Interesting book! Thanks for the review sir! I might get a copy of this book in the future. I got a lot of evidential books to purchase in my mind right now. And I might consider this also. Thanks! May the most High bless you sir!
Excellent review! It is important to understand that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox lists of books considered inspired are indeed identical, however, the Eastern Orthodox include several additional books in their canonical lists which are read in their Holy Liturgies. These additional books are not considered inspired but included in their canonical lists for historical purposes.
Thanks for commenting, Gil. Perhaps some of my Orthodox viewers will give their perspectives. For my part, I suspect that there isn't a single Eastern Orthodox view. In "The Orthodox Church," Kallistos Ware noted that the Councils of Jassy and Jerusalem declared 1 (alias 3) Esdras and 3 Maccabees as "genuine parts of Scripture," in addition to the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonicals. He adds that "most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament." I remember seeing an article at goarch.org many years ago that took the same stand. The Orthodox Study Bible, on the other hand, does not make such a distinction, and it includes Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Manasseh in the canon as well as 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonicals. Still different, the Longer Catechism published by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1839 appears to endorse a smaller (22 book) canon, like the ones listed by Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. In response to the question, "How are we to regard these last-named books [Sirach and certain others]?" the catechism responds, "Athanasius the Great says, that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes, who are preparing for admission into the Church." It may be that the Eastern Orthodox perspective on this issue is diverse.
@@RGrantJones St. Jerome seems to be the person most often used by Protestants to say that he denied the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals. Yet he does reference them as Scripture: "Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power" [SIRACH 13:2] (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207) St. Jerome himself (above) refers to Sirach, which he had referred to as 'non-canonical', as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation. "Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119 Here above, St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books. "I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] *AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS."* (Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159) Notice how Jerome (above) makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God's Word. Also, contrary to the assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets, Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God's Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct. *"still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture,* and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah, (Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45) Notice above that St. Jerome quotes in reference to Scriptures, and the Sacred Volumes. Then he refers to 3 passages. Ezekiel, Baruch, and Matthew. Now, St. Jerome here refers to Jeremiah giving letters (plural) to Baruch. One time in Jeremiah 36, and another time in Baruch 6. Thus, Baruch is clearly Scripture, and he is clearly an author of the Sacred Volume, the Bible. "As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place *IT IS WRITTEN:* [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation." Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. (Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390) As we have seen, *"It is written"* is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach. "Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory. Instead of *THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE* which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, *BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"* (Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8) "Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see *THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE,* which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, test, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is[Num. 35:8] commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who[Ezek. 18:23] would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live. C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily? "DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION:* [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" " (Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5) St. Jerome calls the Deuterocanonicals Scripture. The proofs he gives for doctrine come from the Deuterocanonicals. He calls Baruch a prophet in the same sense as Ezekiel. He quotes from Wisdom & Sirach and gives it the same authority as other Scripture and he complains about his opponent denying the authority of the book, not him. His references to the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, he uses in support of doctrine, clearly seeing them as Scriptures. Jerome mixes them right along with the rest of Scriptures and he treats them just as the rest of Scriptures. Scriptures are used to 'fulfill' Sirach on the same terms that it fulfilled a Psalm, which can thus only be speaking of Scripture. *St. Jerome quoted and referenced the Deuterocanonical books: Sirach, Wisdom, 2nd Maccabbees, Tobit, Esther, Baruch, and even the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three Children, treating each of these books as the same authority as the other books.* Thus, the greatest supposed 'detractor' of the Deuterocanonicals, in reality, treated and quoted the 'non-canonical' books as Scripture. BY THE WAY, I REALLY ENJOY YOUR VIDEOS AND REVIEWS!
I especially appreciate two short books not in the Roman canon, 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees, and how remarkable they are in historical theology. Thankfully they appear in the Harper Collins SB with introductions and notes. We also read them in the Episcopal Church as needed, and Dr John Barclays includes an important exegetical chapter in “Paul and the Gift” on the Judaic theology of 2 Esdras in support of the old perspective on Paul (the primacy of works righteousness in the first century).
