OT books quoted by Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
I understand that Christ did not reference all of the books of the OT.
How many OT books did Christ actually quote from or reference?
Which OT books did he not reference?

I’m particularly interested in those not referenced that are part of the 39 book OT.
Also, are there OT books that are not “doctrinally important”? Again I’m mainly interested in those contained in the 39 book OT canon.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
I understand that Christ did not reference all of the books of the OT.
How many OT books did Christ actually quote from or reference?
Which OT books did he not reference?

I’m particularly interested in those not referenced that are part of the 39 book OT.
Also, are there OT books that are not “doctrinally important”? Again I’m mainly interested in those contained in the 39 book OT canon.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
  1. There are 46 books in the OT not 39. Protestant Canon is only 39. All books in the Bible are doctrinally important. There are books in which aren’t in scripture that Jesus quoted from.
    2 Some of the books he did quote from are the book of Wisdom and Ecclesasticus
 
melchesidechpio said:
  1. There are 46 books in the OT not 39. Protestant Canon is only 39. All books in the Bible are doctrinally important. There are books in which aren’t in scripture that Jesus quoted from.
    2 Some of the books he did quote from are the book of Wisdom and Ecclesasticus
Click to expand...
It seems that perhaps you did not understand my question or perhaps I was not clear. I am fully aware of the number fo books in the Catholic OT canon. I am also aware that Protestants don’t accept all of these and equally aware that the EO accepts more than 46.
Likwise I am aware that Christ referenced the deutero’s.

Now perhaps you could help me out by telling me which OT books he (or the other NT writers) did NOT reference. For instance, is Obadiah refernced anywhere, how about Zephaniah, Haggai and Nahum?

I am curious and would appreciate any help.

Peace
James
 
I can’t find the NT quoting these books (does not include Deuteros, I haven’t checked them)


  1. *]Joshua
    *]Judges
    *]Ruth
    *]2Kings
    *]1 Chronicles
    *]2 Chronicles
    *]Ezra
    *]Nehemiah
    *]Esther
    *]Ecclesiastes
    *]Song of Solomon
    *]Obadiah
    *]Nahum
    *]Zephaniah

    There are single word refs to Gideon Barak Samson Jephthah (Heb 11 > Judges) or Ruth (Matt 1), or genealogical info eg in 1 Chronicles (to Matt 1)…but I didn’t count these.

    I got my info from back of UBS4 GNT ‘index of quotations’. I have to check but in their ‘index of allusions and verbal parallels’ I think every book (except Song of Sol) is covered including Deuteros.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

start here.
Click to expand...
You’ll find that these, while good, are not direct quotes. As such I have had protestants reject that as proof that “Jesus used the deutero’s” or that they are “God Breathed”.

This is the reason that I asked for the other books that Jesus did not quote from.
If Jesus (or any NT writer) referencing them is a requirement then, based on John7’s list above, we are left with an OT canon of 25 books. 🤷

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
You’ll find that these, while good, are not direct quotes. As such I have had protestants reject that as proof that “Jesus used the deutero’s” or that they are “God Breathed”.

This is the reason that I asked for the other books that Jesus did not quote from.
If Jesus (or any NT writer) referencing them is a requirement then, based on John7’s list above, we are left with an OT canon of 25 books. 🤷

Peace
James
Click to expand...
that is why my responce was to Vince1022 and his question
Code: 
                                 "Where? Thanks."
and I stated to start there.
 
The argument with Protestants, concerning how valid a book of the OT is, based upon whether Christ quoted from them, is foolish on their part if they are using that to reject the Deuters. Especially since other OT books are not quoted by any NT authors. First of all they need to consider that Christ may have quoted them, but they are just not recorded by the NT authors. St. John tells us that Jesus said many things that were too many to write down. And anyone with a little bit of sense knows that what words that are recorded in the NT of Christ is not all of what He said. Protestant arguements against apostolic Tradition is so weak that their own canon proves that they depend on some tradition in order to determine what books are inspired.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
The argument with Protestants, concerning how valid a book of the OT is, based upon whether Christ quoted from them, is foolish on their part if they are using that to reject the Deuters.
Click to expand...
That is not the reason Protestants do not include the deuterocanonicals in their canon.

The reason is that the 39 books they do accept were thought to have been originally written in Hebrew, and are the canon accepted by the Jews for their Scripture.
 
