Is there any evidence that the Jews accepted the Deuterocanonicals?

[Mike_Dye]

They show up in the Sea Sea Scrolls which pre-date the Hebrew Canon

 

[SteveVH]

Exactly. Even at the time of Christ, there were large segments of the Jewish population ( the Sadducees) that only recognized the Pentateuch as Scriptural.

Indeed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Eleven Points of Contact Between the New Testament and the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament
By Gary Michuta

Is it true that the New Testament contains no references to the Deuterocanonical books, indicating that the inspired writers did not consider them to be an inspired source?

As all readers of the New Testament know, Our Blessed Lord and the sacred writers who consigned His doctrine to writing very often alluded to and actually quoted from the existing books of Scripture already complete at that time (the books which later became known as the Old Testament). There are over 330 direct quotations from the Old Testament included within the New and many more oblique references. This is an important fact; indeed, it was used by several of the early Fathers as a refutation of Marcionism, that ancient heresy which denied the inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures and held them to be of no value for Christians. More recently, however, some Protestant polemicists have suggested that the quoting of an Old Testament book within the pages of the New can be used as a test of canonicity; and that there are no such quotations from the Deuterocanonical books. The New Testament writers ignored the Deuteros altogether (or so the argument goes) and this apostolic “cold shoulder” is an infallible sign that the books in question are not to be regarded as Scripture.

Actually, the force of this argument, so commonly heard today, depends almost entirely upon ignorance of the contents of the Deuteros; most of the early Protestants were too familiar with them to even suggest such an absurd idea. Several early Protestant bibles not only included the Deuterocanon along with the New Testament, but actually contained cross-referencing notes pointing out the (supposedly non-existent) connections between the two! The original 1611 edition of the Protestant King James Bible, for instance, boasts eleven of such cross-references (and 102 between the Deuteros and the Old Testament!). The notes were removed from future editions.

To refute then this fallacious argument, let us begin here using the venerable King James Bible as our starting point. Let us examine the eleven points of contact recognized by the fathers of this greatest of all English bibles and see what they tell us about the relationship between the New Testament and that portion of the Old known as the Deuterocanon. (Michuta, Gary, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 26-27)

Matthew 6:14-15
14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Sirach 28:2
Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.

+++

Luke 6:31
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Tobit 4:15
Do to no one what you yourself dislike. Do not drink wine till you become drunk, nor let drunkenness accompany you on your way.

+++

Matthew 27:41-43
41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, "but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ "

Wisdom 2:15-18
15 Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." 21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, 22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

+++

Luke 14:13
13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,

Tobit 4:7
"Give alms from your possessions. Do not turn your face away from any of the poor, and God’s face will not be turned away from you.

+++

John 10:22
22 Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,

1 Maccabees 4:59
Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev.

+++

Romans 9:20
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ "

Wisdom 12:12
12 For who can say to you, “What have you done?” or who can oppose your decree? Or when peoples perish, who can challenge you, their maker; or who can come into your presence as vindicator of unjust men?
+++

Romans 9:21
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Wisdom 15:7
For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

+++

Romans 9:22
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

Wisdom 12:20
20 For these were enemies of your servants, doomed to death; yet, while you punished them with such solicitude and pleading, granting time and opportunity to abandon wickedness,

+++

Romans 11:34
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Wisdom 9:13
For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?

+++

2 Corinthians 9:7
7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Sirach 35:9
Give to the Most High as he has given to you, generously, according to your means.

+++

Hebrews 1:3
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Wisdom 7:26
For she is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.

+++

Hebrews 11:35
35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.

2 Maccabees 7:7
Do not be afraid of this executioner, but be worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that in the time of mercy I may receive you again with them."

+++

1 Maccabees 2:52
Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?

James 2: 21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[ericc]

Is there any Jewish person who says “These books are our most important ones” While including the Deuterocanonicals?

As other another poster has pointed out the Ethiopian Jews use the Septuagint. Since they were geographically and politically separated from the Rabbinic Jews, their practice is indicative of a less politically contaminated source of worship. The main question you may wish to ask yourself why would Ethiopian Jews use the Septuagint if not for continuation of an ancient practice. Obviously they don’t have the MT version.

Septuagint was used by Hellenistic Jews for 100-200+ years before the time of Jesus. So did those Jews worship wrongly using wrong books?

One therefore has to conclude that the removal of the deuterocanonicals is a relatively new event as history do show they were in used prior to the appearance of Christianity.

According to Josephus " we have but 22 books". According to Sadducees, they have 5. How many books is dependent on which views they subscribed to. Today Samaritan Jews and Karaite Jews accept the Pentatuech only. Ethiopian Jews still uses the Septuagint unless political pressure would persuade them to switch over to the MT.

