Did Jesus quote from the Deuterocanonical OT books? (SPLIT)


#1

I appreciate Keraph1’s thorough response. I did want to let the Forum know, however, that at least some of these quotes can be found elsewhere in the Old Testament, outside of the deuterocanonical books. For example, the Father could be assigned the title “Lord of heaven and earth” in Matt. 11:25 based on passages such as Is. 37:16 and Is. 66:1.

I also wanted to make you all aware that there is no such verse as Tobit 7:18. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Tobit%207&version=NRSVCE
Using the above Web site, I searched for this passage in the NRSV Catholic Edition, and it does not exist.


#2

I don't know about Jesus quoting from the Deuterocanonical books, but he
sure did fulfill the prophecy seen in the Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom
2:1,12-22 (Written no later than 60-100 years BEFORE the birth of Christ).Also if it is worth noting: I hear the woman Judith mentioned in the Deuterocanon is a
"Type" for Mary, that is one of those Old/New Testament parallels, like the king/priest
Melchizedek being a type for Jesus.


#3

You guys do realize that this is a very old thread from over 8 years ago, right? :shrug:

Oh and you are dead wrong Sir, there is indeed a Tobit 7:18. It reads…
"[18] "Be brave, my child; the Lord of heaven and earth grant you joy in place of this sorrow of yours. Be brave, my daughter."


#4

Hi Judas Thaddeus,

I respect everyone's right to agree to disagree. I see what you are saying about the Lord Jesus being a fulfillment of the words you cited in Wisdom.

I believe that deuterocanonical books and even pseudepigraphal books can have truth in them. In fact, some or all of them may be comprised entirely of truth, just as well-written history books are. However, are such truth-filled books God-inspired words in the sense that we would call them the Word of God? Would we hold Wisdom as being on the same level of inspiration as the Gospel of Matthew, for example? I think that is where many Protestants and Catholics differ. Many Protestants think that there can be truth in the Deuterocanon, but that these books are not part of the Bible itself.

When I was researching this topic, what I wanted to see is if the Lord Jesus quoted the Deuterocanon directly as scripture. If He had, that would go a long way in proving to me that perhaps my Protestant point of view was incorrect. I have a lot of respect for Catholics in many ways: I think Mother Teresa was one of the greatest Christians of all time, for example. As a school teacher, the teacher who mentored me was a nun, and she was a wonderful human being.

However, up to now, what I have seen is that the Lord Jesus did not quote the Deuterocanon as Scripture. The quote you provided is very similar to Isaiah 53, which is part of both the Catholic and Protestant canons.

I do appreciate you engaging in this dialogue, however, and I hope that you appreciate any insight I may have provided.

Be blessed, and take care,
Filipenses


#5

Hi Church Militant,

Regarding Tobit 7:18, which version of the Bible are you quoting from? According to biblegateway.com, the NRSV Catholic Edition does not contain a Tobit 7:18. Perhaps the citation is in another part of the Bible, or perhaps it is in a different translation?

As to the age of the thread, I realize that. I just think that the topic is a very interesting area of research, and just like someone writing an academic paper on any topic, I don't mind going back to some older sources :).

Have a blessed day,
Filipenses


#6

[quote="Filipenses, post:5, topic:335452"]
Hi Church Militant,

Regarding Tobit 7:18, which version of the Bible are you quoting from? According to biblegateway.com, the NRSV Catholic Edition does not contain a Tobit 7:18. Perhaps the citation is in another part of the Bible, or perhaps it is in a different translation?

As to the age of the thread, I realize that. I just think that the topic is a very interesting area of research, and just like someone writing an academic paper on any topic, I don't mind going back to some older sources :).

Have a blessed day,
Filipenses

[/quote]

You should read the rules of the forum before posting in the forum.

Here is the proper numbering of Tobit, biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Tobit%207&version=DRA


#7

Hi JM3,

I am not sure which rule of the forum I may not have followed. I did read through them before I signed up, but maybe I forgot something.

Do you have any idea why Tobit 7:18 is in the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition but not in the NRSV Catholic Edition? Moreover, the DR 1899 AE has Tobit 7:18 as the following:

18 And Raguel called to him Anna his wife, and bade her prepare another chamber.

Do you have any idea where the following passage is found that was mentioned in another brother's post?
"[18] "Be brave, my child; the Lord of heaven and earth grant you joy in place of this sorrow of yours. Be brave, my daughter."

