Did Jesus quote the Apocrypha?

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
https://youtu.be/mParOC-So4k

I just got my Greek English translation of the Septuagint and started double checking all of the differences I heard about, i'll start posting my findings soon!
Stay tuned for updates :)
(Video is not mine btw)
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] [MENTION=486]Arsenios[/MENTION]
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,762
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Nope.


And even if He did, that would NOT indicate that He regarded it as Scripture or normative. If your pastor in a sermon quotes Billy Graham or John Calvin or some Saint, is that proof your pastor regards such as the inerrant, inspired, written words of God and a part of the Bible - normative and authoritative? Of course not. Even if the preacher is making the same point or arguing the biblical text is making that same point.


But I also regard this reality as largely moot. There are a lot of books we regard as Scripture that Jesus never specifically, clearly quoted from. Doesn't necessarily mean ergo they are not Scripture.


BTW, the guy about 3 minutes in is trying to making something out of NOTHING. Jesus is not quoting anything as anything, and the Geneva translation is not saying He is. References given are simply study notes, meant to help the reader - the reference is not saying that's a quote but only there is a verse that is related to the one here. And it's unclear because the speaker stresses this is 'THE KING JAMES VERSION' and "THE KING JAMES EDITION" (whiich mean it's NOT simply the 1560 Geneva Bible). The Geneva Bible didn't have references in it or a table of contents... and did not have any Deutero books in it. It would seem he is using a much later edition that in some way incorporates the KJV (at least in format). He is substantiating nothing.

We need to be careful that we don't ASSUME something absurd... that if similar or even same words are used, ergo one must be a QUOTE of the other. Silly. If I state, "Trump is an idiot" and you find that some letter to the editor include even those EXACT verbatim words, does that prove I'm QUOTING that letter to the editor? Of course not. It wouldn't even remotely imply that. Since quotation marks didn't occur in Koine Greek, we need "God hath said....." Or "Thus said the Lord...." or something to that extent. Otherwise, the most we have is similar words.... nothing more.





.
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Nope.


And even if He did, that would NOT indicate that He regarded it as Scripture or normative. If your pastor in a sermon quotes Billy Graham or John Calvin or some Saint, is that proof your pastor regards such as the inerrant, inspired, written words of God and a part of the Bible - normative and authoritative? Of course not. Even if the preacher is making the same point or arguing the biblical text is making that same point.


But I also regard this reality as largely moot. There are a lot of books we regard as Scripture that Jesus never specifically, clearly quoted from. Doesn't necessarily mean ergo they are not Scripture.


BTW, the guy about 3 minutes in is trying to making something out of NOTHING. Jesus is not quoting anything as anything, and the Geneva translation is not saying He is. References given are simply study notes, meant to help the reader - the reference is not saying that's a quote but only there is a verse that is related to the one here. And it's unclear because the speaker stresses this is 'THE KING JAMES VERSION' and "THE KING JAMES EDITION" (whiich mean it's NOT simply the 1560 Geneva Bible). The Geneva Bible didn't have references in it or a table of contents... and did not have any Deutero books in it. It would seem he is using a much later edition that in some way incorporates the KJV (at least in format). He is substantiating nothing.

We need to be careful that we don't ASSUME something absurd... that if similar or even same words are used, ergo one must be a QUOTE of the other. Silly. If I state, "Trump is an idiot" and you find that some letter to the editor include even those EXACT verbatim words, does that prove I'm QUOTING that letter to the editor? Of course not. It wouldn't even remotely imply that. Since quotation marks didn't occur in Koine Greek, we need "God hath said....." Or "Thus said the Lord...." or something to that extent. Otherwise, the most we have is similar words.... nothing more.





.
So similar phrases that stand verbatim between esdras and Mathew is just coincidence? Like when Jesus quoted psalms on the cross to point us to an OT passage?
If "O Jerusalem...." is quoted in a book supposably written 400 years before Christ spoke it well that's something to take note of. Seems like 2nd Esdras is only exclusive to the 1611 King James photo copy as I can't find the second book in the Septuagint copy I have... Josiah what's your theory of who wrote the prophecy? Did the RCC have a hand in it? And why?
15d63526e693654995fc4b4665a72b9b.jpg
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
FYI:
Answer: The books of 1 and 2 Esdras are not part of the biblical canon. First Esdras is part of what is considered the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical scripture. Second Esdras is an apocalyptic work and is considered pseudepigraphal. Except for some Greek Orthodox, Episcopal, or Lutheran Bibles, 1 and 2 Esdras do not appear in most Bibles. Authorship and dating of 1 and 2 Esdras are somewhat problematic, and some scholars place the writing of certain portions of 2 Esdras as late as the 2nd century AD. “Esdras” is another form of the name Ezra, which means “help.”

The Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1546, which officially recognized several books of the Apocrypha, listed “the first book of Esdras, and the second” as part of the biblical canon. However, these are the books we normally call “Ezra” and “Nehemiah” today and are not to be confused with the pseudepigraphal 1 and 2 Esdras (which appeared in the Vulgate as 3 and 4 Esdras).

There are some historical problems with 1 and 2 Esdras. In the narrative of 1 Esdras, the reign of the Persian King Artaxerxes incorrectly precedes those of Cyrus the Great (c. 559—529 BC) and Darius I (Darius the Great, 521—486 BC), although some believe this is simply a literary device called “prolepsis” in which a person or event is assigned to an earlier period or represented as if it had already occurred. First Esdras appears in the Septuagint as an expanded book of Ezra, containing four additional chapters. It is an account of King Josiah’s reforms and history of the destruction of the temple in 586 BC and chronicles the Jews’ return from Babylonian captivity under Zerubbabel. This book was said to be known by Josephus (born AD 38).

Second Esdras was written too late to be included in the Septuagint and, therefore, does not appear within the more prominent canon (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox). Second Esdras is also known by many other names, making it difficult to track fully. For example, 2 Esdras contains portions known in some circles as 3 Ezra, 4 Ezra, 5 Ezra, and 6 Ezra. The Ethiopian Church considers 4 Ezra to be canonical, whereas the Eastern Armenian Church labels it as 3 Ezra. Further, some scholars believe these books were written by several authors, including some possibly as late as the second century AD.

Second Esdras is often referred to as the Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra and contains seven visions of Ezra dealing with his angst over the pain and suffering inflicted upon Jews by Gentiles. Some scholars believe the book was written shortly after the AD 70 destruction of the temple in Jerusalem during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81—96). While there is a definite tone of sadness in this work, there is consolation regarding ultimate retribution. There are six Messianic references within 2 Esdras.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Thank you! That's all I asked for.
I noticed in my copy of the Septuagint that 2nd Esdras was not in the book, the book explained that there is no known greek text of 2nd Esdras therefore wouldn't be included. I wondered why the video didn't address it, he says Esdras was in the Septuagint which is true but 2nd Esdras is not part of the original greek/hebrew Septuagint... I try not to jump the gun and I just want an honest discussion about it, there ARE however major differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic genealogies in Genesis, I've checked all early sources but the dead sea scrolls and they all agree with the Septuagint which includes nearly a thousand extra years to the timeline from Adam to now... that's actually fascinating and there is a good explanation as to why that is, but as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with any of the Apocrypha books.
This video does say something as to what people may have read circa the 16th century but I would hardly believe such a bold prophesy about God saying Jesus would come in 400 years, that's why I started looking into it and haven't found any success as to the authenticity of the time in which that prophesy was written (if you would call it one).
Thanks again! I've heard other claims about the Apocrypha so I'm going to play detective and look into it. :)
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,762
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:
Nope.


And even if He did, that would NOT indicate that He regarded it as Scripture or normative. If your pastor in a sermon quotes Billy Graham or John Calvin or some Saint, is that proof your pastor regards such as the inerrant, inspired, written words of God and a part of the Bible - normative and authoritative? Of course not. Even if the preacher is making the same point or arguing the biblical text is making that same point. But I also regard this reality as largely moot. There are a lot of books we regard as Scripture that Jesus never specifically, clearly quoted from. Doesn't necessarily mean ergo they are not Scripture.


BTW, the guy about 3 minutes in is trying to making something out of NOTHING. Jesus is not quoting anything as anything, and the Geneva translation is not saying He is. References given are simply study notes, meant to help the reader - the reference is not saying that's a quote but only there is a verse that is related to the one here. And it's unclear because the speaker stresses this is 'THE KING JAMES VERSION' and "THE KING JAMES EDITION" (which mean it's NOT simply the 1560 Geneva Bible). The Geneva Bible didn't have references in it or a table of contents... and did not have any Deutero books in it. It would seem he is using a much later edition that in some way incorporates the KJV (at least in format). He is substantiating nothing.

We need to be careful that we don't ASSUME something absurd... that if similar or even same words are used, ergo one must be a QUOTE of the other. Silly. If I state, "Trump is an idiot" and you find that some letter to the editor include even those EXACT verbatim words, does that prove I'm QUOTING that letter to the editor? Of course not. It wouldn't even remotely imply that. Since quotation marks didn't occur in Koine Greek, we need "God hath said....." Or "Thus said the Lord...." or something to that extent. Otherwise, the most we have is similar words.... nothing more.




.

So similar phrases that stand verbatim between esdras and Mathew is just coincidence?


It's not verbatim. And yes, it could WELL be pure coincidence. And no, it does not indicate that Jesus regarded that DEUTERO book to be.... anything at all, or even that He was aware of it.