According to Albert C. Sundberg, Jr. -a Protestant scholar- says the Talmud in a few places calls the book of “Sirach” scripture. He also mentions that the D.C.'s were circulated among the Pharisees, as seen below from the website department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

There are evidences of a continued use of this apocryphal literature in rabbinic
literature of later times. Sirach is quoted three times in the Talmud as
scripture. It is twice quoted with the introductory formula, “for so it is written in
the Book of Ben Sira.” Hagigh 13a; Yebamoth 63b; cf., Erubin 54a ]. Ben Sira
is also sometimes quoted as “Writings” when the rabbis were proof-
texting, e.g., “This matter is written in the Pentateuch, as written…, repeated in
the Prophets, as written…, mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written,
(here Sirach 12.15 is quoted), it was learned in the Mishnah,…” Baba Kamma
92b ]. Pfeiffer (1941:66) tells us that the Hebrew text of Sirach was still being
copied as late as the twelfth century C.E. It is cited by name in Sanhedrin 100b (
Yeb. 63c ), which quotes several verses. According to L. Israel (1905:390) single
verses appear in: Yer. Ber. 11b; Yer. Hag. 77c; Yer. Ta’an. 66d; Hag. 13a; Niddah
16b; Gen. R. 8, 10, 73; Lev. R. 33; Tan. Wayishlah 8; Tan., Mikkez. 10; Tan.
Hukkat. 1; etc.

 

[Moses613]

The biggest thing to me, is ask any Jewish scholar/rabbi what their holy texts are, and every single one if them will tell you more than the 39 book Old Testament. This is because Jewish tradition involves much more than just the written word. The Talmud and its commentaries are part of it. They’d never fathom reading the scripture outside that and it seems to me the deuterocanonicals fit in that type of tradition.

This thread seems to be mixing up two topics: 1) What books did Jews consider acceptable at the beginning of the Common Era? 2) What books do Jews today consider canonical?

I won’t try to answer 1). I think Leiman’s Canonization of Hebrew Scripture is probably an excellent starting point. He also completely rejects the whole Council of Jamnia theory. You have to define who you are talking about when you are talking about “Jews”. There were many sects at that time. As a contemporary religious Jew I have my opinions about who was right but I won’t get into that right now.

1. Contemporary Judaism holds only 24 books, from Genesis down to Ezra/Nehemiah (considered together as one book) to be canonical. (see mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm for a complete list of the Jewish bible.)
   Canonical means that the text is authoritative for religious use.
   Additionally, there is a large corpus of Rabbinical writings that are “authoritative” in Judaism but not “canonical,” because they are not considered Scripture. The authoritative writings would include the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. Additionally, there is a large body of traditional rabbinic works and commentaries from the medieval period which are revered and studied very seriously. However, they are not canonical, nor even definitively “authoritative.”

IT is true that in many domains, especially practical law, we read Scripture only within the context of our Sages’ interpretations. For example, the Torah says one may not burn a flame on the Sabbath day. We interpret that to mean one may not light a flame, but a flame lit before the Sabbath may be left burning. To contest that no flame may even be left burning on the Sabbath, as the Karaites do, is for us heretical.

Deuterocanonical books have little to no official religious status within modern Judaism. Books like Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, not to be confused with the canonical Ecclesiastes) and Maccabees are read with interest but are not considered “Torah” and are not on par even with the Talmud or Midrashim. Others, like Jubilees, are considered outright heretical. But if you ask a typical Jew, even an Orthodox Jew, about Jubilees (or in Hebrew, Sefer HaYovelim), s/he won’t have a clue what you’re talking about. It’s just not part of the equation whatsoever.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[benhur]

This thread seems to be mixing up two topics: 1) What books did Jews consider acceptable at the beginning of the Common Era? 2) What books do Jews today consider canonical?

I won’t try to answer 1). I think Leiman’s Canonization of Hebrew Scripture is probably an excellent starting point. He also completely rejects the whole Council of Jamnia theory. You have to define who you are talking about when you are talking about “Jews”. There were many sects at that time. As a contemporary religious Jew I have my opinions about who was right but I won’t get into that right now.

1. Contemporary Judaism holds only 24 books, from Genesis down to Ezra/Nehemiah (considered together as one book) to be canonical. (see mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm for a complete list of the Jewish bible.)
   Canonical means that the text is authoritative for religious use.
   Additionally, there is a large corpus of Rabbinical writings that are “authoritative” in Judaism but not “canonical,” because they are not considered Scripture. The authoritative writings would include the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. Additionally, there is a large body of traditional rabbinic works and commentaries from the medieval period which are revered and studied very seriously. However, they are not canonical, nor even definitively “authoritative.”

IT is true that in many domains, especially practical law, we read Scripture only within the context of our Sages’ interpretations. For example, the Torah says one may not burn a flame on the Sabbath day. We interpret that to mean one may not light a flame, but a flame lit before the Sabbath may be left burning. To contest that no flame may even be left burning on the Sabbath, as the Karaites do, is for us heretical.

Deuterocanonical books have little to no official religious status within modern Judaism. Books like Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, not to be confused with the canonical Ecclesiastes) and Maccabees are read with interest but are not considered “Torah” and are not on par even with the Talmud or Midrashim. Others, like Jubilees, are considered outright heretical. But if you ask a typical Jew, even an Orthodox Jew, about Jubilees (or in Hebrew, Sefer HaYovelim), s/he won’t have a clue what you’re talking about. It’s just not part of the equation whatsoever.

Hope that helps a little.

