deuterocanonical books. Some phrases that appear scores of time in much older books but yet the list would lead you to believe it is from a more recent source. I also quoted two items from the list. I wish someone would address them. They, in my opinion, discredit the scholarship of the person who compiled the list.
But my other point needs to be mentioned again. No one knows what the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ were. There are no lists from that era. No copies of the LXX. The earliest ones are 300 years later and contain different books. What reason would anyone have to think that the LXX contained the DC books books? There is simply no evidence to indicate that.
Click to expand...
why do they discredit the scholarship of the person who compiled the list? honestly, i don’t think that the review in the DC books of what happened in the OT gives (intercessory or Elijah being taken up to heaven) discredit or credit the DC books. Since the DC books were written later than the OT books, they would have already known about those events, so they weren’t making a prophesy or anything. But the fact that so many parts of the NT allude to similar verses from the DC is a point that should be noted. Also, in Roman, Paul discusses how men and women willingly died so that they could receive a better resurrection. that story is told in the DC books. so if paul is using one of the DC books as history, isn’t there some credit due to the DC books as scripture?
 
Rightlydivide said:
I find the list inaccurate and unconvincing. There are good lists in good books containing up to 6-10 possible allusions to the deuterocanonical books. No direct quotes but possible allusions.
The central problem with that particular list are numerous. First of all, any phrase that has similiar wording, even when it exists in an earlier form in the 39 books we agree on, is cited as referring to the deuterocanonical books. Some phrases that appear scores of time in much older books but yet the list would lead you to believe it is from a more recent source. I also quoted two items from the list. I wish someone would address them. They, in my opinion, discredit the scholarship of the person who compiled the list.
But my other point needs to be mentioned again. No one knows what the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ were. There are no lists from that era. No copies of the LXX. The earliest ones are 300 years later and contain different books. What reason would anyone have to think that the LXX contained the DC books books? There is simply no evidence to indicate that.
Click to expand...
why do they discredit the scholarship of the person who compiled the list? honestly, i don’t think that the review in the DC books of what happened in the OT gives (intercessory or Elijah being taken up to heaven) discredit or credit the DC books. Since the DC books were written later than the OT books, they would have already known about those events, so they weren’t making a prophesy or anything. But the fact that so many parts of the NT allude to similar verses from the DC is a point that should be noted. Also, in Hebrews, Paul discusses how men and women willingly died so that they could receive a better resurrection. that story is told in the DC books. so if paul is using one of the DC books as history, isn’t there some credit due to the DC books as scripture?

check 2 Mac 7:1-42 with Hebrews 11:35.
 
Honestly because when he asserts that an earlier source follows a later source he is either unaware of the date (not acceptable) or attempting a fast one in my opinion.
If I turned a paper in at any level saying that George Washington’s speeches follow President Obama, you get an F.
If you disagree, I understand.
There are 6-10 possible allusions to the DC in the New Testament. You cited one of them. The list attempts to overstate the case through sheer numbers and loose, inaccurate, and fanciful connections.
Instead of emphasizing the ones that are real, it tries to overwhelm with a large amount of inaccuate and weak ones.
And we still have no knowledge or proof of the LXX at the time of Christ containing these books.
I believe the horse may be beaten enough. However I am happy to elaborate if need be!
Take care
 
Rightlydivide said:
Honestly because when he asserts that an earlier source follows a later source he is either unaware of the date (not acceptable) or attempting a fast one in my opinion.
If I turned a paper in at any level saying that George Washington’s speeches follow President Obama, you get an F.
If you disagree, I understand.
There are 6-10 possible allusions to the DC in the New Testament. You cited one of them. The list attempts to overstate the case through sheer numbers and loose, inaccurate, and fanciful connections.
Instead of emphasizing the ones that are real, it tries to overwhelm with a large amount of inaccuate and weak ones.
And we still have no knowledge or proof of the LXX at the time of Christ containing these books.
I believe the horse may be beaten enough. However I am happy to elaborate if need be!
Take care
Click to expand...
i don’t understand how this is the same as washington following president obama’s speeches. are you saying that the deutero-canonical books were written after the NT? i researched all of the DC books and they were all written at 1st - 2nd century BC. so forgive me, but i still don’t understand what the washington to obama metaphor is regarding. :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top