@@SibleyStevei saw on wikipedia that Anglicans have 3 Maccabees in their apocrypha section. But the 39 articles dont cite 3 or 4 Maccabees as part of apocrypha. Are there episcopalians/anglicans that use 3 / 4 Maccabees?
Are there different renderings of the apocryphal books? I noticed some differences for example when reading Sirach in an RSV/NRSV as opposed to the Douay-Rheims Bible. The King James may also have a different rendering though I haven't really compared it yet to say the DR.
Yes, different English translations of some of those books are based on different source texts. There are longer and shorter versions of Tobit, for instance. Also, translations directly from the Septuagint may differ in some details from translations based on a Latin translation of the Septuagint.
Thank you very much for the book review! The book seems very well organised and annotated as you mentioned. Interesting that Rufinus distinguishes the apocryphal books as ecclesiastical rather than canonical despite being pro LXX which seems like a pretty balanced position. I wonder why Augustine was more decided on the apocrypha? Maybe he had succumbed to Septuagint onlyism so all the books were considered inspired in the fullest sense. Im probably not giving him enough credit though.
When some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or authoritative. Rather, in many cases, they merely mean that it is not used in the Liturgy of their particular city-church. matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
Perhaps that’s were much of the confusion comes in, in a similar way some textual readings have little support because they are not represented in church lectionaries.
Ryan - I could only speculate. The distinction between the canonical books and those that are also worthy to be read seems to have been dropped in North Africa and spread from there. But how or why, I can't say.
@@anonimo-um2ng - I don't wish to argue the point, but I'm not sure that anything you've written affects my impression that the distinction between the books of the covenant and the books that are also worthy to be read one finds in the earlier canon lists *seems* to have been dropped in the fourth century, beginning in North Africa.
orthodox churches have interesting different canons. The extra books in the ethiopian canon not found in protestant bibles have been published as: Books of the Ethiopian Bible: Missing from the Protestant Canon.
Out of curiosity, what's your denominational affiliation. In an earlier video you said you're not in communion with Rome, and you also prefer the LXX. So my guess would be Eastern Orthodox? Sorry if you've mentioned it before an an earlier video.
@@RGrantJones Thanks for sharing that as I was wondering that. I've also been trying to place you geographically/ethnically based on your accent. Your voice and accent reminds me of one of my uncles. You can keep me guessing, if you prefer.
@@jimmu2008 - my parents were both Southerners, but I don't believe I ever picked up that accent. (By the time I came along, I believe their accents had faded significantly.) And I've lived in several different locations in the U.S. over the years.
My Dear Sir, thank you so much for this review. Somewhere in my reading on canon lists it was suggested that early Christians were happy to list & bind books that they considered canonical along with books that they did not consider to be canonical, leaving us moderns in the dark as to which books they considered to be in & which they considered to be out. Does this book address this issue & if so, what are its views? Again, thank you for your time & effort. Rev John Wilderspin Brockville ON CDN
Thanks for the question! Yes, the authors address that question briefly in the introduction: "Athanasius promotes the reading (at least to catechumens) of writings that he does not include within the biblical canon. He explicitly says that these other writings do not have equal status with the canonical writings, but it is hard to argue that he would have objected to a biblical manuscript that included some of these non-canonical writings. And Athanasius is not the only early Christian to hold such views. [A footnote at this point mentions Epiphanius, Rufinus, and Amphilochius.] Like citations, manuscripts provide important data concerning the scriptural practices of early Christianity, but their contents are not equivalent to a canon list."