Yes, if I posted "Trump is an idiot" and you find that someone (entirely unknown to me) wrote the identical (not similar as you admit) VERBATIM words before I posted mine, would that prove I am QUOTING that person and I regard his/her words to be the inspired, inerrant, inscripturated words of God - normative and authoritative? Nope.

The speaker in this video has a LOT of problems... and makes a LOT of unfounded leaps. And why is he quoting not from the originals BUT from some mysterious study version of the KING JAMES VERSION (1611) of the Geneva Bible (1560)? And why is he claiming that the study notes reference to 2 Esdra proves... anything and that's from the Geneva Bible (which had no references, and no table of content either - another error)?



- Josiah




.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's not verbatim. And yes, it could WELL be pure coincidence. And no, it does not indicate that Jesus regarded that DEUTERO book to be.... anything at all, or even that He was aware of it.

Yes, if I posted "Trump is an idiot" and you find that someone (entirely unknown to me) wrote the identical (not similar as you admit) VERBATIM words before I posted mine, would that prove I am QUOTING that person and I regard his/her words to be the inspired, inerrant, inscripturated words of God - normative and authoritative? Nope.

The speaker in this video has a LOT of problems... and makes a LOT of unfounded leaps. And why is he quoting not from the originals BUT from some mysterious study version of the KING JAMES VERSION (1611) of the Geneva Bible (1560)? And why is he claiming that the study notes reference to 2 Esdra proves... anything and that's from the Geneva Bible (which had no references, and no table of content either - another error)?



- Josiah




.
The Geneva and King James bibles he had are actually direct photo copies of the originals, they aren't mysterious study editions, they are exactly what people read
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,762
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Geneva and King James bibles he had are actually direct photo copies of the originals, they aren't mysterious study editions, they are exactly what people read


The Geneva Bible is from 1560. There was no "study verse" (as the the speaker showed); there weren't even verses then (displayed in what he showed).

The KJV is from 1611. It is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BIBLE - and an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATION.

There is no such thing as a "Geneva Bible - King James Version."

NEITHER had study notes in it, as the video shows.

There are endless "problems" with this video that display a LOT of misinformation and ignorance. And worse, a lot of enormous leaps for which there is not even an attempt to substantiate or justify.

And as you admitted, what Jesus said is not a verbatim repeat.... and it would provide ZERO substantiation that Jesus was quoting something even if it did, or that that "something" is this DEUTERO book, or that if quoting, that substantiates that He regarded it as Scripture. It's simply baseless. And shrouded in every way by misinformation.

I encourage you to look elsewhere for information.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Geneva Bible is from 1560. There was no "study verse" (as the the speaker showed); there weren't even verses then (displayed in what he showed).

The KJV is from 1611. It is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BIBLE - and an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATION.

There is no such thing as a "Geneva Bible - King James Version."

NEITHER had study notes in it, as the video shows.

There are endless "problems" with this video that display a LOT of misinformation and ignorance. And worse, a lot of enormous leaps for which there is not even an attempt to substantiate or justify.

And as you admitted, what Jesus said is not a verbatim repeat.... and it would provide ZERO substantiation that Jesus was quoting something even if it did, or that that "something" is this DEUTERO book, or that if quoting, that substantiates that He regarded it as Scripture. It's simply baseless. And shrouded in every way by misinformation.

I encourage you to look elsewhere for information.
The point is that the Geneva bibles apparently did include reference notes and commentary.
c713d1ebd93bf5f9331c6b1ad4cb2570.jpg
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,762
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry... there's no such thing as a KJV Geneva Bible. And neither has the "references" that the speaker displays.

And he makes a HUGE leap in arguing that because Jesus used words SIMILAR to those he found in some DEUTERO book does not remotely substantiate that Jesus was QUOTING that, much less that the proves Jesus regarded this particularly DEUTERO book to be Scripture. Whether he is using the Geneva Bible (rather than the original Greek) OR the KJV (rather than the original Greek) or some unnamed Study Bible or some non-existent "KJV Geneva Bible" rather than the original Greek.


My advise: Look elsewhere for information.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry... there's no such thing as a KJV Geneva Bible. And neither has the "references" that the speaker displays.

And he makes a HUGE leap in arguing that because Jesus used words SIMILAR to those he found in some DEUTERO book does not remotely substantiate that Jesus was QUOTING that, much less that the proves Jesus regarded this particularly DEUTERO book to be Scripture. Whether he is using the Geneva Bible (rather than the original Greek) OR the KJV (rather than the original Greek) or some unnamed Study Bible or some non-existent "KJV Geneva Bible" rather than the original Greek.