Thanks for your help, and have a blessed day,
Filipenses


#8

Best explanation I've seen for why each book of the Deuterocanon deserves its historical place in the Bible:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book.html

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book_28.html


#9

[quote="Filipenses, post:7, topic:335452"]
Hi JM3,

I am not sure which rule of the forum I may not have followed. I did read through them before I signed up, but maybe I forgot something.

Do you have any idea why Tobit 7:18 is in the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition but not in the NRSV Catholic Edition? Moreover, the DR 1899 AE has Tobit 7:18 as the following:

18 And Raguel called to him Anna his wife, and bade her prepare another chamber.

Do you have any idea where the following passage is found that was mentioned in another brother's post?
"[18] "*Be brave, my child; the Lord of heaven and earth grant you joy in place of this sorrow of yours. Be brave, my daughter." *

Thanks for your help, and have a blessed day,
Filipenses

[/quote]

**Tobit 7

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)**

15 Raguel called his wife Edna and said to her, “Sister, get the other room ready, and take her there.” 16 So she went and made the bed in the room as he had told her, and brought Sarah* there. She wept for her daughter.[j] Then, wiping away the tears,[k] she said to her,** “Take courage, my daughter; the Lord of heaven grant you joy[l] in place of your sorrow. Take courage, my daughter.” Then she went out.***


#10

[quote="Filipenses, post:4, topic:335452"]
Hi Judas Thaddeus,
I respect everyone's right to agree to disagree. I see what you are saying about the Lord Jesus being a fulfillment of the words you cited in Wisdom.
I believe that deuterocanonical books and even pseudepigraphal books can have truth in them. In fact, some or all of them may be comprised entirely of truth, just as well-written history books are. However, are such truth-filled books God-inspired words in the sense that we would call them the Word of God? Would we hold Wisdom as being on the same level of inspiration as the Gospel of Matthew, for example? I think that is where many Protestants and Catholics differ. Many Protestants think that there can be truth in the Deuterocanon, but that these books are not part of the Bible itself.
When I was researching this topic, what I wanted to see is if the Lord Jesus quoted the Deuterocanon directly as scripture. If He had, that would go a long way in proving to me that perhaps my Protestant point of view was incorrect. I have a lot of respect for Catholics in many ways: I think Mother Teresa was one of the greatest Christians of all time, for example. As a school teacher, the teacher who mentored me was a nun, and she was a wonderful human being.
However, up to now, what I have seen is that the Lord Jesus did not quote the Deuterocanon as Scripture. The quote you provided is very similar to Isaiah 53, which is part of both the Catholic and Protestant canons.
I do appreciate you engaging in this dialogue, however, and I hope that you appreciate any insight I may have provided.
Be blessed, and take care,
Filipenses

[/quote]

What I hear you saying is that So what if there is authentic prophecies
sent by God contained within the Deuterocanonical Books, that doesn't
make them Scripture. I see it also as a "ya BUT..." statement.

"Would we hold Wisdom as being on the same level of inspiration as the
Gospel of Matthew, for example?" maybe you wouldn't because you're a
Protestant, but I would, because I know the the Deuterocanon is part of
the Bible, as according to the Decree of Damasus in the Council of Rome,
382 A.D.

Truth is one thing, Prophecy is a little different, as it doesn't just express what has
always been, but what will be, and if Book of Wisdom was correct on this account,
written before the time of Jesus then fulfilled by Jesus, how can one be so brave as
to suggest the Church was wrong to include it in Scripture only to be rejected many
centuries later by a tipsy monk?

And why look for Jesus verbally quoting from the Deuterocanon? Is it reasonable
to say that if Jesus never recited from it that it would validate it's exclusion from
the Canon? I think the Holy Spirit did a *good *job in guiding the Catholic Church
in selecting and canonizing all the books in the Catholic Bible.


#11

[quote="Filipenses, post:7, topic:335452"]
Hi JM3,

I am not sure which rule of the forum I may not have followed. I did read through them before I signed up, but maybe I forgot something.

