"extra-canonical books"

[Alma147]

All I know is Catholics have the same books Jesus used and every other person calling themselves a Christian for 1500 years.

Not necessarily. It appears that Jesus had more “scripture” than Catholics or others calling themselves Christians:

John 7:38: 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

There is no other recognized canonical passage that says, “out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” Consequently for Jesus to refer to this as a quotation of scripture is clear indication that He had scripture we don’t have."

Alma

 

[SteveVH]

And your point? Just because the LXX was translated in the 3rd century BCE, doesn’t mean Jesus used the LXX being born some centuries later…it was translated for the Greek speaking Diaspora…Jesus was a Palestinian Jew…the writers of the NT were Greek speaking Jews of the Diaspora.

My point is that the books included in the Septuagint were what had been used by the Jews, regardless of the language translation, for 300 years before Christ. It was a Greek translation of the Jewish “Old Testament”, so it certainly existed in more places than Greek speaking countries. No other “canon”, if you will, was in existence until the 6th century. So whether Christ read them in Hebrew or in Greek, if he read the scriptures (which he did) he was reading the books included in the Septuagint. If the authors of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint, it was to remind the reader of something they had already heard, in most cases a prophecy. Why are you so opposed to believing that Jesus read these books?

 

[Publisher]

My point is that the books included in the Septuagint were what had been used by the Jews, regardless of the language translation, for 300 years before Christ. It was a Greek translation of the Jewish “Old Testament”, so it certainly existed in more places than Greek speaking countries. No other “canon”, if you will, was in existence until the 6th century. So whether Christ read them in Hebrew or in Greek, if he read the scriptures (which he did) he was reading the books included in the Septuagint. If the authors of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint, it was to remind the reader of something they had already heard, in most cases a prophecy. Why are you so opposed to believing that Jesus read these books?

Friend, please cite in ANY of my posts…JUST ONE WILL DO…where I suggested Jesus DIDN’T read or was at least familiar with the “extra” books in the LXX? My assertion is that since Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, and his principle language was Aramaic/Hebrew not Greek, that he would have used the scriptures in his languange used in Palestine.

The LXX was translated FOR the Diaspora…the Diaspora spoke Greek as their primary language, so the scriptures they would have read would have been Greek…Jesus would have used the scriputres written in his spoken language…and used the same scriptures in synagouge and Temple…he did not use Greek as his primary language…but Hebrew/Aramaic and would have used Hebrew/Aramaic…

The writers of the NT were all Jews of the DIaspora…I realize you believe they were written by his apostles…and since being written by his apostles, since they quoted from the LXX would have used the LXX…on this we disagree.

If believing Jesus used the LXX makes your faith more real to you…great…but such an assertion makes no sense to me.

 

[Prosmith]

There is a list at the link below, which says, “The original translation of the A.V. cross-referenced 12 New Testament passages to the Apocrypha.”

biblewiki.be/wiki/References_to_the_Apocrypha_in_the_New_Testament

Not all of these are quotes; some are just historical references, such as to the feast of the dedication that was instituted by Judas Maccabaeus (John 10:22 referenced to 1 Macc 4:59).

The strongest parallel might be that of Hebrews 11:35 to a story told about in 2 Macc 7. James Akin cites that one under the “The Apostles & the Deuteros” section of a short article here:
ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm

Ok, thanks for that.

 

[Contarini]

Jesus and his apostles quoted many times from the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible. Why do non-Catholics not have these books in their bibles?

Actually I can’t think of any indubitable direct quotation. There are a number of likely references/paraphrases.

There are several quotations from books that everyone agrees are not canonical (well, Enoch–which is quoted in Jude–is accepted by the Ethiopians, I believe), including pagan writers.

So this criterion doesn’t work. That tells against Protestants, who use the lack of explicit quotation as a reason not to include the books (some of them argue, incorrectly, that Jesus did quote from the entire Hebrew canon–they get this result by letting the Psalms stand in for the entire body of “Writings,” which is cheating).

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

Friend, please cite in ANY of my posts…JUST ONE WILL DO…where I suggested Jesus DIDN’T read or was at least familiar with the “extra” books in the LXX? My assertion is that since Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, and his principle language was Aramaic/Hebrew not Greek, that he would have used the scriptures in his languange used in Palestine.

The LXX was translated FOR the Diaspora…the Diaspora spoke Greek as their primary language, so the scriptures they would have read would have been Greek…Jesus would have used the scriputres written in his spoken language…and used the same scriptures in synagouge and Temple…he did not use Greek as his primary language…but Hebrew/Aramaic and would have used Hebrew/Aramaic…

The writers of the NT were all Jews of the DIaspora…I realize you believe they were written by his apostles…and since being written by his apostles, since they quoted from the LXX would have used the LXX…on this we disagree.

If believing Jesus used the LXX makes your faith more real to you…great…but such an assertion makes no sense to me.

Then I have misunderstood you. Also, I do not believe that the writers of the NT were all Apostles and I don’t think I have made that statement anywhere. Your patronizing last statement is not real helpful. The entire point of this conversation is that the great majority of non-Catholic Christians have abandoned the deutero-canonical books when it can be demonstrated that Christ and his disciples considered them scripture.

 

[jrtrent]

This is still the best answer. Further clarification of Jerome’s position:

“St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine.” newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[jrtrent]

The OP specifically asked “Why do non-Catholics not have these books in their bibles?” It would seem that this forum is the most logical place to expect non-catholics to see and respond to the question.

 

[JonNC]

This is still the best answer. Further clarification of Jerome’s position:

“St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine.” newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

This! Note, however, that he does not say to exclude them completely, but that they ought to be read liturgically.

Jon