Do references to the apocrypha in the NT make it inspired?

Question

There are a few vague references to the apocrypha in the NT. Does this make them inspired? Paul quotes a poem by Menanded in 1 Corinthians 15:33. So would Menander be inspired? In Acts 17:28 Luke quotes poets of the time. Does this make them inspired? So do references to the apocrypha make it inspired? If so shouldn't the poem and poets referred to above be considered inspired?

Vicarius Christi - infallibility of the church and the pope is a myth. It does not exist.

Vicarius Christi - No. I accept the promise of God to preserve His word. I sometimes dearly wish God had chosen to use a secular group to compile the Bible. Catholics did not give us the Bible. God did.

Answer 1

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed.

Don't mean to sound dogmatic, because I am not, but why is the burden not on the interpreters telling us why they use the masoretic hebrew texts when the Holy Spirit had his preference of the Greek Old Testament in the new testament?

For a Christian, why should we choose a masoretic hebrew later texts that try to change the meaning of the original away from Christ Jesus our LORD when God already settled this through a miracle during the making of the Septuagint? It seems easy to choose the same version that the Holy Spirit used in these verses and in many other Christ centered passages.

What is a modern translator's theory why early church fathers almost exclusively quoted from the Septuagint and what is their view of the miracle that occurred when 70 scholars in separate rooms came up with exact same phrases and translation in Greek when they were writing the Septuagint. They did not speak to each other or collaborate, but working separately, came up with the same translation? Can you imagine the odds of that happening ever?

Why do translators avoid using Christ in Psalm 2, and numerous other passages in the old testament, when they are clearly used there in Septuagint?

"Matthew relies on the Septuagint for the assertion that the Messiah's mother was to be a virgin (Matthew 1.23). Jesus himself follows the traditional Septuagint wording in condemning the Pharisees' traditions (Matthew 15.8-9). " Now, here are the Holy Spirit's uses of Septuagint in Mathew vs masoretic "translation of some later hebrew documents" from the site I quoted above:

Matthew 1.23/ Isaiah 7.14 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us). vs. hebrew masoretic "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Matthew 12.21/ Isaiah 42.4 "and in his name will the Gentiles hope." vs. "and the coastlands wait for his law."

Matthew 13.14-15/ Isaiah 6.9-10 "For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed" vs. "Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes "

Matthew 15.8-9/ Isaiah 29.13 "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." vs. "and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote "

Matthew 21.16/ Psalm 8.2 "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise" vs. "by the mouths of babes and infants thou hast founded a bulwark "

there is no logical reason not to have the Septuagint as a valid version of the OT. In fact, it should be the authoritative text that is used among Christians as it was for more than a millenium. The Masoretic should be used as a reference only.
Try looking for a Bible with a LXX Old Testament and a New Testament combined. There are so few it is really quite mind boggling when considering how many Bibles are available with the MT as the base text of the OT. One could speculate on how and why it came to be that the accepted version of the Christian Old Testament is one that was compiled by 3rd century rabbi's with anti-Christian motives. More than a few Messianic prophecies of Jesus were altered by these rabbi's to make sure that they would not be used in reference to Jesus. Of course modern translators make sure to use the LXX in these cases; but one must ask: if the LXX can be trusted in these cases and the MT not, then why are we citing the MT as being authoritative?



BTW, Edge, GREAT question!

Answer 2

No! Only the Church has the authority through Christ to decide what is inspired and that was done at the African Synods completed in the early fifth century.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph


Edge,

There has never been any question that the Ecumenical Councils spoke under the infallible authority of the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine, faith and morals. The African Synods were recognized by the entire Church as having the authority of Christ.

Answer 3

No, because Bible also quotes some other Jewish books that aren't even among what Catholics call them Deuterocanonical works (like, Ascension of Moses in Jude), yet even Roman-Catholics don't claim them to be in the Bible.

Also, in Acts 17 and Titus 1 Paul quotes pagan philosofers/poets, yet we don't claim them to be inspired either. Pauls using this sources IS inspired, but not the soucres themselves!

Answer 4

Jesus refers to the old sailor's adage about red sky at night, which usually foretells good weather to follow. That doesn't make the adage inspired.