The Deuterocanon

[Zakuska]

With this many quotes from these other texts in thye NT, can they reasonably be removed from the canon as not scriptural?

The Deuterocanon

(The Holy Bible books that the Protestants removed from their Bible)

And here are some of the from the Deuterocanon in the New Testament

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., council of Jamnia in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Orthodox and Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council who rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament!

http://st-takla.org/...a__0-index.html

Edited October 29, 2011 by Zakuska

[diglot]

Not to be nitpicky, but in scanning the list, many of these are not proper quotations, but are only possible allusions to deuterocanonical texts.

I don't doubt, though, that the NT authors were influenced by religious texts not found in our modern Bibles. For instance, Jude specifically quotes from 1 Enoch (tangent: I think the author of Jude likely viewed 1 Enoch as authoritative), but does that mean 1 Enoch should be included in the Bible? For most churches, the answer is no. For other churches (e.g. Ethiopian Orthodox), the answer is yes.

Regardless, I don't think it really matters if the deuterocanonical texts are included in the Bible or not. The Bible is just a collection of books that a faith-community decides to use as authoritative in terms of faith and practice. I don't think there is any such thing as an objective list of books that should be in the Bible; it's just a subjective choice (made by an individual or community) as to which texts are (using various criteria) deemed worthy enough to be included in the Bible and used in matters of faith and practice.

Edited October 30, 2011 by diglot

[sennahoj]

Speaking of which... one canonical Biblical book is not considered by the LDS church to be inspired, namely the Song of Solomon. Would anyone like to explain why this is?

[maklelan]

Speaking of which... one canonical Biblical book is not considered by the LDS church to be inspired, namely the Song of Solomon. Would anyone like to explain why this is?

I imagine Smith rejected the traditional allegorical reading of the Song of Songs and recognized it as simple love poetry. His conservativeness led him to then reject it as inspired scripture.

[David T]

I have come to see at just as much value in much of the intertestamental Apocryphal literature as I do in the canonized OT. I think just the simple adding of 1 Maccabees and 1 Enoch would add a substantial amount of context leading into the NT (More would need to be done to understand the context behind much of the 1 Enoch allegory, and understand that it's not an antediluvian history book, but a polemic apocalypse, much of which is roughly contemporary with Daniel). Sirach and Wisdom both have some significantly profound ideas and questions.

I wish more LDS took the positive admonition of D&C 91 (which frankly, I apply to all scripture, and not just the Apocrypha) more seriously:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, ...There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. ..Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him aunderstand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the aSpirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.

Edited October 30, 2011 by nackhadlow

[zerinus]

Not to be nitpicky, but in scanning the list, many of these are not proper quotations, but are only possible allusions to deuterocanonical texts.

I don't doubt, though, that the NT authors were influenced by religious texts not found in our modern Bibles. For instance, Jude specifically quotes from 1 Enoch (tangent: I think the author of Jude likely viewed 1 Enoch as authoritative), but does that mean 1 Enoch should be included in the Bible? For most churches, the answer is no. For other churches (e.g. Ethiopian Orthodox), the answer is yes.

Regardless, I don't think it really matters if the deuterocanonical texts are included in the Bible or not. The Bible is just a collection of books that a faith-community decides to use as authoritative in terms of faith and practice. I don't think there is any such thing as an objective list of books that should be in the Bible; it's just a subjective choice (made by an individual or community) as to which texts are (using various criteria) deemed worthy enough to be included in the Bible and used in matters of faith and practice.

We (LDS) believe that those decisions are made by revelation, not by some arbitrary "criteria".

[Calm]

We (LDS) believe that those decisions are made by revelation, not by some arbitrary "criteria".

Cfr

[zerinus]

Cfr

LDS canon of scripture is determined by the first Presidency and the Twelve, and voted upon by all Church membership at General Conference. That is the procedure for receiving revelation for the Church. I am puzzled that you didn't know that.

[Calm]

I knew that of course. My call for reference was for the actual revelation that outlined to the Brethren what scriptures were to be canon and which weren't. For example, there are a number of revelations that JS and BY received that are not in the canon...why not?