The term "canon" didn't equate to the term "Scripture" but rather the Books that were used during the Liturgy. Each city-church had it's own Liturgy, complete with its own liturgical calendar. Each city-church used readings from different Scriptural books throughout the year ...and, in many cases, some books were simply not used. When some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or authoritative. Rather, in many cases, they merely mean that it is not used in the Liturgy of their particular city-church. The Greek Orthodox would never say that Revelation is not Sacred Scripture or that it is uninspired. Yet, they will sometimes speak of it as "non-canonical" because it has no place in the "canon" of their Liturgy. Example: St. Athanasius' citations and references to the Deuterocanonicals: *"The sacred writers* to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] (Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.) *He terms the Sacred Writings, which include Hebrews, Psalms, and Jeremiah, with Baruch as well. He refers to Baruch as Sacred Writings which are thus, inspired Scriptures. The Word, or Sacred Scripture, chides Israel through Baruch.* *"And where the sacred writers say,* Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22](Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313) *In the same breath that St. Athanasius speaks of Sacred Writings in Isaiah and Hebrews, he speaks of the Story of Susanna, only found in the Catholic Bible, and Baruch.* He speaks in the same language of the other three Biblical citations. He preaches here on the doctrine of the Son’s eternal status. He makes no distinctions between the books. Unquestionably St. Athanasius sees these writings as Scripture, as only Scripture can be termed authored by ‘sacred writers.’ *"It is written* that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,’ [John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’ [1 Cor 8:9] and in Him all things consist,’ [Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,', they recount things I heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For thy say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise O Wisdom; to shew that all other things are both praising and are works’; but the Word is not a work nor of those that braise but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God.’ [Daniel 3:57-Three Youths] (Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:387) *Here is another Deuterocanonical part of Daniel not contained in the Protestant Bible.* "But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found *in Scripture?* for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] (Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391) *Here he quotes Wisdom and Sirach along with other Scriptural books. The reference to Wisdom is termed ‘Scripture’. In the same breath that he quotes from Ecclesiastes that the Preacher ‘says’, He says that the Son of Sirach ‘says’. He can refer to them in one breath as 'non-canonical' while still quoting them as Scripture. These books were not read in the Liturgy, but were still seen as Scripture and inspired:* "Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,- distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy, they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words *in holy Scripture,* 'A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ [Proverbs 19:5] and, 'The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;' (Wisdom 1:11) we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues. (Athanasius the Great: Defence Against the Arians, 3 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:101) *"The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying,* 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord" (Sir. 18:17).') (Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546) "But this wearied them, for they were not anxious to understand, 'for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory(1 Cor. 2:8).' And what their end is, *the prophet* foretold, crying, 'Woe unto their soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us’(Wis. 2:12). The end of such abandonment as this can be nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, 'Ye do err, not knowing *the Scriptures* (Mt. 22:29).’ (Athanasius the Great: Letter 19:5 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:546) St. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes (Daniel 13:45, or Susanna 45) by stating, *"for It is written,* God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling" . - And then a few sentences later he states, "And indeed it were easy to collect very many *texts out of the Old Testament,* and to discourse more largely concerning the Holy Ghost." (Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Lecture XVI:30-31 Volume 7, p. 123.) *Right after quoting the prophet Job, he tells his readers to focus on Sirach* "Learn then thine own weakness; learn from this instance the mightiness of God: for He hath numbered the drops of rain [Job 36:27], which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon [Sir. 3:21-22]. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Lecture VI:4, Volume 7, p. 34.) *Just as St. Athanasius saw the author of the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom as a prophet, St. Cyril also sees Baruch as a prophet. Thus, this is clearly Scripture in St. Cyril's eyes." "Hear *the Prophet* saying, 'This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He[she] was seen on earth, and conversed among men' [Baruch 3:35-37]. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:15(A.D. 350),in NPNF2, VII:68) Clearly St. Cyril, though denying the Deuterocanonicals ‘canonical’ status, did not deny them Scriptural status. He saw prophets writing them, and used them to teach doctrine. He uses the qualifying phrase "It is written", which is only used of Scripture, to the Deuterocanonicals. Although these books are not read in the Liturgy, he not only reads from these books in general, but uses these books as teaching tools from Scripture that those he is instructing also assume these book’s Scriptural status.
