What evidence is there that Jews used the Deuterocanon?

[Ignatius]

What evidence is there that Jews used the Deuterocanon?

It was writen by Jewish Scholars between 356-323 BC, duh! Tell your ‘very intelligent’ protestant friend that I found this information in about 30 seconds.

Ask him which book of the bible you will find the basis of Hannukkah. (The basis of Hannukkah is in the books of Maccabees)

 

[inkaneer]

Hats off to the Catholic posters about the list.
One point to the last poster please. Christian hating Jew??? I can only imagine the uproar if the leader of the Catholic Church used that phrase. I would imagine his tone in these kind of discussions should be admired and emulated by all Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

I used the term “christian hating Jews” That’s plural. I did not single out any one person. Furthermore the term is no exaggeration. As christians we are to embrace the truth and not hide from it. Leave the political correctness to the politicians. Also, let us not forget that many prominent Jews have fostered and promoted lies denigrating Pope Pius XII and in the process ignoring the abundance of evidence that contradicts their false accusations? In addition Jewish groups, among others, have made false accusations about the church during the Spanish Inquisition. Where is the uproar there?

 

[NotWorthy]

What evidence is there that Jews used the Deuterocanon?

It was writen by Jewish Scholars between 356-323 BC, duh! Tell your ‘very intelligent’ protestant friend that I found this information in about 30 seconds.

AMaybe some of the books in the Deuterocanon were written that early, but certainly not all, considering that the time of Maccabees was within 200 years of the birth of Christ (if I remember correctly).

Ask him which book of the bible you will find the basis of Hannukkah. (The basis of Hannukkah is in the books of Maccabees)

And that is pointless. All that says is that Maccabees is historically accurate, not Divinely Inspired.

 

[inkaneer]

Hello,

A very learned and intelligent Protestant I’m debating says that the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint are from after the time of Christ, and that Philo and Josephus used an earlier Septuagint manuscript and yet neither of them accepted the Deuterocanon. Is there any historical evidence that before or at the time of Christ Jews used the Deuterocanon?

Has your protestant debater presented any evidentiary proof to back up his claims? In my discussions with most protestants I find they make a lot of baseless accusations and have no proof at all. Sort of throwing mud against a wall and seeing what sticks. Ask them to present evidence to back their claims. Just doing a cursory online search I readily found two sources, one being the Encyclopedia Brittanica that state the Septuagint dates from the third century B.C. Regarding Philo and Josephus let me say that neither of these people were christians so why should their opinions mean anything? Instead I would tell your protestant discussion partner that J.N.D. Kelley, the well-known Protestant historian, and author of the book, Early Christian Doctrines, admits in that book that the Deuterocanonicals were commonly accepted by the early church as scripture (pages 53-55). He wrote:

"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. … . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew… . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon , and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary".

 

[NHInsider]

Remember, the Catholic Church does not accept or deny the Deuterocanonical books based upon whether or not they are quoted in the New Testament.

But the question here (as reported by the OP) is not about inspiration or quoting or even canonicity (is that a word?) The assertion was that the earliest manuscripts of the LXX are 5th century and therefore the books were NOT KNOWN to Jesus or the Apostles. So evidence of citation or even allusion is pertinent to the question regardless of whether or not it speaks to canonical status.

Ironically, of course, an assertion that books cannot be canonical based on the dates of the earliest manuscripts would have eliminated virtually all of the OT from Christian use until the discovery of the DSS.

 

[BrianH]

But the question here (as reported by the OP) is not about inspiration or quoting or even canonicity (is that a word?) The assertion was that the earliest manuscripts of the LXX are 5th century and therefore the books were NOT KNOWN to Jesus or the Apostles. So evidence of citation or even allusion is pertinent to the question regardless of whether or not it speaks to canonical status.

Ironically, of course, an assertion that books cannot be canonical based on the dates of the earliest manuscripts would have eliminated virtually all of the OT from Christian use until the discovery of the DSS.

There are 5-10 allusions that I have seen validly argued, in fact Catholic scholars, not internet hacks like you and me, pardon if you are indeed a scholar, are used by the NT. So I would not personally think it is reasonable to say they were not known. On the other hand, I cannot speak to the degree they were known with certainity either.

 

[NHInsider]

The Deuterocanonicals are rejected by protestants because they claim that they are not included in the original Hebrew O.T. preserved by the Jews. They usually cite Rom. 3:1-2 claiming it states that God used the Jews to preserve His Word; therefore, we know that He guided them in the rejection of the Apocryphal books from the canon of Scripture.

