Where do the Deuterocanonical Books testifles about Jesus?

[hizstory]

Hi

yes, I know that people who weren’t born Catholic and then convert to Catholicism don’t know that the Deuertos do exist.
I am a born Catholic (and have converted) - and I was asthonished that Books of the OT “were missing” in the first (non Catholic) Bible I’ve bought (that was a New American Standard Bible!)
Then I became really curious and researched about that topic. Now I am sort of an expert concerning the Apocrypha of the OT/and the Deuterocanonical Books.

I have been talking in another thread about that.

Esdra

Esdra,

I read some of the posts from the thread you linked to above. It did clear up the difference in terminology (deuterocanical vs. apocrypha). That was very helpful. I was under the impression that the reason the OT books in question are called DC and not just canonical is because the Jews don’t consider them canonical/divinely inspired and part of their sacred scriptures, but I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time

 

[elvisman]

Esdra,

I read some of the posts from the thread you linked to above. It did clear up the difference in terminology (deuterocanical vs. apocrypha). That was very helpful. I was under the impression that the reason the OT books in question are called DC and not just canonical is because the Jews don’t consider them canonical/divinely inspired and part of their sacred scriptures, but I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time

It’s interesting to note that there was no fixed Jewish canon of Scripture during the life of Christ. We do know, however that the Septuagint (Greek translation), which was written 200 years before his birth contained the Deuterocanonicals. This is the version that we find over 100 NT references from.

**Whatever may have happened regarding a Jewish canon AFTER the death, resurrection and ascencion of Christ is irrelevant and devoid of any authority. The same goes for the Protestant rejection of the Deuteros some 1800 years after Christ. **The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the Gospel) and new wineskins (the Church).

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

As a Methodist, we pattern much of our worship service and ideas around the book of Wisdom. The District Superintendent even came and preached a sermon based on the book of Wisdom.

As a young man, Tobit was very comforting to me during times of great fear.

The loss of the apocrypha is a great loss. Sorry, deuterocannon.

What bible do the methodist use? If it’s the king james version the book of Wisdom is not in it!

Matthew

 

[cthulhubryan]

What bible do the methodist use? If it’s the king james version the book of Wisdom is not in it!

Matthew

Revised Standard Version.

 

[Publisher]

What bible do the methodist use? If it’s the king james version the book of Wisdom is not in it!

Matthew

I believe the passage from Wisdom would be in the Lectionary. The Methodist worship services I have attended…the RSV is used…the pastor used the “Oxford Study Bible with the Apoc/Deut Expanded Edition” which contains those “extra books” used by Catholic and Orthodox. It was somethin she and I had in common. She was the pastor who ministered to my mom when she was dying of cancer some 17 years ago.

Most liturgical Protestant church groups use the Lectionary for their scripture readings which include readings from the Apoc/Deut books.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Revised Standard Version.

Thanks cthulhubryan for the info.

Matthew

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

I believe the passage from Wisdom would be in the Lectionary. The Methodist worship services I have attended…the RSV is used…the pastor used the “Oxford Study Bible with the Apoc/Deut Expanded Edition” which contains those “extra books” used by Catholic and Orthodox. It was somethin she and I had in common. She was the pastor who ministered to my mom when she was dying of cancer some 17 years ago.

Most liturgical Protestant church groups use the Lectionary for their scripture readings which include readings from the Apoc/Deut books.

Thanks Publisher. I was not aware of that. Have a good day.

Matthew

 

[agent_grey]

the word of God is a man not a book.

And proove to me that Jesus spoke the words in the Gospel and I will proove to you that the Deuterocanonicals are inspiried.

This is an excercise in futility.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Since the gospels are recorded as history and written to spread what Jesus taught, that proves it.

Now, good luck proving those extra books are inspired.

Start with explaining why an occultic practice of fish guts is in tobit.

 

[Contarini]

I believe the passage from Wisdom would be in the Lectionary. The Methodist worship services I have attended…the RSV is used…the pastor used the “Oxford Study Bible with the Apoc/Deut Expanded Edition” which contains those “extra books” used by Catholic and Orthodox. It was somethin she and I had in common. She was the pastor who ministered to my mom when she was dying of cancer some 17 years ago.

Most liturgical Protestant church groups use the Lectionary for their scripture readings which include readings from the Apoc/Deut books.

The Revised Common Lectionary, used by most mainline Protestant churches (including, in recent years, the Episcopal Church), does have readings from the Deuteros, but I believe that there is always an alternative from the undisputed “Hebrew canon” books provided, and I think it would be unusual for Methodists or Presbyterians to use the Deuteros in worship. I may be wrong about that, though.

The Bible used most commonly in mainline Protestant churches is the NRSV, though as you note some Methodist churches use the old RSV, and some of the more evangelical ones use the NIV. The NRSV may be printed with or without the Apocrypha. In my experience pew Bibles used in Methodist churches typically include only the Hebrew canon of the OT.

