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

[clsteiner]

Originally Posted by 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? 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by clsteiner

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]

Originally Posted by toaslan

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]

Originally Posted by ChadS

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.