[volgadon]

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., council of Jamnia in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Orthodox and Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council who rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament!

Jamnia didn't decide the canon.

[zerinus]

I knew that of course. My call for reference was for the actual revelation that outlined to the Brethren what scriptures were to be canon and which weren't. For example, there are a number of revelations that JS and BY received that are not in the canon...why not?

The only valid answer to that question from an LDS point of view is that it was not the will of the Lord that they should be added to the canon at that time. That does not mean that they are not true revelations or true scripture. When God decides that they should be added, they will be, as was the case of the two revelations (D&C 137, 138) which were added when Spencer W. Kimball was President. Both revelations had been around for decades, and nobody doubted that they were true revelations; but they were not added to the canon until the Lord decided in His wisdom that they should be added.

[Calm]

Answered my second question, though with just an assertion. I'd like to see more for the first question: what is the revelation that established what books,etc. were in our canon originally?

[LeSellers]

Speaking of which... one canonical Biblical book is not considered by the LDS church to be inspired, namely the Song of Solomon. Would anyone like to explain why this is?

Because it's nothing more than early erotica. There is not a single redeeming passage in it.

How it got incorporated into the Hebrew (and later, the Christian) canon is a mystery to me.

In any case, as Joseph was revising the Bible according to the inspiration given him of God, he revealed that "The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings." 'Nuff sed.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Answered my second question, though with just an assertion. I'd like to see more for the first question: what is the revelation that established what books,etc. were in our canon originally?

While the Church was young and not yet fully organized, Joseph Smith decided what the canon should be; and the assumption is that he did so by revelation. Since then the First Presidency and the Twelve collectively make that decision--with the same underlying assumption. Again, it is part of the culture of LDS that the First Presidency do not have to produce a "written text" in order to be acting by revelation.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There is not a single redeeming passage in it.

CFR.

Oh, wait, that's impossible, since that's merely your own personal opinion which you're stating like an unquestionable absolute.

I love the Song of Songs.

2:3 Like an apple tree among trees of the forest,

So is my beloved among the youths.

I delight to sit in his shade,

And his fruit is sweet to my mouth.

He brought me to the banquet room

And his banner of love was over me.

"Sustain me with raisin cakes,

Refresh me with apples,

For I am faint with love."

4:10 How sweet is your love,

My own, my bride!

How much more delightful your love than wine,

Your ointments more fragrant

Than any spice!

Sweetness drops

From your lips, O bride;

Honey and milk

Are under your tongue;

And the scent of your robes

Is like the scent of Lebanon.

4:15 [You are] a garden spring,

A well of fresh water,

A rill of Lebanon.

4:16 Awake, O north wind,

Come, O south wind!

Blow upon my garden,

That its perfume may spread.

Let my beloved come to his garden

And enjoy its luscious fruits!

6:2 My beloved has gone down to his garden,

To the beds of spices,

To browse in the gardens

And to pick lilies.

I am my beloved's

And my beloved is mine;

He browses among the lilies.

6:9 Only one is my dove,

My perfect one,

The only one of her mother,

The delight of her who bore her.

Poetry. The man is not without the woman, and they were unashamed when they were naked in their garden. That which is without body, parts, or passions is nothing. We are, that we might have joy in each other and in our posterity.

Edited October 31, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[volgadon]

How it got incorporated into the Hebrew (and later, the Christian) canon is a mystery to me.

I'd recommend reading a couple of essays. Gershon Cohen's "The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality" and Judah Goldin's "Toward a Profile of the Tanna Akiba ben-Joseph."

Daring love metaphors are not unheard of in the Bible, but they express God's POV. None of them are from the POV of Israel, God's lover. The SoS answers that need. It expresses Israel's dialogue of love with God. That is why it became a sacred book.

[Zakuska]

CFR.

Oh, wait, that's impossible, since that's merely your own personal opinion which you're stating like an unquestionable absolute.

I love the Song of Songs.

2:3 Like an apple tree among trees of the forest,

So is my beloved among the youths.