What does Romans 3:1-2 actually say? Does it say that the Jews will actually be the ones who canonize the Old Testament? Does it say that they have the authority to determine the canon over the canon that the Church that Jesus himself established? Jesus says to his New Covenant apostles ‘Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’? (Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 18:18). Well, here is the actual text of Romans 3:
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way; chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
This just says that to the Jews were committed, or given the oracles of God, or Scripture. It does not say that the Jews were given authority to determine the OT canon. Remember these guys also rejected the entire NT canon as well.

But did the Jews regard the Deutero’s as scripture? In Matthew 22:23-28 we read of the Sadducees approaching Jesus and asking him this question: "23 The same day Sad’ducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her.”

No Protocanonical book has those events, where someone is tortured, and has the hope of the resurrection of life. But it is found in 2nd Maccabees 7 of the deuterocanon. In fact, it is referenced no less than 6 times of the hope of a resurrection of life. There is more mention here [in 2nd Maccabees] of resurrection of life than in all the rest of the procanon Old Testament passages combined. Plus, there is nothing in the protocanonical Scriptures that says people endured torture in the hope of rising again. in addition Heb. 11:35 also references 2nd Maccabees regarding enduring torture in the hope of rising again."

I accept the full canon of the OT, but I believe the above is a weak argument. The Sadducees’ puzzle, as presented in the Scripture, contains no details except the “7 brothers” that connect it to the Maccabean tale. And there is no mention in Maccabees of the wife marrying the brothers in sequence, nor could there be, since the seven were tortured and executed in a single day (2 Mac. 7:20). It is pretty clear (despite the “among us”) that the Sadducees’ story is a hypothetical situation.

35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life." [Hebrews 11:35]

This, on the other hand, is likely a reference to the Maccabean martyrs.

 

[Brendan]

Hats off to the Catholic posters about the list.
One point to the last poster please. **Christian hating Jew??? **I can only imagine the uproar if the leader of the Catholic Church used that phrase. I would imagine his tone in these kind of discussions should be admired and emulated by all Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

There is no doubt those existed at the time. St. Paul was one of them, until his conversion. There are also the Jews who killed St. Stephen and St. James.

Stating that certain Jews, especially those in authority, existed is not a statement about the entire race.

 

[BrianH]

Are you a Jew hating Christian? Just curious…
The language is shocking to me. We do not talk like that. But perhaps it is more normal in Catholic laity. I do not know.

 

[NotWorthy]

Are you a Jew hating Christian? Just curious…
The language is shocking to me. We do not talk like that. But perhaps it is more normal in Catholic laity. I do not know.

Although although “Christian hating Jew” is a shocking phrase, can you think of a better label for Saul when he led his troops to Damascus or when his fellow Jews laid their cloaks at his feet? How about those who took a Nazirite vow to refrain from eating until Paul was dead. That turned out to be a long hunger-strike!

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Are you a Jew hating Christian? Just curious…
The language is shocking to me. We do not talk like that. But perhaps it is more normal in Catholic laity. I do not know.

Or perhaps it is shocking because it is not politically correct in the society that is called America.

 

[BrianH]

Politically correct America.
Kiss my Am…
Oh never mind. Its still Christmas

 

[Brendan]

Are you a Jew hating Christian? Just curious…
The language is shocking to me. We do not talk like that. But perhaps it is more normal in Catholic laity. I do not know.

How would you describe St. Paul’s attitude towards Christians before his conversion on the way to Damascus?

 

[Pwrlftr]

But the question here (as reported by the OP) is not about inspiration or quoting or even canonicity (is that a word?) The assertion was that the earliest manuscripts of the LXX are 5th century and therefore the books were NOT KNOWN to Jesus or the Apostles. So evidence of citation or even allusion is pertinent to the question regardless of whether or not it speaks to canonical status.

Ironically, of course, an assertion that books cannot be canonical based on the dates of the earliest manuscripts would have eliminated virtually all of the OT from Christian use until the discovery of the DSS.

The manuscripts which we have in our possesion only date back to around the 4th century and are all Christian manuscripts.

That doesn’t mean the Jews of the 1st century and earlier were unfamiliar with the LXX, just that we don’t have any manuscripts which date back to that time period.

 

[inkaneer]

Are you a Jew hating Christian? Just curious…
The language is shocking to me. We do not talk like that. But perhaps it is more normal in Catholic laity. I do not know.

No, I am not a “Jew hating Christian.” But I “talk like that” because I am also not afraid of the truth. Maybe that is why I am Catholic and not some 18th protestant invention. Okay, so I am not politically correct but the early martyrs went to their death in the Circus Maximus rather than being politically correct. The real question is was I correct in saying the Jews [those in authority] hated the christians. I think the answer is obvious. Read the book of Acts where Paul [then known as Saul] hunted down the christians on behalf of the Jewish authorities. Did he do this out of love? If so, why were the christians in Damascus afraid of him? Did the Jews murder Stephen and James out of love?