My advise: Look elsewhere for information.
All he did was compare the original pressings at that time, I agree with you that it does not prove the prophesy in 2 Esdras (book 4) as authentic. I do believe that the Geneva Bible (which is not the KJV we agree) did include quick references when churches were being settled by pilgrims in America, I'm sure protestant preachers used these quick references and liner notes and it's not entirely absurd if they did.
Protestants invented the numbering system so I don't know why you wouldn't believe the pilgrims used them.
 

YourTruthGod

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
1,017
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Apocrypha doesn't give cause really about the fear of different teachings making different gospels; however, there are books in the Apocrpha that makes it obvious that the writer is not speaking from eyewitness accounts, and not speaking the words of God, but is speaking about their own understanding of the truth.
There are some questionable things, however, and it is used to make some false doctrines.
Overall, it does not add to knowledge of God and it gives a diary of second hand believers with their errors.
 

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I have the 1560 Geneva Bible. It's an exact, page by page replica of the original. And yes, it has marginal notes, a table of contents, and the Apocryphal section.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Nope.


And even if He did, that would NOT indicate that He regarded it as Scripture or normative. If your pastor in a sermon quotes Billy Graham or John Calvin or some Saint, is that proof your pastor regards such as the inerrant, inspired, written words of God and a part of the Bible - normative and authoritative? Of course not. Even if the preacher is making the same point or arguing the biblical text is making that same point.


But I also regard this reality as largely moot. There are a lot of books we regard as Scripture that Jesus never specifically, clearly quoted from. Doesn't necessarily mean ergo they are not Scripture.


BTW, the guy about 3 minutes in is trying to making something out of NOTHING. Jesus is not quoting anything as anything, and the Geneva translation is not saying He is. References given are simply study notes, meant to help the reader - the reference is not saying that's a quote but only there is a verse that is related to the one here. And it's unclear because the speaker stresses this is 'THE KING JAMES VERSION' and "THE KING JAMES EDITION" (whiich mean it's NOT simply the 1560 Geneva Bible). The Geneva Bible didn't have references in it or a table of contents... and did not have any Deutero books in it. It would seem he is using a much later edition that in some way incorporates the KJV (at least in format). He is substantiating nothing.

We need to be careful that we don't ASSUME something absurd... that if similar or even same words are used, ergo one must be a QUOTE of the other. Silly. If I state, "Trump is an idiot" and you find that some letter to the editor include even those EXACT verbatim words, does that prove I'm QUOTING that letter to the editor? Of course not. It wouldn't even remotely imply that. Since quotation marks didn't occur in Koine Greek, we need "God hath said....." Or "Thus said the Lord...." or something to that extent. Otherwise, the most we have is similar words.... nothing more.





.

I have the Geneva Bible. It has a table of contents and marginal notes. What makes you think it doesn't?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single

Where do you get off saying that 1 Esdras incorrectly puts Artaxerxes before Cyrus? I've read it, and it correctly puts Cryus before Artaxerxes. Do you really think that it's a good idea to lie to people?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,577
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I have the 1560 Geneva Bible. It's an exact, page by page replica of the original. And yes, it has marginal notes, a table of contents, and the Apocryphal section.

But the Apocrypha that is included is not from the AV ("King James Bible" ) if, as you said, your copy of the Geneva Bible is an exact copy of the original.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Where do you get off saying that 1 Esdras incorrectly puts Artaxerxes before Cyrus? I've read it, and it correctly puts Cryus before Artaxerxes. Do you really think that it's a good idea to lie to people?
All right, you caught me. I LOVE to just make stuff up and lie to people, especially about the Apocrypha! I am part of a giant, world-wide organized conspiracy by the Illuminati to make up lies about 1 Esdras. Now that you have discovered our secret, a Black Ops team will be sent to make both you and I dissape....
 

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
But the Apocrypha that is included is not from the AV ("King James Bible" ) if, as you said, your copy of the Geneva Bible is an exact copy of the original.

And? I'm not sure what your point is. You're saying that the Geneva Bible is not the same Bible as the King James Bible. Yea. What's your point? Why would anyone suggest that they're the same Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
All right, you caught me. I LOVE to just make stuff up and lie to people, especially about the Apocrypha! I am part of a giant, world-wide organized conspiracy by the Illuminati to make up lies about 1 Esdras. Now that you have discovered our secret, a Black Ops team will be sent to make both you and I dissape....


So you admit that your goal is not to lie to people. If so, then why did you lie and say that 1 Esdras puts Artaxerxes before Cyrus?

I read it. Chapter 2 starts off taking about how Cyrus issued the command to start building the temple, and then later on Artaxerxes comes along and brings it to a halt.

So it correctly puts Cyrus BEFORE Artaxerxes.

But you said that it puts Artaxerxes before Cyrus?

Why did you LIE?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom