The NT writers, when they quote the OT, mainly do so from the LXX, the Septuagint. A majority of the OT quotations in the NT are in fact from the Septuagint, only a minority from Hebrew. When the NT writers do use a Hebrew text it generally isn’t the Masoretic text, but another form of the Hebrew text. The LXX was the “Bible” used by Christ and the Apostles, as well as the early Church, and this includes the so-called deuterocanonicals, or “second canon” which evangelicals and fundamentalists disparage as “apocrypha.” (My response to these people is, “If it was good enough fer Jesus well then by-cracky it’s good enough fer me!”) It was the Christian reliance on the LXX that led the Jewish people to repudiate the LXX and rely on Hebrew texts. The Christian Church had such success in evangelizing Jews using such books as The Wisdom of Solomon that the Jewish people repudiated the “second canon” and closed their canon, accepting only the thirty nine books that protestants use today.
In other words, protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists are not following Christ and the Apostles, but the Jews, in their selection of OT text. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the NT is in fact inspired by God in the manner and extent that evangelicals and fundamentalists insist that it is. Why, then, do these groups insist on using the Masoretic text (for the most part) in clear opposition to Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the other NT authors, and the early Christian Church? (The Roman Catholic Church eventually embraced the Latin Vulgate, but the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church continued using the LXX just as Jesus and the apostles did, right up to the present day.) If you believe the NT is inspired by God and is “inerrant and infallible in the original languages and manuscripts” then by golly that means that Jesus, the Apostles, and the other NT writers WERE INSPIRED BY GOD--INERRANTLY AND INFALLIBLY--IN PREFERRING THE LXX OVER THE HEBREW TEXT!
Why aren’t you following suit? Do you know better than God? Better than Jesus, the Apostles, and the NT writers? If you’re interested, you can download the Apostolic Bible for free. It’s to be found here (Thank you for the link Leolaia):
http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/
One of the interesting features of the LXX is that it's noticeably more “Messianic” than the Masoretic text. By that I mean the LXX is worded in such a way that more of the OT can be taken in a Messianic way than can the Hebrew text. This is one of the reasons (not the ONLY reason) why the early Christians much preferred it to the Hebrew text, and apparently God Himself concurred as He inspired the NT writers and Jesus Himself to rely mainly on the LXX!
A well known example of the LXX being more “Messianic” than the Masoretic text is the use of the Greek word “parthenos” (virgin) rather than the Hebrew word “almah” (maiden or young woman) when quoting Isaiah, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive…” etc. The NT writer quoted th LXX, not the Hebrew text.
Another example is the LXX of Psalm 2:11-12: “Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish in the way.” The Masoretic Hebrew text merely says: “Do obeisance to purity lest He be angry and you perish.”
These are just two examples. I’m sure Leo and Narkissos can give more, as well as take this topic into the stratosphere.
However, one of the principles of Textual Criticism is that one takes as authentic the reading that best explains the genesis of the variant readings. So, to determine which reading is authentic, we must ask ourselves, Does it make more sense that Psalm 2:11-12 originally read “Kiss the Son” in Hebrew, but because of the Christian church the Jews altered it to “Do obeisance to purity” OR does it make more sense that it originally read “Do obeisance to purity” and the Jews altered it to “Kiss the Son” when they made the LXX? The second scenario does not make much sense at all, whereas the first scenario makes a lot of sense. So, I propose that the LXX better reflects the earliest Hebrew text in this instance. The Masoretic Hebrew text does not. Plus, God Himself concurs with me! I have proof because the Holy Spirit inspired the use of the LXX over and above the Hebrew text!
So, I leave the argument there, but encourage all of you born-againers to familiarize yourself with the LXX, the Bible of Jesus, the Apostles, the other NT writers, and the early Christian Church. (In fact, as I said, the LXX has always been the OT of the Christian East.)
As to the deuterocaonicals, they were universally accepted in the Christian Church, east and west, until Martin Luther (and other "reformers") decided these books needed to be excised from the Bible. Luther alos excised the book of James, which he labeled “an epistle of straw.” Why aren’t you fundamentalists and evangelicals following the early Church as to the deuterocanonicals but are instead following Martin Luther? (BTW Luther was also a rabid anti-Semite and his ravings served as one of the inspirations of Adolph Hitler, who quoted Luther quite often as justification for his treatment of the Jews.)
If one objects to the deuterocanonicals because they aren’t quoted in the NT, well, neither are Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Solomon. Does that make those books uninspired? If not, then neither does it make the deuterocanonicals uninspired. Ya'll cain't have yer cake and eat it too!
Neener neener neener. -Saint Martin of the Motor City.