Scripture quotes scripture that isn't scripture?

[wolfpup]

I have heard that:

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26

Cannot be found in the catholic bible canon - but is found in the Oriental Orthodox Book of Enoch. Anyone know anything about this? Why does Jesus say that it is scripture if it can’t be found in the traditional old testament?

 

[Big_Ro]

I think you might be asking a loaded question. When you refer to the traditional Old Testament are excluding the Dueterocannonicals? I may have misspelled that. The reason I ask is because I noticed you do not identify yourself as a Catholic in your profile. So, I’m wondering if this is a question about the contents of the Catholic Bible or if you are asking where in the Old Testament does the proscription identified by Christ exist I will say that Christ does not make a specific quotation so my take was always that he was pointing out how the Jews of his time had misunderstood or misinterpreted the Scripture as he knew it. This is related to a different subject regarding the type of Kingdom that the Christ would usher in to the world. The Jews had developed a certain understanding and Jesus was there to set them straight. His Kingdom is not of this world. .

I hope you find what you are seeking.

 

[GEddie]

I think you might be asking a loaded question. When you refer to the traditional Old Testament are excluding the Dueterocannonicals? I may have misspelled that.

Almost right. It’s ‘canon’ not ‘cannon’.

With two n’s, it’s a military weapon; with one, it’s the accepted list of Scripture.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I have heard that:

Cannot be found in the catholic bible canon - but is found in the Oriental Orthodox Book of Enoch. Anyone know anything about this? Why does Jesus say that it is scripture if it can’t be found in the traditional old testament?

I don’t understand the question. The part you quote is from Matthew 22 and can definitely be found in Catholic bibles.

 

[Barbkw]

“…you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?”

Jesus is saying that they don’t “know” the Scriptures, not that they don’t know a particular verse of Scripture.

Put Jesus’ statement back into the context from where it was taken. The Sadducees and the Pharisees fought over the belief in the resurrection of human bodies.

Later, I believe in Acts, it was either St. Peter or St. Paul who use this disagreement over the resurrection to escape from the death grasp of the Sanhedrin after Stephen is stoned to death.

usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke20.htm

Luke 20:4

4 They watched him closely and sent agents pretending to be righteous who were to trap him in speech, in order to hand him over to the authority and power of the governor.

Luke 28-33

[28-33] The Sadducees’ question, based on the law of levirate marriage recorded in Deut 25:5-10, ridicules the idea of the resurrection. Jesus rejects their naive understanding of the resurrection (Luke 20:35-36) and then argues on behalf of the resurrection of the dead on the basis of the written law (Luke 20:37-38) that the Sadducees accept. See also the notes on Matthew 22:23-33.

Luke 36

9 [36] Because they are the ones who will rise: literally, “being sons of the resurrection.”

10 [41-44] After successfully answering the three questions of his opponents, Jesus now asks them a question. Their inability to respond implies that they have forfeited their position and authority as the religious leaders of the people because they do not understand the scriptures. This series of controversies between the religious leadership of Jerusalem and Jesus reveals Jesus as the authoritative teacher whose words are to be listened to (see Luke 9:35). See also the notes on Matthew 22:41-46.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t understand the question. The part you quote is from Matthew 22 and can definitely be found in Catholic bibles.

The question is, was our LORD quoting this as Scripture? if so, why is this not found in the Catholic OT?

 

[John7]

I have heard that:

Cannot be found in the catholic bible canon -

Jesus is not directly quoting the OT in Mark 12:25,
that is not his intent in verse 24 (see Barbkw’s post)

That they don’t marry but are as the angels in heaven,
Jesus just knows because he is God and knows things about angels
(for other stuff he knows about angels see Matthew 18:10)

But anything in the NT having to do with resurrection can allude to Daniel 12:2,
plus see Jesus’ argument in verses Mk 12:26-27

Mk 12.25 “For when they shall rise from the dead…”

Daniel 12:2 “And many of them that sleep
in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

 

[Ignatius]

I have heard that:

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Jesus isn’t quoted in the Book of Enoch, so you’ve got something wrong there. It looks like you are giving citations from separate books (maybe Mark and something else).
Please give the entire citation i.e. Book, Chapter and Verse.

 

[NHInsider]

Two-part response, because this “question” splits in two directions.

1. There are lots of quotes in the New Testament that are not from canonical Old Testament books. Some are from unknown/lost books which were believed by some 1st century Jews to be inspired. Some are from pagan writings. Some are from common sayings or even nursery/playground rhymes. The fact that Jesus and the Apostles used common cultural references in their speech/writing does not mean that everything they cited was necessarily inspired. At the broadest, it means that they recognized Truth wherever it might be found - or, maybe it just means they could and would use “everybody knows” comments in the course of conversation.

1. Jesus’ statement that the Sadducees did not “know Scripture” doesn’t mean they had missed a specific verse, it means they hadn’t properly interpreted the Scripture - there was a deep and passionate divide between the Pharisees and the Sadducees over their interpretations of the Scriptures (and over which books of the Bible were inspired and which were merely “useful”) and Jesus is coming down on the side of the Pharisees (which may surprise us, given the number of times He condemns them - but really that should not be a surprise - the greater our understanding of revelation, the greater our responsibility and more grievous our fault if we fail to share it.

 

[roveau]

I don’t think Jesus is saying that He is quoting from the Scriptures, otherwise He would have prefaced the statement with, ‘as it says in the Scriptures’ or something along those lines.

 

[wolfpup]

Thanks everyone.

I don’t actually know the chapter and verse in the book of enoch that Jesus is supposed to be alluding to. I can’'t remember where I read it, which is partly why I asked the question - it could be completly false.

