Paul did not use the Septuagint nor did Jesus or any of His apostles

[dmbrowne]

I once attempted a cursory search of Deutero verses in the Gospels. (I kept to the Gospels because I tried to narrow the Deutero quotations to Jesus’ words, but Paul does quote them too!) Here are but a few quotations or references from the NAB. There are many others in Acts, 1 Cor, Romans, et al. Also, I included a quotation from 2 Maccabees, but not from 1 Mac, as I figured one quote from the Maccabees books would suffice.

From the Gospel of St. Matthew:

The Our Father (yes, The Our Father)

Matt 6: 12 “… and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors…”
and Matt 6:14 “If you forgive others their transgression, your heavenly father will forgive you.”

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

Matthew 6:20 “But store up treasures in heaven…”

see Tobit 4:8-9 “But do not hesitate to give alms; you will be storing up a goodly treasure for yourself against the day of adversity.”

From the Gospel of St. Mark, we see a similar phrase structure:

Mark 2:27 “Then he said to them, 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath”.

see 2 Maccabees 5:19 “The LORD, however, had not chosen the people for the sake of the Place, but the Place for the sake of the people.”

From the Gospel of St. Luke:

Luke 1:17 “He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers toward children and the disobedient to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord.”

see Sirach 48:10 “You are destined, it is written, in time to come to put an end to wrath before the day of the LORD, to turn back the hearts of fathers toward their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob.”

In Luke 2:37 at the presentation of Jesus at the Temple we meet the prophetess Anna, a widow, “She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.”

see Judith 8:6 “She (the widowed Judith) fasted all the day of her widowhood, except sabbath eves and sabbaths, new moon eves and new moons, festdays and holidays of the house of Israel.”

From the Gospel of St. John, Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well who is ready to accept Christ’s offer:

John 4:10 “Jesus answered and said to her, 'If you knew the gift of God and who is saying to you, “Give me a drink,” you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.’”

see Baruch 3:12-13 in which Israel is admonished, “You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom! Had you walked in the way of God, you would have dwelt in enduring peace.”

John 10: 36 “… can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ’ I am the Son of God?’”

see Wisdom 2:13 “He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.”

My all-time favourite is Paul’s missing quotation from Jesus. Paul says in Acts 20:35, “… and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

The thing is, Jesus never says this. Anywhere. But St. Paul says that he is specifically quoting our Lord. So, this is not only an example of oral tradition passed down by Paul, but Paul is quoting Jesus, who in fact is teaching from the OT book of Sirach 4:31 which says, “Let not your head be open to receive and clenched when it is time to give.”

Also, notice that all seven of the Deuterocanonicals are either quoted, referenced and/or typologically acknowledged, but there are 15 non-Deutero OT books that are not quoted in the NT at all!

~Donna

 

[toaslan]

What Daniel is appropriately saying is that there was no fixed canon. This original claim of a fixed canon has no foundation.

oh, yes, thanks.

 

[toaslan]

I once attempted a cursory search of Deutero verses in the Gospels. (I kept to the Gospels because I tried to narrow the Deutero quotations to Jesus’ words, but Paul does quote them too!) Here are but a few quotations or references from the NAB. There are many others in Acts, 1 Cor, Romans, et al. Also, I included a quotation from 2 Maccabees, but not from 1 Mac, as I figured one quote from the Maccabees books would suffice.

Good stuff, thank you Donna.

 

[PaulDupre]

You’re right, gentlefaith. I haven’t yet figured out what this “quibble” actually amounts to, i.e. if it has resulted in an actually-different version of the bible in the hands of the Mormon on the street or not. That is, do they really have the KJV or not? don’t know, but I am also reviewing some mormon threads in the non-Catholic religions forum…

I am an ex-Mormon. The Mormons believe that the bible was corrupted soon soon after it was written, so that “many plain and precious parts were lost”.

See this post and the one that follows it for details.

God love you,
Paul

 

[convertjanet]

This is very interesting, and for me timely. My brother, who is an evangelical Christian told me that the reason Tobit, etc are not included in other Bibles is because they are not quoted in the New Testament. I was going to call Catholic Answers about this very issue!

Since I am hardly a theologian, and I don’t know Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, I wonder if the argument isn’t simpler though than what has been posted. Where in the New Testament does it say anything about “the Bible” or what books it should consist of? I think it all comes back to we can rely on the magisterium of the Church, and don’t have to search for proof of quotations of the Old Testament to satisfy us that we are using the “right” Bible.

Isn’t the position similar to asking non-Catholics to point out where the New Testament says we should be “sola scriptura?”