Filipenses

[/quote]

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=6487

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2954960&postcount=11


#12

[quote="Filipenses, post:5, topic:335452"]
Hi Church Militant,

Regarding Tobit 7:18, which version of the Bible are you quoting from? According to biblegateway.com, the NRSV Catholic Edition does not contain a Tobit 7:18. Perhaps the citation is in another part of the Bible, or perhaps it is in a different translation?

As to the age of the thread, I realize that. I just think that the topic is a very interesting area of research, and just like someone writing an academic paper on any topic, I don't mind going back to some older sources :).

Have a blessed day,
Filipenses

[/quote]

Click the link in the reference in my post and it will take you to the source. It's the RSV. Most Catholics do not care for the NRSV because of its inclusive language and some other problems.

Moreover, people seem to forget that the verse numbering, chapter divisions, and even table of contents, in the Bible is not part of the inspired text, so arguing about why it might be different is pretty useless.

As to the title of this thread, the answer would be no; Jesus did not quote from any apocryphal writings but he and all the apostles do indeed quote from the Deuterocanonical books as well as some Jewish traditional writings as well.
See Tradition? No way! , Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition. , and The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic Bible

Further, I recommend that you check the following Scripture Catholic link and note just how much the New Testament quotes from the DCs. Deuterocanon


#13

Tobit 10:14

When Tobiah left Raguel, he was full of happiness and joy, and he blessed the Lord of heaven and earth, the King of all, for making his journey so successful. Finally he said good-bye to Raguel and his wife Edna, and added, "May I honor you all the days of my life!"

The request is in the stickies and they will close an old thread.

If you find an old topic that you wish to "resurrect", please start a new thread. The reason for doing it that way is very simple. The people who were on that thread may be gone or may no longer be interested in the subject. If you begin a new thread, you may get a fresh perspective.

We leave old threads in plain sight, because people often come to ask a question. Rather than starting a thread on something that has been discussed, the person can go into search mode and find the discussion, inform himself and move on.

If the last post on a thread is more than six months old, it may mean that no one is really interested in that topic. If the last post is over a year old or more, the posters may have moved on.

If you really have something to add to the subject, start a new thread.

PM me if you have questions.

Thank You
Eric Hilbert


#14

"See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another." Tobias 4:16

Jesus paraphrases this teaching! Do unto others has you would have others do to you! See Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.:)


#15

[quote="Filipenses, post:1, topic:335452"]
... some of these quotes can be found elsewhere in the Old Testament, outside of the deuterocanonical books. For example, the Father could be assigned the title "Lord of heaven and earth" in Matt. 11:25 ... as Is. 37:16 and Is. 66:1.

I also wanted to make you all aware that there is no such verse as Tobit 7:18. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Tobit%207&version=NRSVCE
Using the above Web site, I searched for this passage in the NRSV Catholic Edition, and it does not exist.

[/quote]

One of the many fallacies of sola Scriptura is the Protestant assertion (introduced by Calvin) that Scripture is "self-authenticating". In other words, the biblical books and epistles bear witness to themselves that they are indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit. But how do we know for sure that the Book of Isaiah actually is an inspired text? How is it that this book was inspired, but the Book of Wisdom wasn't according to your judgment? In what ways do the "apocryphal" fail to bear witness to themselves? I'm afraid you can't answer these questions, since Scripture does not speak for itself. You yourself have pointed out above that a deuterocanonical book may contain a similar divine designation that is found in the Book of Isaiah. Thus the truth is, if the biblical books and epistles of the OT and NT could bear witness to themselves as being the authentic written word of God, there would have been no dispute in the early Church over which books rightfully belonged to the canon of Scripture. As you must know, it wasn't until the late 4th century that the canon was finally established. Until then there was much disagreement over which Scriptures were inspired and of apostolic origin in the NT. The canon varied among the churches in different regions; some lists contained books and letters that eventually were declared non-canonical by the magisterium of the Church, while these same lists may have included books that rightfully belonged to the canon and were declared to be. Texts which were considered to be inspired at one time include The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermes. So how is it that none of these texts weren't inspired, seeing that they contain nothing unorthodox in contravention of sacred Tradition, but rather affirm traditional beliefs of the early Church? We could know that they weren't inspired only by extra-biblical sources of authority: tradition, scholarship, and the infallible ruling authority of the Church functioning in harmony under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and divine author of the sacred texts.

