Jesus quoting Deutrocanonicals

  • Thread starter Thread starter dancny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Publisher said:
It’s not an issue whether he quoted the LXX or not to me…my only issue is when those who seek to “prove” that the LXX is the “scriptures Jesus used” has no basis in fact…it is doubtful he used the LXX being a Palestinian Jew teaching within the confines of the Temple influence which was very “Jewish”…the Pharisees and Saducees were not too keen on the Hellenist influence within Judaism…the Pharisees…as can be attested after the destruction of the Temple and their conflict with the fledgling Christian sect of Judaism. Christians used the LXX as most of them were Greek speaking Jews who had little or no knowledge of Hebrew.

No, whethere Jesus ever quoted the duet/apoc book ro used the LXX has no bearing on the salvation he offers to all who believe in him.
Click to expand...
I hear you out,but I beg to differ to state it is "doubtfu"l he used the LXX,because as I stated,the opposition also has no basis historically to make such a claim.
 
Nicea325 said:
I hear you out,but I beg to differ to state it is "doubtfu"l he used the LXX,because as I stated,the opposition also has no basis historically to make such a claim.
Click to expand...
Understood…I guess the question of what version of Tanach the Jews of first century Palestine would have used in the synagouges and in the Temple…that would be a fairly good indication whether the LXX was used by Jesus or not…since his ministry was in Palestine in general…Jerusalem in particular as he dealt with the Jewish authorities…

So if that question could be answered…it might be an indication of the assertion…one way or another…maybe not a definitive answer…but a good indication…at least I’d think so.
 
Publisher said:
The writers of the gospels did use the LXX…the writers of the gospels were not “eyewitness” accounts…nor were they written by any of the original apostles…
Click to expand...
Is it your theology and doctrine that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired and inerrant Word of God? Is it also your theology and doctrine that the writer of Mark was inspired of the Holy Spirit when he wrote the gospel that bears his name? How do you even know that someone named Mark did in fact write the Gospel of Mark? Or do you believe, as Markan priorists believe, that the Gospels were written by anonymous authors, to whom were given the familiar names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Why *are *the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Why not Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette (while not forgetting the venerable Q)? I have no wish to be facetious, but it is necessary to be blunt in order to bring home an important point. The use of familiar names to describe unknown alleged authors, emotionally clouds a clear understanding of what Markan priorists wish us to believe: that the community that produced Q later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of Q and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

From Apostles and Apostolic Men:
In the records left by the ancient historians, a sharp distinction is made between two sets of gospel authors – the Apostles and ‘apostolic men’.
Click to expand...
For 2000 years Christians have taught that ‘the Apostles’ referred to Christ’s companions - Matthew and John, while ‘apostolic men’ referred to Luke and Mark. These last two had to use secondary sources.
Click to expand...
Before the four gospels were bound together, they were listed and used in a variety of orders. A popular sequence was Matthew- Luke-Mark and John. We have records that theologians quoted the Scriptures in this sequence, and liturgical readings often followed this pattern. St. Jerome in his book, ‘Illustrious Men’, adhered to the same order. St Clement of Alexandria, successor to the bishopric of Mark, specifically stated that Matthew and Luke wrote first, so emphasising that Luke wrote before Mark.
Click to expand...
St. Augustine explained that while the ‘received’ order was Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, the order of dignity was, Matthew- John-Mark-Luke. In his fourth book, he says that Mark developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke, so confirming that Luke wrote before Mark.
…
Click to expand...
From How, Why and When the Gospels?
For two hundred years those aiming to destroy Christian civilization have been undermining belief in the historical reliability of the Gospels. They have had much success and, even in devout Christian Circles, they have brought about an attitude of widespread hesitation. This has lead to the comprehensive historical evidence, regarding the writing of the Gospels, to be rarely publicized today.
Click to expand...
Yet when we go back to the original sources we find that it is easy to build a clear picture of what occurred. The evidence of ancient historians, modern literary analysis and church documents is available in the booklet: ‘The Authors of the Gospels’, available elsewhere on this web site. However, when examining this evidence in detail, piece by piece, it is easy to lose sight of the overall picture. This article aims to provide this overall picture while keeping references to a minimum.
…
Click to expand...
You “do not believe there is compelling evidence to embrace [my] beliefs” but I strongly suspect you haven’t even *examined *the compelling evidence.
 