I delight to sit in his shade,

And his fruit is sweet to my mouth.

He brought me to the banquet room

And his banner of love was over me.

"Sustain me with raisin cakes,

Refresh me with apples,

For I am faint with love."

4:10 How sweet is your love,

My own, my bride!

How much more delightful your love than wine,

Your ointments more fragrant

Than any spice!

Sweetness drops

From your lips, O bride;

Honey and milk

Are under your tongue;

And the scent of your robes

Is like the scent of Lebanon.

4:15 [You are] a garden spring,

A well of fresh water,

A rill of Lebanon.

4:16 Awake, O north wind,

Come, O south wind!

Blow upon my garden,

That its perfume may spread.

Let my beloved come to his garden

And enjoy its luscious fruits!

6:2 My beloved has gone down to his garden,

To the beds of spices,

To browse in the gardens

And to pick lilies.

I am my beloved's

And my beloved is mine;

He browses among the lilies.

6:9 Only one is my dove,

My perfect one,

The only one of her mother,

The delight of her who bore her.

Poetry. The man is not without the woman, and they were unashamed when they were naked in their garden. That which is without body, parts, or passions is nothing. We are, that we might have joy in each other and in our posterity.

So do I. I see it as a prophecy that spans from the time oif Christ, through the Apostasy and dark ages, and the Restoration when the Rose of Sharon vermont was born.

[Calm]

I love the Song of Songs.

.....

Poetry. The man is not without the woman, and they were unashamed when they were naked in their garden. That which is without body, parts, or passions is nothing. We are, that we might have joy in each other and in our posterity.

So how do you view SoS 5:6-7? Sorry, haven't figured out how to copy off websites on my iPad yet so no quote.

http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/song/5?lang=eng

Edited October 31, 2011 by calmoriah

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

My understanding is that the entire Song is focused on cycles of Presence and Absence. Of the many possible interpretations, I side with one presented in the Jewish Study Bible, which suggests that "the Song evolved from a Mesopotamian liturgical context which described the sacred marriage of a god and goddess. This theory is based on perceived similarities between the Song and ancient Mesopotamian sacred marriage texts. ... some of the images of the poem [may possibly] originate in liturgical or mythological traditions." (Bokovoy is, I believe, working on a paper with this theme.)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that because the 2nd-century allegorical Rabbinic interpretation is somewhat late in comparison, it was the hieros gamos which was the more fundamental root meaning. Which makes sense, considering our own Temple marriages, in which Male and Female are brought together in a Garden where through their union they become Gods and Goddesses, At-one with the Divine Council. Like Ishtar shedding Her veils, then, we must descend below all things, separated for a time to suffer the blows of death (even from the Watchmen, who are, ironically, supposed to protect the city), before being reunited with our loved ones. (Uh, not that we should be emulating Ishtar in other ways. Oy.) (And this is not to say that the allegorical redemptive reading of woman-as-Israel, man-as-God is not without merit, of course. volgadon would be the one to ask about that, tho.)

(Alternatively, of course, the guy in the poem could just be a schmuck in that verse.)

Edited October 31, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Nathair/|\]

FWIW, I once heard a song by a protestant comedian discussing the Song of Solomon and complaining about how much trouble he would get in if he tried using many of the lines in it. I can't find it now, but it was something like "If Solomon can say it, why can't I."

More to the OP, I take the song at face value as an expression of the relationship between a husband and wife. Admittedly, I haven't studied it much.

I'd also love to see the apocrypha and other texts excluded by the councils studied in the church, but I know too many members who complain that they have too much to study as it is.

[volgadon]

The poem makes it rather clear that the lovers aren't married. They live separately and meet up either late into the dark night, or in secluded places such as walnut gardens.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I might've been unclear - I agree that the lovers aren't married, but the images and poetry used to describe their union might have roots in more ancient marriage ceremonies, edited together from preexisting poetic fragments. 4:9, for instance - "You have captured my heart, my sister, my bride" - not a literal sister or bride, but rather [possibly Egyptian] marriage imagery. I was using those images as a defense against the assertion that "there is not a single redeeming passage in it."