Where do the Deuterocanonical Books testifles about Jesus?

[Big_Dummy]

It’s not a “sin” at all. It’s a basic element of traditional Christian and Jewish practice (your appeal to Jewish tradition is obviously very selective).

Did the evangelist Mark “sin” when he not only mixed a quote from Malachi with one from Isaiah but attributed the combined quotation to Isaiah alone? (Mark 1:2-3)

Edwin

I used the word “sin” in the meaning of fallacy or error. And, your methology is in fact a fallacy or error of intertextuality known as parallelomania to be specific.

Older outdated scholarship places the date that the book of Wisdom before the time of Christ, but Recent, more uptodate Scholarship places the date of it being written after the time of Jesus’ death & resurrection.

The Dictionary of the Old Testament: wisdom, poetry & writings By Tremper Longman, Peter Enns (page 885-886) places its date durling the reign of Gaius Caligula (AD 37-41) which is after the events in Matthew 27 – See also The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon: a study in biblical interpretation By Samuel Cheon 151 which is recorded in The interpretation of Exodus: studies in honour of Cornelis Houtman By C. Houtman, Riemer Roukema, Klaas Spronk page 98 see also on page 93 note 48. Allusion and meaning in John 6 By Susan Hylen for a few other scholars, sources.

 

[Contarini]

Because the Hebrew scriptures were revealed directly to Jewish religion, not the christian.

You’re begging the question first of all by assuming that only the Hebrew Scriptures were divinely inspired, in spite of the fact that early Christians were generally using the LXX.

In the second place, the point at issue is what we mean by the “Jewish religion.” No Scriptures were revealed to the post-70 rabbinic Jewish religion, nor do the representatives of that religion claim that they were. They claim rather to have passed on and interpreted the scriptures and accompanying traditions that they received from their ancestors.

Christians naturally have a different understanding of how the heritage of Second Temple Judaism and the older traditions of the pre-Exilic Hebrews should be interpreted and applied. It is by no means impossible that we might have a different understanding of the proper “Old Testament” canon as well.

You have to argue for the view that we should accept the rabbinic Jewish canon–you can’t simply assume it.

My New Interpreter’s Study Bible says that the broad consensus for the dating of Wisdom is “somewhere between 100 BCE and 50 CE.” You are pushing for a date at the end of this spectrum because it suits your theological agenda. I suspect that you would not similarly side with those scholars who give late dates to the books of the undisputed OT or the NT canon. Indeed, I would not be surprised if you rejected the scholarly consensus altogether with regard to some of those books.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you agree that the Torah is post-exilic, that Acts dates from the second century, that the Pastorals and 2 Peter were certainly not written by the apostles whose names they bear, etc. But if you reject these positions, then one has to ask why you are suddenly a devotee of the more skeptical wing of modern scholarship when it comes to this particular book.

Note: I recognize that the scholars you cite are not on the extremely skeptical wing of modern scholarship, though Longman is relatively liberal for an evangelical (probably in more or less the same camp I am on these issues, in fact). But the tendency to be more open to skeptical views with regard to deuterocanonical books affects evangelicals who are Biblical scholars as well as those who are not!

 

[campeador]

Wisdom 18:14,15 :

For while all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her course, your Almighty Word leaped down from heaven from your royal throne, as a fierce conqueror into the midst of the land of destruction,

 

[elvisman]

The big problem with the LXX argument is we have no Jewish editions of the LXX today, only those kept by Christians. And the well know manuscript sets don’t argeee with which books are listed which I posted already.

Whether you hold to that or not is irrelevant.
We have fragments of three deuterocanonical books that were found among the Dead Sea scrolls that were discovered in Qumran. **
**Sirach (in Hebrew) was gound among them. It was also found in Masada (MasSir).[7]:597 **
The Book of Tobit (in Aramaic) was found in 4 of the scrolls at Qumran.
Baruch (ch. 6) was also found.

---

**In recent years, scholars say that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not necessarily created in Qumran - completely, that is. They are now saying that they may have been part of the library of the Temple in Jerusalem and were hidden in the caves of Qumran during the Roman seige in A.D. 70 when the Temple was destroyed.

 

[Big_Dummy]

When you consider the disctance from the temple and those caves, and the fact that there are caves closer and with eaiser access, those manuscripts were not likely from the temple. Take the time to do an ariael view of the area to see what I am talking about.

 

[campeador]

When you consider the disctance from the temple and those caves, and the fact that there are caves closer and with eaiser access, those manuscripts were not likely from the temple. Take the time to do an ariael view of the area to see what I am talking about.

Honestly, your argument makes no sense.

If you wanted to hide something you thought was invaluable, wouldn’t you find some place remote?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Honestly, your argument makes no sense.

If you wanted to hide something you thought was invaluable, wouldn’t you find some place remote?

You need to look at a map that shows the terrain, the caves I reffered to would be remote without jumping off a cliff to get there. I have Areo photos of Isreal and based on them it makes no sense to say someone in a short period of time moved all those manuscripts to the dead sea area.

 

[Peter_John]

It is not just about specific testimonies within each book of the Bible. It involves the cumulative revelation of God throughout history. From God’s revelation and covenant with Abraham through Malachi we see the prohets preaching one thing and the histories and poetry showing how the people miss the point. eventually they move from believing that God is one god among many to that he is the king over all the gods (Psalms) to being the only God there is at all. They go from understanding the blessing of following the commandments from being temporal rewards to being eternal life. God continually affirms that He is going to save them himself, and the people keep going back to trying to do it on their own.

Only after the people of the covenant come to understand that God is the only God, and all others are creations of men, and only after they understand there is a promise of resurrection do they approach being prepared for the ultimate revelation of God, Christ himself on Earth – and even with that, they do not understand.

With the Bible ending at the time of Malachi the crucial 200 or so years that bring that final recognitioon gets left out. Without it not only is this image of the contiual infolding revelation of God incomplete, so is the groundwork for many of the statements Jesus made, as wella s teh understanding for people hearing them. He makes refernce to numerous doctrines which Jews recognize at the time, but which do not have clear expression outside of the Deuterocanonical books.