Publisher said:
Understood…I guess the question of what version of Tanach the Jews of first century Palestine would have used in the synagouges and in the Temple…that would be a fairly good indication whether the LXX was used by Jesus or not…since his ministry was in Palestine in general…Jerusalem in particular as he dealt with the Jewish authorities…

So if that question could be answered…it might be an indication of the assertion…one way or another…maybe not a definitive answer…but a good indication…at least I’d think so.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, from what I have read and studied the Jews depending on the specific group of Jews were reading different writings. Now it has been said the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as scripture and rejected others.
 
Erich said:
Is it your theology and doctrine that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired and inerrant Word of God? Is it also your theology and doctrine that the writer of Mark was inspired of the Holy Spirit when he wrote the gospel that bears his name? How do you even know that someone named Mark did in fact write the Gospel of Mark? Or do you believe, as Markan priorists believe, that the Gospels were written by anonymous authors, to whom were given the familiar names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Why *are *the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Why not Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette (while not forgetting the venerable Q)? I have no wish to be facetious, but it is necessary to be blunt in order to bring home an important point. The use of familiar names to describe unknown alleged authors, emotionally clouds a clear understanding of what Markan priorists wish us to believe: that the community that produced Q later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of Q and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

From Apostles and Apostolic Men:

From How, Why and When the Gospels?

You “do not believe there is compelling evidence to embrace [my] beliefs”** but I strongly suspect you haven’t even *examined ***the compelling evidence.
Click to expand...
Friend, your suspicions would be quite incorrect. 🙂
 
Nicea325 said:
Unfortunately, from what I have read and studied the Jews depending on the specific group of Jews were reading different writings. Now it has been said the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as scripture and rejected others.
Click to expand...
That is true of the Sadducees…the Phaisees were different and from the direction Judaism took after the fall/destruction of the Temple, the rabbinical tradition seemed to indicate the LXX was not widely used by Jews within the “confines” of Jerusalem and the Temple since by the destruction of the Temple, the LXX was firmly entrenched in Christian circles since most Jewish Christians were of the Greek speaking Diaspora and Gentiles spoke Greek…not too many Hebrew scholars among them…I would suspect the “Jewish canon” we have today in the Tanach was of “rabbinical tradition”…unless the Pharisees made a radical change in reaction to the Christians using the LXX…again…not definitive nor absolute proof one way or another.
 
Publisher said:
That is true of the Sadducees…the Phaisees were different and from the direction Judaism took after the fall/destruction of the Temple, the rabbinical tradition seemed to indicate the LXX was not widely used by Jews within the “confines” of Jerusalem and the Temple since by the destruction of the Temple, the LXX was firmly entrenched in Christian circles since most Jewish Christians were of the Greek speaking Diaspora and Gentiles spoke Greek…not too many Hebrew scholars among them…I would suspect the “Jewish canon” we have today in the Tanach was of “rabbinical tradition”…unless the Pharisees made a radical change in reaction to the Christians using the LXX…again…not definitive nor absolute proof one way or another.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is not an easy matter to tackle, let alone prove it with concrete evidence. I have about 4 books dealing with this matter, 1 Catholic scholar, 1 Anglican and 2 mainline Protestant scholars and all four share many close examinations and conclusions. It is a common belief the early Christians did use the LXX as you stated and even my NIV Study Bible makes reference to such a position.

God Bless
 
Nicea325 said:
Indeed it is not an easy matter to tackle, let alone prove it with concrete evidence. I have about 4 books dealing with this matter, 1 Catholic scholar, 1 Anglican and 2 mainline Protestant scholars and all four share many close examinations and conclusions. It is a common belief the early Christians did use the LXX as you stated and even my NIV Study Bible makes reference to such a position.

God Bless
Click to expand...
That the early Christians used the LXX isn’t even in doubt with me…that Jesus used the LXX and quoted from it is where my doubt lies.🙂
 
Publisher said:
That the early Christians used the LXX isn’t even in doubt with me…that Jesus used the LXX and quoted from it is where my doubt lies.🙂
Click to expand...
And it is fair and understandable why many doubt Jesus quoting the LXX. I personally believe He did and possibly even non-Jewish philosophers such as Aristole or Plato,yet it is not mentioned.
 
this list is the best that I have seen.

in passing, Wisdom 2 is mentioned.

to elaborate more on Wisdom 2:12-22, it is every bit as detailed and profound as any of the Suffering servant portions of Isaiah in describing the passion and death of Jesus.

thank you, Jesus!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top