Vince1022 said:
That is not the reason Protestants do not include the deuterocanonicals in their canon.

The reason is that the 39 books they do accept were thought to have been originally written in Hebrew, and are the canon accepted by the Jews for their Scripture.
Click to expand...
You will notice that I used the word “if”. I am well aware of many of the arguments made. Though what OT book were quoted in the NT does factor in to many of their arguements. You will find many times that they will use the arguement that the Deuters were not quoted in the NT as being “evidence” for their arguement. But often times their primary arguement is exactly what you listed above.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
You will notice that I used the word “if”. I am well aware of many of the arguments made. Though what OT book were quoted in the NT does factor in to many of their arguements. You will find many times that they will use the arguement that the Deuters were not quoted in the NT as being “evidence” for their arguement. But often times their primary arguement is exactly what you listed above.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I agree, anyone arguing that Christ (or anyone) did not refer to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament is mistaken. I’ve just never heard that’s a reason for Protestant Christians having a different Old Testament canon than Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Though, I’m sure there are some that argue along those lines. Thanks again.
 
One thing people need to know is that there is a difference between an OT book being directly quoted verese being referenced to. Oftentimes someone is technically correct by saying the deuters are not quoted, though some of them are referred to.
 
Thanks to everyone who responded.
The issue came up from a couple of different sources but primarily in connection with a thread asking what do protestants miss by not having the deutero’s. Of course the obvious and quick answer to that is prayer for the dead and purgatory since that is supported in 2 Maccabees.

The second part of the question in my OP has not really been addressed though…
Are there any books ( in the 39 book canon) that are not needed to support a NT Christian Doctrine?
Certainly Genesis and the various prophetic books are needed, and the historical books can show God’s Providence, but at the same time there seems to be a lot of unnecessary “padding” like all the “begats” in chronicles and the census of the Isrealites in numbers etc…Likewise “Kings” don’t seem to contain much in the way of “doctrinally significant” text.

I’m not attacking anyone with this question nor do I particularly have an agenda. It’s more curiousity than anything.
When a “bible Alone” Christian holds up the KJV or whatever and rests his case on the “God Breathed” verse, I have to consider what is so “God breathed” about some of the things recorded in the OT as it relates to what is necessary for our salvation under the new covenent.

Any thoughts?
Maybe this should be a new thread…
Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
The second part of the question in my OP has not really been addressed though…
Are there any books ( in the 39 book canon) that are not needed to support a NT Christian Doctrine?
Certainly Genesis and the various prophetic books are needed, and the historical books can show God’s Providence, but at the same time there seems to be a lot of unnecessary “padding” like all the “begats” in chronicles and the census of the Isrealites in numbers etc…Likewise “Kings” don’t seem to contain much in the way of “doctrinally significant” text.
Click to expand...
On one hand, I could say yes there are certainly books and passages that are not “necessary” to support Christian doctrine.

On the other hand, as the Catholic Church teaches, all Scripture is inspired, true, etc.

So while we may not see some books/passages as “necessary” (in our opinion) we accept them as true and inspired witnesses to God’s revelation.

Tough question.
 
Very little of the material in the Bible is explicitly dogmatic - it wasn’t written as a catechism. On the other hand, as Paul points out, all of it is “useful.” We may not base any doctrine on the story of David and Bathsheba, for example, but we can learn many things from it.

For the purpose of argument, which I think is what you are looking for, you could probably take Ruth, a book accepted as Scripture by all Christians and one which gives us a little family history about David, but not, I think, the sole source for any point of doctrine, nor any “thing” that could be considered “essential for our salvation.”

But FWIW I’m not convinced of the value of that line of argument.
 
NHInsider said:
Very little of the material in the Bible is explicitly dogmatic - it wasn’t written as a catechism. On the other hand, as Paul points out, all of it is “useful.” We may not base any doctrine on the story of David and Bathsheba, for example, but we can learn many things from it.

For the purpose of argument, which I think is what you are looking for, you could probably take Ruth, a book accepted as Scripture by all Christians and one which gives us a little family history about David, but not, I think, the sole source for any point of doctrine, nor any “thing” that could be considered “essential for our salvation.”

But FWIW I’m not convinced of the value of that line of argument.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
I agree and I’m not really trying to build an “argument”. It’s more like I’m just pursuing some questions that have occurred to me and basically spring from arguments and comments I’ve seen.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top