I know the book of Enoch is also quoted in Jude: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Jude 14-15

But as NHInsider has said, this doesn’t mean it is scripture.

Apparently it was considered scripture by several early christians such as in the Epistle of Barnabus, Irenaeus and Tertullian (info from wiki). But I am guessing that was because there was still a closed canon.

I notice that especially in Oriental Orthodox bible canons there are more books than in catholic, eastern and protestant canons.
If anyone has any info on why the church declared these books not to be canon, that would be very helpful. Eg( Prayer of Manasseh, Enoch, 4 and 4 edras, 2,3,4 baruch, 3 and 4 maccabees ect).

Can these book still be useful in understanding Christ - in that they point to him, even imperfectly?

 

[rdscheirer]

Excuse me but when the Lord says something doesn’t it become Scripture?

 

[NHInsider]

Excuse me but when the Lord says something doesn’t it become Scripture?

The question is, does it make the entirety of the source material Scripture? (To which the Church would say “No”).

 

[wolfpup]

Ok, after reading up on the book of Enoch a bit I can see why it isn’t considered scripture. Apparently it has the reason for sin being angels procreating with humans and actually has angels marrying humans, which is the complete opposite of what Mark says above.

 

[Stratiotes]

Be careful how we use words such as “scripture” as well. At the time of Jesus, neither the Jews nor Christians had an ‘official’ canon of accepted books as carrying special authority. So when we speak of ‘scripture’ we mean something different than what the people of Jesus time meant when they said ‘scripture.’ Be careful not to pour modern meanings into ancient wineskins .

 

[wolfpup]

Be careful how we use words such as “scripture” as well. At the time of Jesus, neither the Jews nor Christians had an ‘official’ canon of accepted books as carrying special authority. So when we speak of ‘scripture’ we mean something different than what the people of Jesus time meant when they said ‘scripture.’ Be careful not to pour modern meanings into ancient wineskins

Thanks for the advice. I know this is especially true when speaking of the NT canon.

 

[rcjones]

Jesus references an unknown scripture

Mt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Jesus chastises them for not knowing the scriptures. But do you? Where is the scripture that teaches what Jesus says is taught in the scriptures?

What are the possibilities?

1. That Jesus was mistaken and the scriptures don’t teach such a thing.
2. That the scriptures used to teach it, but that portion has been lost.
3. The scriptures are intact and they teach what Jesus says and can be discerned using literal-historical-grammatical methods.
4. The scriptures are intact and teach what Jesus says they do in riddle.

Options 1 and 2 are false on their face and such topics are covered amply in other resources.

The evidence that 4 is the truth has three steps:

1. The fact of the resurrection was hidden in riddle which permitted the Pharisees and Sadducees to separate over the issue. Yet Jesus proves the resurrection from the hidden riddles of the “I am” of Ex 3:6,15.
2. The fact that physical man is dust and will not endure is taught in the riddles of Ps 103

Ps 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.
16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.

1. The fact that marriage is of the flesh is taught in the riddle of Gen 2:23

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Jesus concludes that since marriage is of the flesh and the flesh is dust and perishes it does not persist into heaven.

Jesus’ conclusion is drawn from these three sources and is a sample of deduction and correlation.

There is one remaining mystery source. What are the references Jesus would call upon to show that the angels are not married?

 

[Stratiotes]

I think it is a mistake to think of Jesus proof-texting like some modern day Bible-student. Again, it is an anachronism to make modern assumptions of a 2nd-temple period Jewish culture. See, for instance in a similar reference, Matthew 2:23 where Matthew asserts the Messiah “will be called a Nazarene.” No direct reference exists for this assertion so commentators have puzzled over what Matthew was thinking at the time he wrote this cryptic reference and there are probably as many theories as commentators.

The bottom line is, the apostles did not use scripture the way we tend to favor in our sharply focused proof-text methods. And, I think they probably learned their methods of scripture use from Jesus. To ask “where is this referenced?” is to apply modern assumptions to the reference taking the writing out of its historical/cultural context. There were perhaps many direct references but it was not a given. These were a people steeped in the writings of past generations and they often even alluded to some previous text even when they probably were not intending to do so. It was in their subconscious as much as their conscious thought.

 

[Stratiotes]

As an aside on this topic, I have heard good things about Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by Beale (ISBN 9780801026935).

I also like Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period by Longenecker (ISBN 9780802843012) as a good source for understanding how the apostles and early church fathers used scripture.

 

[rcjones]

I think it is a mistake to think of Jesus proof-texting like some modern day Bible-student. Again, it is an anachronism to make modern assumptions of a 2nd-temple period Jewish culture. See, for instance in a similar reference, Matthew 2:23 where Matthew asserts the Messiah “will be called a Nazarene.” No direct reference exists for this assertion so commentators have puzzled over what Matthew was thinking at the time he wrote this cryptic reference and there are probably as many theories as commentators.

Using the methods of 1st century rabbis, the law of the Nazarite was a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene.

The Nazarite wore his hair long, which is a disgrace on a man, while Jesus fulfilled the prophecy by bearing our disgrace.

The Nazarite did not drink wine or strong drink, as a symbols of grace and law, because Jesus did not partake of either grace or law, being the Word incarnate.

The Nazarite did not touch a dead body and so Jesus was buried in an unused tomb.

After his own dead body set him free from his vow to not drink the wine, he could drink it again with us in the resurrection.

The words Nazarite and Nazarene are in two different languages, but certainly one is derived from the other as indicated in the Greek dictionaries.

It is only our Western literal-historical methodology that prevents us from seeing the source scripture.