@@ultimouomo11 - thank you for that lengthy comment! I believe the authors of this volume would agree that when Athanasius listed Daniel as within the canon, he meant that version of Daniel that included the Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon, and Susanna. Similarly, Jeremiah would include Baruch and the Epistle, as well as Lamentations. Does an ancient author explain the difference between canon and Scripture as you do -- that a canonical work is used in the liturgy, while the non-canonical works are not?
There are certainly allusions (e.g., Judith 16.17 in Mk 9.48), and there may also be short quotations, though it's hard to be certain. Tobit 7.17 ('Lord of heaven and earth') in Mt 11.25, Lk 10.21, and Acts 17.24, for instance; 2 Mc 13.4 ('King of kings') in 1 Tim 6.15, Rev 17.14, and Rev 19.16.
Voltron, you might be interested in the 'Introduction to the Apocrypha' by Bruce Metzger. He discusses some potential allusions and quotations, some of which seem pretty compelling to me. (Metzger is a famous textual scholar who helped head the translation of the NRSV, although he was relatively conservative.)
Hi Voltron, I just began reading a book named "The Case For The Deuterocanon, Evidence and Arguments" written by a Catholic scholar named Gary G. Michuta. It's an apologetic that has a lot of citational evidence that you might find interesting based upon your question. God Bless.
Jesus didn't explicitly quote many other books as well, Judges , Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah.Quotations do not equal to scripture. There are *many* allusions to all deuterocanonical books though.
In addition to your bible reviews I do appreciate your short book reviews, too. This book is on my wish list. Thanks.
Definitely a useful volume. Thanks for the kind comment, acardnal!
Ty for pointing to here. I’ll pick one up
Interesting book! Thanks for the review sir! I might get a copy of this book in the future. I got a lot of evidential books to purchase in my mind right now. And I might consider this also. Thanks! May the most High bless you sir!
Thank you for commenting! May God bless you and yours as well!
Excellent review! It is important to understand that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox lists of books considered inspired are indeed identical, however, the Eastern Orthodox include several additional books in their canonical lists which are read in their Holy Liturgies. These additional books are not considered inspired but included in their canonical lists for historical purposes.
Thanks for commenting, Gil. Perhaps some of my Orthodox viewers will give their perspectives.
For my part, I suspect that there isn't a single Eastern Orthodox view. In "The Orthodox Church," Kallistos Ware noted that the Councils of Jassy and Jerusalem declared 1 (alias 3) Esdras and 3 Maccabees as "genuine parts of Scripture," in addition to the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonicals. He adds that "most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament." I remember seeing an article at goarch.org many years ago that took the same stand.
The Orthodox Study Bible, on the other hand, does not make such a distinction, and it includes Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Manasseh in the canon as well as 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonicals.
Still different, the Longer Catechism published by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1839 appears to endorse a smaller (22 book) canon, like the ones listed by Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. In response to the question, "How are we to regard these last-named books [Sirach and certain others]?" the catechism responds, "Athanasius the Great says, that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes, who are preparing for admission into the Church."
It may be that the Eastern Orthodox perspective on this issue is diverse.
@@RGrantJones I agree with you, entirely regarding the variety of Eastern Orthodox views.
@@RGrantJones St. Jerome seems to be the person most often used by Protestants to say that he denied the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals. Yet he does reference them as Scripture: "Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power" [SIRACH 13:2] (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207)
St. Jerome himself (above) refers to Sirach, which he had referred to as 'non-canonical', as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation.
"Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119
Here above, St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books.
"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] *AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS."* (Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159)
Notice how Jerome (above) makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God's Word. Also, contrary to the assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets, Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God's Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.
*"still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture,* and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah, (Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45)
Notice above that St. Jerome quotes in reference to Scriptures, and the Sacred Volumes. Then he refers to 3 passages. Ezekiel, Baruch, and Matthew. Now, St. Jerome here refers to Jeremiah giving letters (plural) to Baruch. One time in Jeremiah 36, and another time in Baruch 6. Thus, Baruch is clearly Scripture, and he is clearly an author of the Sacred Volume, the Bible.