 

[dmbrowne]

Convertjanet, I believe your question may have been answered earlier in the thread, but for revisitation purposes I hope I can give a succinct, if not clear, answer as to why the Deuterocanonicals are not included in Protestant bibles and are relegated now to their apocrypha.

Likely in reaction to the many Christian writings that were being promulgated in the 1st century after Christ’s death, the Jews chose to codify their Hebrew Scripture at the Council of Jamnia, circa AD 90-100. Before that time they simply requested and used in their liturgy scrolls of their revered writings. There was never an official list of scriptural or inspired books. So at the Council it was determined that 7 of the books, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach and Baruch (as well as parts of Daniel and Esther) should be excluded for the following reasons:

1. They were not written before the time of Ezra;
2. They were not written in Palestine; and
3. They were not originally written in Hebrew (they only had the Greet translations of the Septuagint).

Notice the Hebrew Canon was assembled after the death of Jesus, near the time of the death of the last Apostle (John the Beloved), and certainly after the martyrdom of both Sts. Peter and Paul (circa AD 67-68). Up to that point in time, the Jews utilized the Septuagint (which included the 7 books). Therefore, we safely presume that Jesus, the Apostles and Paul all used the fully inclusive Septuagint.

In the 16th century Martin Luther selected the Hebrew Canon to translate, thereby removing from Scripture doctrinal beliefs that did not conform to his theology, like the Doctrine of Purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:38-46). In doing so, however, he lost to his apocrypha the angel Raphael (Tobit); St. Paul’s examination of Wisdom 13:1-9 regarding the divinity of God understood and perceived from creation; and even Chanukkah. Don’t forget: Luther also wanted to remove James and Revelation from the NT! Instead, he just tinkered with them. Tsk, tsk, a scriptural no-no (Rev 22:18-19).

With the discovery of The Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, all of the Old Testament books were found to have at least some part or scrap written in Hebrew (except for the book of Esther, which is not at issue anyway regarding the Protestant apocrypha). Therefore, the excluded books from the Hebrew Canon – and hence in the Protestant apocrypha – needed not be removal after all, especially for the heavily-weighted third reason of being not originally written in Hebrew.

Now, which Bible do you want to learn, love and study from? The Bible that Jesus and the Christians of the Early Church used, or the redacted version compiled by the very Jews who rejected Jesus?

~Donna

 

[clsteiner]

I’m trying to argue from a positive, rather than from a negative.

Do you deny that if Our Lord quoted Tobit it would show He accepted the Septuagint? How so.

Following your reasoning, are you questioning whether they accepted the Septuagint or are you questioning whether they accepted the disputed books? Your approach seems to draw a distinction between accepting the Septuagint and accepting the disputed books. Perhaps you do not view proof that Christ or Paul quoted from the Septuagint as proof that they accepted the disputed books. The fact that they quote from the Septuagint is direct proof that they accepted the Septuagint. It may require an inference to conclude that they therefore accepted the disputed books. In other words, the fact that they accepted the Septuagint may only be circumstantial evidence that they accepted the disputed books. But it is a pretty strong inference (i.e. strong circumstantial evidence). Why would they quote from the Septuagint if they didn’t accept the disputed books that are contained within it?

Regarding the issue of whether they accepted the Septuagint itself, If they quoted from it what doubt would you have about whether they accepted it?

 

[toaslan]

"toaslan:

I’m trying to argue from a positive, rather than from a negative.

Do you deny that if Our Lord quoted Tobit it would show He accepted the Septuagint? How so.

Following your reasoning, are you questioning whether they accepted the Septuagint or are you questioning whether they accepted the disputed books?

sorry, not sure who your “they” is–Protestants? Jews?

Your approach seems to draw a distinction between accepting the Septuagint and accepting the disputed books.

I am confused by this sentence.

Perhaps you do not view proof that Christ or Paul quoted from the Septuagint as proof that they accepted the disputed books.

I hoped to see concrete examples of Christ Himself quoting from the deuterocanonicals themselves–if He did, we can directly show that He used the Septuagint itself. Failing that, I wanted examples of quotes from the rest of the NT which refer clearly back to the deuterocanonicals. Such examples would show that the NT writers used the Septuagint itself. Because the deuteros are part of the Septuagint collection, but excluded from the later Council of Jamnia collection and therefore from Protestant bibles. OK?

The fact that they quote from the Septuagint is direct proof that they accepted the Septuagint.

That the NT does quote from the Septuagint is one of the points being shown on this thread.

Regarding the issue of whether they accepted the Septuagint itself, If they quoted from it what doubt would you have about whether they accepted it?

