Deuterocanonical quotes within the NT

[ptwild]

I just finished a study on St. Jude's episitle and and read irishman's excellent sermon on the same. Please take a look at his sermon and our brief dialogue, which inspired this thread.

There are two verses (9 and 14) in Jude that are either direct quotes or references to deuterocanonical books (1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses). Does anyone else have any information on these or other passages from deuterocanonical books that are quoted in the scriptures? To what level should we esteem these deuterocanonical books considering they are quoted or refered to in scripture? I have done a cursory internet search of this topic and nothing relevant seems available.

[Covenanter]

The quotes are true, but the books they are in are not Scripture.

I suspect that they are Jewish tradition that iss being quoted. The tradition is authenticated for Jude's purpose, but the sources are not.

[ptwild]

The quotes are true, but the books they are in are not Scripture.

I suspect that they are Jewish tradition that iss being quoted. The tradition is authenticated for Jude's purpose, but the sources are not.

I get what you are saying and I am on the same page. It's still a hairy situation though. Was it possible that St. Jude accpeted 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses as factually true, yet not inspired scripture? Or is possible that he did accept them as inspired? Or, did the early Christians differentiate between which OT/deuterocanonical texts were inspired and which were not? It also think it begs the question of exactly what texts were being read by the early Christians when the NT canon was being developed. We (Anglicans) read the Apocrypha (includes some deuterocanonical books, but not those quoted in Jude) for guidance but do not accept it as inspired scripture. Is is possible that the first Christians were doing likewise with an assortment of other texts?

Does anyone know of other instances of this happening in the NT or where one might get a complete copy of the deuterocanonical books?

[Covenanter]

Hbr 11:37 ... they were sawn asunder,
Tradition names Isaiah - I don't think 2 Sam. 12:31

[JerryNumbers]

Even that which is not 100% true, can have some truths within it, in fact that is what makes many false teachers dangerous, they will have some truths within them. If they would not included any Bible truths within their teachings, they would be much easier to weed out.

Jude, though the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, quoted a truth. That does not mean that the book he quoted from held all truths.

[ptwild]

Even that which is not 100% true, can have some truths within it, in fact that is what makes many false teachers dangerous, they will have some truths within them. If they would not included any Bible truths within their teachings, they would be much easier to weed out.

Jude, though the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, quoted a truth. That does not mean that the book he quoted from held all truths.

As far as that goes, every word of these deuterocanonical sources could be true yet still not be inspired scripture.

[1Timothy115]

I believe there was some debate over the actual date each was written and some believed 1 Enoch may have quoted Jude. I guess we would have had to have been there.

[JerryNumbers]

As far as that goes, every word of these deuterocanonical sources could be true yet still not be inspired scripture.

Not being inspired by God they cannot be trusted. The KJ Bible can be trusted, all 100% of it.

[irishman]

There may be one in Titus 1:12 "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." Though this was quoted from a "Prophet of their own", Paul saw fit to quote it here. It doesn't give the quote any real authority, just makes a point.

The book of Enoch may have been a part of the dead sea scrolls, I don't know, but for awhile there was a big debate as to whether they were inspired or not. I am not sure when they were lost, but they could have been existent in Paul's day.

[CPR]

Not being inspired by God they cannot be trusted. The KJ Bible can be trusted, all 100% of it.

The Authorized Version of the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha.

Regardless, there are historical sources that are useful for knowledge that are not useful for doctrine. Edited August 4, 2010 by CPR

[JerryNumbers]

The Authorized Version of the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha.

Regardless, there are historical sources that are useful for knowledge that are not useful for doctrine.

Yes, but this statement still stand, can be useful, but cannot be 100% trusted.

[irishman]

Yes, but this statement still stand, can be useful, but cannot be 100% trusted.

Amen! Case in point: Josephus. I had his complete works, and decided to get rid of them. Too many people rely on him for the actual history (he was supposed to be a contemporary of Christ, or close to it) but his inaccuracies seem to be the rantings of a mad man. He is very strange, and yet many swear by him as far as doctrine is concerned. (If it is considered a novel, his writing might be good, full of fiction.) Yet he remains one of the premier historians of our day. Can't figure that one out! Edited August 4, 2010 by irishman

[ptwild]

There may be one in Titus 1:12 "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." Though this was quoted from a "Prophet of their own", Paul saw fit to quote it here. It doesn't give the quote any real authority, just makes a point.

The book of Enoch may have been a part of the dead sea scrolls, I don't know, but for awhile there was a big debate as to whether they were inspired or not. I am not sure when they were lost, but they could have been existent in Paul's day.

In The Stromata, Clement of Alexandria identified the "Prophet of their own" as Epimenides, who I believe was a pagan philosopher living in Greece during the 1st century.

I believe that somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 copies of Enoch were found with the dead sea scrolls.

This was the Anglican Church's position regarding the Apocrypha when the AV was translated: they are suitable for "example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth net apply them to establish any doctrine." (from the 39 Articles). They were read during services and are included in the daily lectionary.

[JerryNumbers]

Amen! Case in point: Josephus. I had his complete works, and decided to get rid of them. Too many people rely on him for the actual history (he was supposed to be a contemporary of Christ, or close to it) but his inaccuracies seem to be the rantings of a mad man. He is very strange, and yet many swear by him as far as doctrine is concerned. (If it is considered a novel, his writing might be good, full of fiction.) Yet he remains one of the premier historians of our day. Can't figure that one out!

Yes, and I would think that is the down fall of many.