Also, to the poster who said that the KJV doesn’t include the Apocrypha–this was not true of the original KJV, but it’s true that for the past couple hundred years copies of the KJV have generally been printed without the Deuteros.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Fact is I did answer them first by pointing out verses 21-22, but if one were just to read the text in context they would know it is the thinking of the wicked, not prophecy as you are trying to pretend.

Why on earth do you assume that the two things are incompatible? After all, Caiaphas prophesied about Jesus (John 11:49-51).

Any of us with Jewish background would just laugh at any suggestion that it is prophecy because all Jewish people would know that the book of Ben Sira does not defile the hands, whereas Scripture does defile the hands.

We all know that the rabbinic Jewish tradition rejects the deuterocanonical books. Of course, the rabbinic Jewish tradition also rejects Jesus. So it’s not clear to me how this is remotely relevant.

verse 21-22 has everything to do with it. The words you quoting are the thoughts of the wicked, they are not insipred in anyway.

Are you suggesting that inspired Scripture never quotes what wicked people said or puts words in the mouths of wicked people? It would not be hard to find plenty of examples of both from undisputed Scripture.

The text itself is not a prophecy of any kind.

We know that you think this. But the only argument you have presented is a non sequitur and easily refuted by John 11:51.

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

The Revised Common Lectionary, used by most mainline Protestant churches (including, in recent years, the Episcopal Church), does have readings from the Deuteros, but I believe that there is always an alternative from the undisputed “Hebrew canon” books provided, and I think it would be unusual for Methodists or Presbyterians to use the Deuteros in worship. I may be wrong about that, though.

The Bible used most commonly in mainline Protestant churches is the NRSV, though as you note some Methodist churches use the old RSV, and some of the more evangelical ones use the NIV. The NRSV may be printed with or without the Apocrypha. In my experience pew Bibles used in Methodist churches typically include only the Hebrew canon of the OT.

Also, to the poster who said that the KJV doesn’t include the Apocrypha–this was not true of the original KJV, but it’s true that for the past couple hundred years copies of the KJV have generally been printed without the Deuteros.

Edwin

You maybe interested in that: KJV with apocrypha.
One of the very few publishers who publish the KJV with apocrypha!

 

[Big_Dummy]

So, you really have no proof that those books testifly about Jesus.

 

[campeador]

So, you really have no proof that those books testifly about Jesus.

I don’t think there is any question that this is a reference to Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Wisdom 2:

13 He boasts that he has the knowledge of God, and calls himself the son of God.

16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstains from our ways as from filthiness, and he prefers the latter end of the just, and glories that he has God for his father.

17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.

18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.

20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

Matthew 27:

42 He saved others: himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross: and we will believe him.

43 He trusted in God: let him now deliver him if he will have him. For he said: I am the Son of God.

 

[Big_Dummy]

It’s interesting to note that there was no fixed Jewish canon of Scripture during the life of Christ. We do know, however that the Septuagint (Greek translation), which was written 200 years before his birth contained the Deuterocanonicals. This is the version that we find over 100 NT references from.

Whatever may have happened regarding a Jewish canon AFTER the death, resurrection and ascencion of Christ is irrelevant and devoid of any authority. The same goes for the Protestant rejection of the Deuteros some 1800 years after Christ. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the Gospel) and new wineskins (the Church).

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.

 

[Big_Dummy]

quoting Wisdom 2, pretending it is prophecy when not a single Jewish Scholar even sees the book as inspired, nor do they even see it as a prophecy is just plain funny. It is well known that the book of Wisdom does not defile the hands.

 

[Big_Dummy]

I don’t think there is any question that this is a reference to Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Wisdom 2:

13 He boasts that he has the knowledge of God, and calls himself the son of God.

16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstains from our ways as from filthiness, and he prefers the latter end of the just, and glories that he has God for his father.

17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.

18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.

20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

Matthew 27:

42 He saved others: himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross: and we will believe him.

43 He trusted in God: let him now deliver him if he will have him. For he said: I am the Son of God.

If you read the passage from Matthew in context, it plainly refers to the Psalms 22 as the backdrop, not Wisdom 2.

What you are practicing is a “sin” of intertextuality, known as

Samuel Sandmel, “**Parallelomania,” **Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1-13.
biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/parallelomania_sandmel.pdf

 

[Contarini]

quoting Wisdom 2, pretending it is prophecy when not a single Jewish Scholar even sees the book as inspired, nor do they even see it as a prophecy is just plain funny. It is well known that the book of Wisdom does not defile the hands.

And you still have not explained why you consider Orthodox Jewish rabbis authoritative on this point, when you obviously do not accept their teaching about Jesus.

Your position is glaringly inconsistent and not worthy of being taken seriously until you address this problem.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If you read the passage from Matthew in context, it plainly refers to the Psalms 22 as the backdrop, not Wisdom 2.

What you are practicing is a “sin” of intertextuality, known as

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

 

[Big_Dummy]

And you still have not explained why you consider Orthodox Jewish rabbis authoritative on this point, when you obviously do not accept their teaching about Jesus.

Your position is glaringly inconsistent and not worthy of being taken seriously until you address this problem.

Edwin

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

Hebrews 1
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.