I think you’ve got me mixed up with somebody else

 

[clsteiner]

The “they” is Christ and Paul (just skip two sentences ahead in the post).

Your question about whether there are examples of Christ or New Testament authors quoting from the disputed books is a good one. You are right that such an example would be good and direct evidence that they accepted these books. I am just pointing out what you are probably already aware of, which is that the important issue ultimately is not just whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial but how compelling the evidence is. I am simply pointing out that the inference that they accepted the disputed books is very strong.

I also would argue that while the conclusion that they accepted the disputed books contained within the Septuagint does require an inference, the conclusion that they accepted the Septuagint does not. The fact that they quote from the Septuagint is direct evidence that they accepted it.

 

[ChadS]

Everybody, the Mormons (who embrace as infallible the KJV) are coming to our apologetics class tomorrow night on Mormonism.

The King James Version bible’s OT is the smaller collection canonized by the Jews in the First Century after Christ, right?

Not only is the collection missing the deuterocanonicals, it is also a different translation, right?

Because Martin Luther and therefore the KJV rejected the Septuagint, the KJV rejects some books and also some translations of the other books. (The Jews attempted to retain only books for which there were verifiable Hebrew originals, getting rid of all Greek-only books; though the Dead Sea Scrolls have since shown they made a mistake to leave some books out on these grounds alone.)

To show this, the real clincher would be if Our Lord actually quoted from the deuterocanonicals, right? Then the differences in translations which elevate the Septuagint wouldn’t be so important…I mean, one could argue directly, rather than by implication.

So, did Our Lord quote from the deuterocanonicals even once?

Or does Peary’s sample list tell me, by the absence from it of the deuteros, that there is no direct quote from Jesus from, say, Tobit?

toaslan,

I know this is a little late for your class with the Mormons, but here are two places where Jesus appears to directly deuterocanonical books.

1. Matthew 11:28-30 references Sirach 51:23-26
2. Matthew 27:41-44 references Wisdom 2:1, 12-22, esp. 12-20

Hopefully this helps a little.

ChadS

 

[toaslan]

toaslan,

I know this is a little late for your class with the Mormons, but here are two places where Jesus appears to directly deuterocanonical books.

1. Matthew 11:28-30 references Sirach 51:23-26
2. Matthew 27:41-44 references Wisdom 2:1, 12-22, esp. 12-20

Hopefully this helps a little.

ChadS

Yes, the class is over, the Mormons came and went, but I still need these quotes, as I hope for future meetings. Thank you so much, Chad.

 

[jcmorse563]

It could be that all this evidence is true… We must remember that Jesus Was raised in a traditional Jewish family. He Went to School, (synagogue) and learn along these lines.
5yrs studying the written Torah
10yrs studying the Oral Torah
20yrs pursuing a vocation
30yrs entering one’s full vigour

Also we must note that since synagogue teachers or (mages) were both pharisee and Sadducee that Both Current accepted texts were taught, however more likely that the Hebrew texts were predominant. Also at this time Jesus would learn to read and write Hebrew. However, also because of Government edicts from Rome, (Greek being the National Language) And the Roman acceptance as the Vision of Alexander(Former Greek Ruler) of one language, national libraries, and conquering through education, Greek was the Predominant Spoken Language… Which evolved into a High bred Aramaic Language. So to Function in His Time Period Jesus Used those Common Languages. We can see by the evidences sited earlier that Jesus knew well all current translations of the Bible. Whether, the Tora, The Hebrew texts, the Septuagint, as well as many not accepted today as valid. Such as the Tanakh, and Talmud(Which Mostly were Just taught Orally only). To believe that Jesus didn’t speak the several languages of the Time Just is not supported. Instead of Listing a bunch of References I just suggest one re-reads this forum with the knowledge of how Children of a Common Jewish family are Schooled. And let us Not forget that Children of that Day were taught (at the Dinner table) (in normal life by their parents) of God’s Word and His Goodness. Blessings

 

[kkollwitz]

In Peter’s first epistle, he said, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1Pet 2:9 RSVCE)

The NT Greek for royal priesthood is βασίλειος ἱεράτευμα/ basileus ierateuma.

In using that term, Peter borrows from Exodus 19:6, where the Hebrew says mamlakha (ממלכה) kohen (כהן). The two Hebrew words translate as “kingdom (of) priests.”

But the Septuagint translation of the Exodus passage says “βασίλειος ἱεράτευμα/ basileus ierateuma” that is ‘royal priesthood,’ not “kingdom of priests.”

So when Peter refers to Exodus, he is using the Greek Septuagint phrasing, not the Hebrew phrasing.