Thanks for clearing up that the Talmud is authoritative but not canonical and the deutero books are indeed Jewish but of religious interests only, but not canon. This also implies the Setpuagint was a collection of Jewish writings both “canonical” and those not but still of interest.

 

[benhur]

Septuagint was used by Hellenistic Jews for 100-200+ years before the time of Jesus.

Used but how? As authoritative ? As instructive? As a point of religious interest? And which books and what category ? I mean I use the bible, and many commentaries, and even Pilgrim’s Progress.
We today are conditioned to seeing our bible and it’s contents as equally authoritative. I am not sure, and have read here, that is not the case with the Septuagint.

As far as quoting a few rabbis or a few Talmudic references out of thousands is ok but not quite “canonizing”.

 

[ericc]

Used but how? As authoritative ? As instructive? As a point of religious interest? And which books and what category ? I mean I use the bible, and many commentaries, and even Pilgrim’s Progress.
We today are conditioned to seeing our bible and it’s contents as equally authoritative. I am not sure, and have read here, that is not the case with the Septuagint.

As far as quoting a few rabbis or a few Talmudic references out of thousands is ok but not quite “canonizing”.

As I mentioned previously, at that time, there was no common acceptance by Jewish groups what amount to “canon”. The clearest indicator was the MT but that is very late and only good for Rabbinic Judaism.

The Septuagint were used in the synagogues and that can be ascertained as historical fact. I wouldn’t know exactly how they were being used, which books were being read. However, we know Jesus celebrated Hanukkah and Hanukkah is a festival which commemorates the purification and rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabeus on 165 BC. So we know that the Jews celebrated an event originating from one of the deuteros. So why celebrate it if such a book were not held as authoritative. It is still being celebrated.

 

[benhur]

As I mentioned previously, at that time, there was no common acceptance by Jewish groups what amount to “canon”. The clearest indicator was the MT but that is very late and only good for Rabbinic Judaism.

 

[Jon_S_1]

ericc;13018190:

Well, it was more common acceptance than what you say .Surely the deutoro books were the least common as opposed to the most common first five books . Many say the Hebrew bible was as is today around 300 bc or just after Ezra /Nehemiah, end of the Persian reign.
Thank you for that admission. Give an inch take a mile.

Many would disagree, from Jesus "celebrating it’, to making therefore Macabees theo or God breathed. Notice Jesus never got past the Porch of Solomon, where the gentiles could hang out, and to “preach/teach” yet only to be almost stoned.

At most it attests to “tradition” of Hanuukah , and yes as founded by Mac. I would also not make the sources of our Christmas origins as God-breathed either. That is not to say a disciple can not use the occasion to preach /teach to further the kingdom.

Blessings

Why do you dislike them so much? Because it calls your tradition into question?

The fact is, that protestantism is entirely unique in how it looks at scripture. An invention s mere few centuries old.

They love to boast they have the same canon as the Jews but they don’t for they remove the canon from the tradition the Jews hold sacred such as the Talmud. No Jew would ever walk around reading and interpreting the bible without the aid of the 5000 year old tradition it sprang from.

In this regard judaism is far closer to catholicism than protestantism.

 

[ericc]

ericc;13018190:

Well, it was more common acceptance than what you say .Surely the deutoro books were the least common as opposed to the most common first five books . Many say the Hebrew bible was as is today around 300 bc or just after Ezra /Nehemiah, end of the Persian reign.
Thank you for that admission. Give an inch take a mile.

I don’t think comparing age of books will help. I do accept the Pentatuech is the oldest but that does not help our discussion. The Septuagint is older than the Catholic Bible and which is older than the MT and which is older than the Protestant Bible. We are also not debating whether deuteros were more or less common than the Pentatuech. The topic is whether we have evidence that deuteros were accepted by the Jews and the short answer is yes. This is not a popularity contest as to which books were more popular. And you can’t just dismissed Ethiopian Jews use of the Septuagint by ignoring them.

Many would disagree, from Jesus "celebrating it’, to making therefore Macabees theo or God breathed. Notice Jesus never got past the Porch of Solomon, where the gentiles could hang out, and to “preach/teach” yet only to be almost stoned.

At most it attests to “tradition” of Hanuukah , and yes as founded by Mac. I would also not make the sources of our Christmas origins as God-breathed either. That is not to say a disciple can not use the occasion to preach /teach to further the kingdom.

Jesus was IN the temple, in the portico of Solomon John 10:23. I don’t know why you need to differentiate which part of the temple he is in. He is in His Father’s house. One thing is clear; he is NOT outside the temple. This is a festival that is being observed in the temple every year by Jews. The fact is Jesus as a Jew observed Jewish festivals. Are you saying Jesus is NOT observing this festival but merely doing his preaching on temple grounds by piggbacking on the festival? Stake your position clearly. Did Jesus observed/celebrated/participated this festival? Yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[jimkhong]

Protestant Reformers justified this rejection by the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the Council of Javneh in A.D. 90. However these were only European Jews; African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews accepted the Deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible.

Was there really a Council of Javneh/Jamnia? I understand that it was a 19th century theory that is now discredited.