 

[Pwrlftr]

No, I am not a “Jew hating Christian.” But I “talk like that” because I am also not afraid of the truth. Maybe that is why I am Catholic and not some 18th protestant invention. Okay, so I am not politically correct but the early martyrs went to their death in the Circus Maximus rather than being politically correct. The real question is was I correct in saying the Jews [those in authority] hated the christians. I think the answer is obvious. Read the book of Acts where Paul [then known as Saul] hunted down the christians on behalf of the Jewish authorities. Did he do this out of love? If so, why were the christians in Damascus afraid of him? Did the Jews murder Stephen and James out of love?

You can’t be equating your brash behaviour on an anonymous forum with being a martyr…are you???

 

[NotWorthy]

No, I am not a “Jew hating Christian.” But I “talk like that” because I am also not afraid of the truth. Maybe that is why I am Catholic and not some 18th protestant invention. Okay, so I am not politically correct but the early martyrs went to their death in the Circus Maximus rather than being politically correct. The real question is was I correct in saying the Jews [those in authority] hated the christians. I think the answer is obvious. Read the book of Acts where Paul [then known as Saul] hunted down the christians on behalf of the Jewish authorities. Did he do this out of love? If so, why were the christians in Damascus afraid of him? Did the Jews murder Stephen and James out of love?

Let’s be fair. Some Jews hated Christians, but many more Jews turned to Christianity. I’ve heard statistics claim that fully 2/3 of the Jewish community converted to Christianity by the end of the 1st century. That’s an incredible number!! I’d love to hear if that number is accurate or not.

But, whether the statistics are correct or not, many Jews did convert to Christianity, so please be careful not to paint a broad brush over all 1st century Jews.

And besides, the conversion from Judaism to Christianity could easily cause such angst and animosity among the Jewish community. How do you feel if (or when) a close friend withdraws from Catholicism and converts to a religion you believe is false. It hurts. Now take the Jews who saw whole families and even communities convert, sometimes overnight!!!

Paul and the others were trying to protect their own.

 

[geometer]

Hello,

A very learned and intelligent Protestant I’m debating says that the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint are from after the time of Christ, and that Philo and Josephus used an earlier Septuagint manuscript and yet neither of them accepted the Deuterocanon. Is there any historical evidence that before or at the time of Christ Jews used the Deuterocanon?

This is a very simply problem. Go to the nearest Jewish bookstore. You will find that it is owned by a Rabbi. Ask the Rabbi about those books and what they do with them. Jesus said to ask rabbis about scripture…

enjoy

 

[adriancombe]

No thistle. Over time I have read a great deal about the Deuterocanonicals and the Catholic support for a few references and allusions to the Deuterocanonical books in the NT. Remember, the Catholic Church does not accept or deny the Deuterocanonical books based upon whether or not they are quoted in the New Testament. So in this case, the support or refutation of this list is nothing to do with your church or anything. It is one Catholic’s work and as such should be evaluated by its merits. It is an opinion. I have said before, this particular list would result in a F- in any college setting. It claims literary dependence in verses where that is clearly not the case. It attempts to find strings of unrelated phrases and then it ignores if the same phrase occured in the OT 500 years early in many cases.
This particular list I believe is the result of only two possible things: ignorance or dishonesty.
Do you want to discuss the first one and examine them one at a time? I would like to and have tried to in the past but no one does it. One at a time, starting at the beginning.

This is an implausible criticism. All the ones listed (and then some) are found in the loci citati vel allegati of the Nestle Aland **Novum Testamentum Graece. **Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland were Lutherans!

A partial list is found here

Also, Nestle Aland have never produced any ‘F’ work by anyone’s standards.

(But of course I agree that citation/allusion does not directly correspond to inspiration).

 

[BrianH]

I do not own a copy. I took one class in Greek and sold all my books back
What is the specific wording? We are not talking about cross references, or maybe we are. I would like to know the specific wording and see it myself.
But yes I will question it. Establishing literary dependence is independent of the training for translations and establishing textual variants. My wife is trained in linguistics and is my source on this. While she is not trained specifically in Greek, the rules for establishing literary dependence transcend the specific language. As far as the list, I will give it a F-. The last three one on the list, that were not quoted, claim it “follows” where it is not possible. The usage follows indicates a direct relationship. If that is not what the author is meaning, he should state that.

Look

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.
1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.
2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.

It is as absurd as claiming that Thomas Jefferson quotes President Obama.
The author of the list also perpetuates outdated scholarship about Jamnia.