"As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place *IT IS WRITTEN:* [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation." Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. (Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390)
As we have seen, *"It is written"* is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach.
"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory. Instead of *THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE* which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, *BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"* (Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8)
"Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see *THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE,* which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, test, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is[Num. 35:8] commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who[Ezek. 18:23] would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live. C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?
"DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION:* [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" " (Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5)
St. Jerome calls the Deuterocanonicals Scripture. The proofs he gives for doctrine come from the Deuterocanonicals. He calls Baruch a prophet in the same sense as Ezekiel. He quotes from Wisdom & Sirach and gives it the same authority as other Scripture and he complains about his opponent denying the authority of the book, not him. His references to the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, he uses in support of doctrine, clearly seeing them as Scriptures.
Jerome mixes them right along with the rest of Scriptures and he treats them just as the rest of Scriptures. Scriptures are used to 'fulfill' Sirach on the same terms that it fulfilled a Psalm, which can thus only be speaking of Scripture.
*St. Jerome quoted and referenced the Deuterocanonical books: Sirach, Wisdom, 2nd Maccabbees, Tobit, Esther, Baruch, and even the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three Children, treating each of these books as the same authority as the other books.* Thus, the greatest supposed 'detractor' of the Deuterocanonicals, in reality, treated and quoted the 'non-canonical' books as Scripture.
BY THE WAY, I REALLY ENJOY YOUR VIDEOS AND REVIEWS!
I especially appreciate two short books not in the Roman canon, 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees, and how remarkable they are in historical theology. Thankfully they appear in the Harper Collins SB with introductions and notes. We also read them in the Episcopal Church as needed, and Dr John Barclays includes an important exegetical chapter in “Paul and the Gift” on the Judaic theology of 2 Esdras in support of the old perspective on Paul (the primacy of works righteousness in the first century).
@@SibleyStevei saw on wikipedia that Anglicans have 3 Maccabees in their apocrypha section. But the 39 articles dont cite 3 or 4 Maccabees as part of apocrypha. Are there episcopalians/anglicans that use 3 / 4 Maccabees?
Interesting. I need to buy this book
Are there different renderings of the apocryphal books? I noticed some differences for example when reading Sirach in an RSV/NRSV as opposed to the Douay-Rheims Bible. The King James may also have a different rendering though I haven't really compared it yet to say the DR.
Yes, different English translations of some of those books are based on different source texts. There are longer and shorter versions of Tobit, for instance. Also, translations directly from the Septuagint may differ in some details from translations based on a Latin translation of the Septuagint.
Thank you very much for the book review! The book seems very well organised and annotated as you mentioned. Interesting that Rufinus distinguishes the apocryphal books as ecclesiastical rather than canonical despite being pro LXX which seems like a pretty balanced position. I wonder why Augustine was more decided on the apocrypha? Maybe he had succumbed to Septuagint onlyism so all the books were considered inspired in the fullest sense. Im probably not giving him enough credit though.
Interesting, fair enough I’ll check out the link thanks.
When some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or authoritative. Rather, in many cases, they merely mean that it is not used in the Liturgy of their particular city-church. matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
Perhaps that’s were much of the confusion comes in, in a similar way some textual readings have little support because they are not represented in church lectionaries.
Ryan - I could only speculate. The distinction between the canonical books and those that are also worthy to be read seems to have been dropped in North Africa and spread from there. But how or why, I can't say.
@@anonimo-um2ng - I don't wish to argue the point, but I'm not sure that anything you've written affects my impression that the distinction between the books of the covenant and the books that are also worthy to be read one finds in the earlier canon lists *seems* to have been dropped in the fourth century, beginning in North Africa.
orthodox churches have interesting different canons. The extra books in the ethiopian canon not found in protestant bibles have been published as: Books of the Ethiopian Bible: Missing from the Protestant Canon.