Meanwhile the early Church found nothing spurious about the seven deuterocanonical books which were much later rejected by the so-called Protestant reformers, but she did rightly rule scores of manuscripts that were circulating in the Christian era to be apocryphal, which include the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas. Now Protestants may rationalize that the seven deuterocanonical books don't belong in Scripture along with our proto-canonical books since they were rejected by a council of rabbis who convened at Javneh in A.D. 90. But until then the Jews still widely disagreed over which OT Books were fit for their canon of Scripture, which obviously could not speak for itself. Yet not only did they reject these seven books, but they also rejected the Gospels and dismissed other Christian writings as false. So their divine authority to determine which OT books were the true written word of God wasn't in the least credible. As it should be, the Synod at Rome (382 A.D.) disregarded the ruling at Javneh, since a proposal by a Jewish council is not binding on Christians to begin with. Hence, since the Bible (the Jews don't have one) does not come complete with an inspired list of contents, we cannot know with certainty which books rightfully belong to it. The canon of Scripture could only have been determined by an infallible extra-biblical ruling authority under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - since it is primarily His work, and not a secular piece of writing devised by reasoning and imagining human beings. In the wake of the Protestant Reformation in 1546, the Council of Trent infallibly declared the seventy-three books proposed by the Synod at Rome, and soon later ratified by the Councils at Hippo (393) and at Carthage (397), to be truly the inspired word of God. The deuterocanonical books were accepted partly because they were included in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew OT) at the time of Jesus and his apostles while the Judaic canon was still in flux. In fact, two-thirds of the OT quotations and citations in the NT are from the Septuagint. Jesus and his apostles did address Greek speaking Diaspora Jews. In any event, quotations and citations from the OT in the NT do not necessarily presuppose that certain OT books are canonical. If this were so, then numerous proto-canonical books would have to be excluded, since Jesus and his apostles never quoted or cited these ones.

"He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, I am the Son of God."
Matthew 27, 42-43 (cf. Wis 2:12-20)

On one occasion Jesus stood near the temple during the Feast of Hanukkah and spoke of himself as being "set apart" just as Judas Maccabeus 'set apart' the temple by consecrating it to God (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8). Clearly, our Lord drew a connection between this feast and the account of it in the books of Maccabees to allude to his own consecration to the Father. The establishment of the sacred feast day is recorded in no other book of the OT.

:)


#16

I'm just commenting on the book of Tobit.

[quote="patrick457, post:3, topic:328722"]
That's because the Vulgate Tobit is an on-the-spot paraphrase made by St. Jerome from a Hebrew translation of an Aramaic version. (Jerome found a version of Tobit in Aramaic, or "Chaldean" as he calls it, but he wasn't very good at the language, so he had someone read and translate it in Hebrew for him.)

The NAB Tobit meanwhile is primarily based on one of two Greek texts, the longer one known as Greek II or GII. (The shorter version, or Greek I, is the basis for the RSV Tobit.) The Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of Tobit found in Qumran are close to GII, as well as to Latin translations made before Jerome (aka Vetus Latina), which is even closer to these texts, which is why most scholars today favor it. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, translators used GI, because it is the version found in most Greek manuscripts. (GII in its fullest form is found only in Codex Sinaiticus, and even it has a couple of huge lacunae or missing text.)

There you have it: at least three or four different versions of a single book! :p I recommend you read this thread I built up a while ago.

P.S. Note that Haydock's commentary was written before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found; when it speaks of the "Hebrew" it refers to late, medieval versions of Tobit in that language (there are four of them) - which was the only thing available to scholars at that time. (The number of versions just increased further! :D)

[/quote]

[quote="patrick457, post:15, topic:328722"]
There are five manuscripts of Tobit (4Q196-200), dating from the period between 100 BC to AD 25, found in Cave 4 in Qumran in 1952, but it was not until 1956 that the first report on the finds was published. The late J.T. Milik reported about the discovery of what was then fragments three manuscripts of Tobit in the report. More fragments were eventually found (which was also announced by Milik) until five texts were found in total. However, while Milik worked on piecing the fragments from a period spanning from 1953 to 1960, he never got around to actually publishing them (one of the main criticisms levelled against him, in fact, is how he contributed to the long delay of getting the Dead Sea Scrolls into public view by not completing all the work on his portion - and quite an amount of the discovered fragments were under his lot). It was Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer who would complete the work and publish them in 1995 (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, volume 19).

All in all, these manuscripts (four in Aramaic, one in Hebrew) generally agree with the text of GII, but sometimes they also exhibit agreement with GI. (For example, in Tobit 14:2, 4Q196 (Aramaic) and 4Q200 (Hebrew) both agree with GI in stating that Tobit was fifty-eight when he became blind, as opposed to GII's sixty-two.) In some instances, the text provided could be shorter or longer, or at times agree more with the Vetus Latina versions over against GII. All in all, there are sixty-nine fragments or groups of fragments in these five texts: out of these sixty-nine, thirty-four tiny fragments are unidentified, giving us thirty-five identified fragments in total.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/bibel/PB01_TOB.gif
4QTob ar[sup]a/sup

4QTob[sup]a[/sup] ar (4Q196, Aramaic, ca. 50-25 BC)

Fragments 1 (Tobit 1:17), 2 (1:19-2:2), 3 (2:3), 4 (2:10-11), 5 (3:5), 6 (3:9-15), 7 (3:17), 8 (4:2), 9 (4:5), 10 (4:7), 11 (4:21-5:1), 12 (5:9), 13 (6:6-8), 14 i (6:13-18), 14 ii (6:18-7:6), 15 (7:13), 16 (12:1), 17 i (12:18-13:6), 17 ii (13:6-12), 18 (13:12-14:3), 19 (14:7), 20-49 (??)

4QTob[sup]b[/sup] ar (4Q197, Aramaic, ca. 25 BC-AD 25)

Fragments 1 (Tobit 3:6-8), 2 (4:21-5:1), 3 (5:12-14), 4 i (5:19-6:12), 4 ii (6:12-18), 4 iii (6:18-7:10), 5 (8:17-9:4), 6-7 (??)

4QTob[sup]c[/sup] ar (4Q198, Aramaic, ca. 50 BC)

Fragments 1 (Tobit 14:2-6), 2 (14:10)

4QTob[sup]d[/sup] ar (4Q199, Aramaic, ca. 100 BC)

Fragments 1 (Tobit 7:11), 2 (14:10)

4QTob[sup]e[/sup] (4Q200, Hebrew, ca. 30 BC-AD 20)

Fragments 1 i (Tobit 3:6), 1 ii (3:10-11), 2 (4:3-9), 3 (5:2), 4 (10:7-9), 5 (11:10-14), 6 (12:20-13:4), 7 i (13:13-14), 7 ii (13:18-14:2), 8 (?), 9 (3:3-4?)

These fragments also exhibit some degree of minor variance with each other, which shows us that there was not really a fixed text of Tobit during the 1st century BC or the 1st century AD.

[/quote]


#17

[quote="Filipenses, post:5, topic:335452"]
Regarding Tobit 7:18, which version of the Bible are you quoting from? According to biblegateway.com, the NRSV Catholic Edition does not contain a Tobit 7:18. Perhaps the citation is in another part of the Bible, or perhaps it is in a different translation?

[/quote]

I looked it up. The RSV-CE and RSV-2CE seem to number verses differently, but the same text is still there.

[quote="Church_Militant, post:12, topic:335452"]
Click the link in the reference in my post and it will take you to the source. It's the RSV. Most Catholics do not care for the NRSV because of its inclusive language and some other problems.

[/quote]

:ehh: Maybe the NRSV, but I always assumed what they're calling an "NRSV-CE" is actually the RSV-2CE. (I should look into that)

EDIT: Wow. It actually IS an NRSV with Deuterocanon. Good thing I'm reading the RSV-CE from that site, which is still accurate

Moreover, people seem to forget that the verse numbering, chapter divisions, and even table of contents, in the Bible is not part of the inspired text, so arguing about why it might be different is pretty useless.

:thumbsup:


#18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.