It is interesting how the local canon lists were aggregated and refined over time.
Out of curiosity, what's your denominational affiliation. In an earlier video you said you're not in communion with Rome, and you also prefer the LXX. So my guess would be Eastern Orthodox? Sorry if you've mentioned it before an an earlier video.
Gengar - I'm Anglican, but I agree with the Orthodox on a number of points. Thanks for the view and comment!
@@RGrantJones Thanks for sharing that as I was wondering that. I've also been trying to place you geographically/ethnically based on your accent. Your voice and accent reminds me of one of my uncles. You can keep me guessing, if you prefer.
@@jimmu2008 - my parents were both Southerners, but I don't believe I ever picked up that accent. (By the time I came along, I believe their accents had faded significantly.) And I've lived in several different locations in the U.S. over the years.
R. Grant Jones Are you a part of the Anglican Communion?
My Dear Sir, thank you so much for this review. Somewhere in my reading on canon lists it was suggested that early Christians were happy to list & bind books that they considered canonical along with books that they did not consider to be canonical, leaving us moderns in the dark as to which books they considered to be in & which they considered to be out. Does this book address this issue & if so, what are its views?
Again, thank you for your time & effort.
Rev John Wilderspin
Brockville ON CDN
Thanks for the question! Yes, the authors address that question briefly in the introduction: "Athanasius promotes the reading (at least to catechumens) of writings that he does not include within the biblical canon. He explicitly says that these other writings do not have equal status with the canonical writings, but it is hard to argue that he would have objected to a biblical manuscript that included some of these non-canonical writings. And Athanasius is not the only early Christian to hold such views. [A footnote at this point mentions Epiphanius, Rufinus, and Amphilochius.] Like citations, manuscripts provide important data concerning the scriptural practices of early Christianity, but their contents are not equivalent to a canon list."
The term "canon" didn't equate to the term "Scripture" but rather the Books that were used during the Liturgy. Each city-church had it's own Liturgy, complete with its own liturgical calendar. Each city-church used readings from different Scriptural books throughout the year ...and, in many cases, some books were simply not used. When some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or authoritative. Rather, in many cases, they merely mean that it is not used in the Liturgy of their particular city-church. The Greek Orthodox would never say that Revelation is not Sacred Scripture or that it is uninspired. Yet, they will sometimes speak of it as "non-canonical" because it has no place in the "canon" of their Liturgy.
Example:
St. Athanasius' citations and references to the Deuterocanonicals:
*"The sacred writers* to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3]
(Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.)
*He terms the Sacred Writings, which include Hebrews, Psalms, and Jeremiah, with Baruch as well. He refers to Baruch as Sacred Writings which are thus, inspired Scriptures. The Word, or Sacred Scripture, chides Israel through Baruch.*
*"And where the sacred writers say,* Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22](Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313)
*In the same breath that St. Athanasius speaks of Sacred Writings in Isaiah and Hebrews, he speaks of the Story of Susanna, only found in the Catholic Bible, and Baruch.*
He speaks in the same language of the other three Biblical citations. He preaches here on the doctrine of the Son’s eternal status. He makes no distinctions between the books. Unquestionably St. Athanasius sees these writings as Scripture, as only Scripture can be termed authored by ‘sacred writers.’
*"It is written* that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,’ [John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’ [1 Cor 8:9] and in Him all things consist,’ [Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,', they recount things I heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For thy say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise O Wisdom; to shew that all other things are both praising and are works’; but the Word is not a work nor of those that braise but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God.’ [Daniel 3:57-Three Youths] (Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:387)
*Here is another Deuterocanonical part of Daniel not contained in the Protestant Bible.*
"But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found *in Scripture?* for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7]
(Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391)
*Here he quotes Wisdom and Sirach along with other Scriptural books. The reference to Wisdom is termed ‘Scripture’. In the same breath that he quotes from Ecclesiastes that the Preacher ‘says’, He says that the Son of Sirach ‘says’. He can refer to them in one breath as 'non-canonical' while still quoting them as Scripture. These books were not read in the Liturgy, but were still seen as Scripture and inspired:*
"Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,- distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy, they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words *in holy Scripture,* 'A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ [Proverbs 19:5] and, 'The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;' (Wisdom 1:11) we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues.
(Athanasius the Great: Defence Against the Arians, 3 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:101)
*"The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying,* 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord" (Sir. 18:17).') (Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546)
"But this wearied them, for they were not anxious to understand, 'for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory(1 Cor. 2:8).' And what their end is, *the prophet* foretold, crying, 'Woe unto their soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us’(Wis. 2:12). The end of such abandonment as this can be nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, 'Ye do err, not knowing *the Scriptures* (Mt. 22:29).’
(Athanasius the Great: Letter 19:5 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:546)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes (Daniel 13:45, or Susanna 45) by stating, *"for It is written,* God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling" . - And then a few sentences later he states, "And indeed it were easy to collect very many *texts out of the Old Testament,* and to discourse more largely concerning the Holy Ghost."
(Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Lecture XVI:30-31 Volume 7, p. 123.)
*Right after quoting the prophet Job, he tells his readers to focus on Sirach*
"Learn then thine own weakness; learn from this instance the mightiness of God: for He hath numbered the drops of rain [Job 36:27], which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon [Sir. 3:21-22]. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Lecture VI:4, Volume 7, p. 34.)
*Just as St. Athanasius saw the author of the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom as a prophet, St. Cyril also sees Baruch as a prophet. Thus, this is clearly Scripture in St. Cyril's eyes."
"Hear *the Prophet* saying, 'This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He[she] was seen on earth, and conversed among men' [Baruch 3:35-37].
(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:15(A.D. 350),in NPNF2, VII:68)
Clearly St. Cyril, though denying the Deuterocanonicals ‘canonical’ status, did not deny them Scriptural status. He saw prophets writing them, and used them to teach doctrine. He uses the qualifying phrase "It is written", which is only used of Scripture, to the Deuterocanonicals. Although these books are not read in the Liturgy, he not only reads from these books in general, but uses these books as teaching tools from Scripture that those he is instructing also assume these book’s Scriptural status.
@@ultimouomo11 - thank you for that lengthy comment! I believe the authors of this volume would agree that when Athanasius listed Daniel as within the canon, he meant that version of Daniel that included the Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon, and Susanna. Similarly, Jeremiah would include Baruch and the Epistle, as well as Lamentations.
Does an ancient author explain the difference between canon and Scripture as you do -- that a canonical work is used in the liturgy, while the non-canonical works are not?
Art thou Katholikush meine compa?
No, not I. Thanks for commenting, Bnai bat Zion!
@@RGrantJones what church do you belong to?
I recently read a claim that Jesus nor the disciples quoted from the apocrypha. Thoughts?
There are certainly allusions (e.g., Judith 16.17 in Mk 9.48), and there may also be short quotations, though it's hard to be certain. Tobit 7.17 ('Lord of heaven and earth') in Mt 11.25, Lk 10.21, and Acts 17.24, for instance; 2 Mc 13.4 ('King of kings') in 1 Tim 6.15, Rev 17.14, and Rev 19.16.
Voltron, you might be interested in the 'Introduction to the Apocrypha' by Bruce Metzger. He discusses some potential allusions and quotations, some of which seem pretty compelling to me. (Metzger is a famous textual scholar who helped head the translation of the NRSV, although he was relatively conservative.)
@Fidem in Christo - thanks for the comment, Fidem in Christo! That looks right to me, and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament concurs.
Hi Voltron, I just began reading a book named "The Case For The Deuterocanon, Evidence and Arguments" written by a Catholic scholar named Gary G. Michuta. It's an apologetic that has a lot of citational evidence that you might find interesting based upon your question. God Bless.
Jesus didn't explicitly quote many other books as well, Judges
, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah.Quotations do not equal to scripture. There are *many* allusions to all deuterocanonical books though.