I suppose that's what I get for not asking in advance what your source for "allusions" was, so that I could consider the source. I could have spent considerably less time reviewing the apocryphal literature and trying to broaden your perspective about background material and sources. On the one hand, I am perfectly willing to disagree with the ABS, I do disagree with a number of things they publish and promote. And, for the record, I wouldn't really endorse any of the Bible versions you depend on, especially not the New Jerusalem Bible. On the other hand though, I think there is a little problem here of understanding the source, with regard to the cross references you listed. You described the references you listed from James, Hebrews and Acts to the apocryphal literature as "allusions" and described the one you listed for Acts and Tobit as "striking." Now you tell us that the references came from the GNB, cross references in footnotes. I doubt that the ABS editors described these references as allusions, and they are not. That is not how cross references are designed. I don't have a reference edition of the GNB, only a text edition. However, I do have the New Jerusalem Bible (for those readers who have no idea, the NJB is an English version based on a French Catholic version, and does include the Apocrypha), and it includes some or perhaps all of the same cross references. I truly could have saved myself some time and thought if I had imagined the source. For James 1:4 the NJB has cross references to 1 Kings 3:7ff (funny, I listed that one myself as an obvious reference, much more obvious than WS), Proverbs 2:6, and WS 8:21ff. The editors of the NJB reference system are not suggesting James is making allusion to either the Old Testament or the Apocrypha with these references, they are only listing similar kinds of stories or teachings. There is a vast difference. For Acts 9:17 the NJB does have the cross reference you supplied to Tobit 11:10-15, but no suggestion of a "striking" allusion, or any other sort of allusion. I don't suppose the GNB reference system discussed a "striking" allusion either, that was your (essay's) thought. The design of cross reference systems is generally to connect similar or related thoughts or stories, not to provide textual analysis. I would expect when I look at the story of Jesus raising a widow's son (Luke 7:11-17) to find a cross reference to a similar story, and that is just what I find (1 Kings 17:23). Not because the editors of the reference system are suggesting that Luke alludes to Elijah, but because there are perceived common aspects to the stories. When Romans 12:3 is cross referenced to Philippians 2:3 it doesn't mean that Paul is alluding to himself. It means that there is something in common, at least in the mind of the author of the reference system, between the two passages. "Allusion" implies influence and some degree of dependance for idea or interpretation, and some expectation that readers or hearers will make that connection. That is not the purpose or meaning at all of kinds of connections found in the cross references in various study Bibles.

essay wrote: Now, speaking of INDIRECT references, let's just, for purposes of comparison, look at just a couple of instances where the OT allusion is to a protocanonical passage:

: Since the holiday season is fast approaching, let's find something Christmas-y. Mt 2:4 states: 'Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and left...for Egypt...This was done to make true what the Lord had said through the prophet, 'I called my Son out of Egypt'. This is an allusion to Hosea 11:1, which reads, 'When Israel was a child, I loved him and called him out of Egypt as my son. But the more I called to him, the more he turned away from me. My people sacrificed to Baal they burned incense to idols.' Surely this is as indirect as anything in the list I gave you! How could this possibly refer to Jesus? A few verses later, Matthew, in order to provide some balance, tells us that Joseph later returned with his family '...and made his home in Nazareth. And so what the prophets said came true: 'He will be called a Nazarene'. So we have both the flight and the return fulfilling prophecy, but the latter seems to be only a literary device on Matthew's part, since no such prophecy is found in the OT.

I'm sorry you don't like Matthew's use of prophecy, but such usages abound not only in the NT, but also in the secular writings among the Dead Sea scrolls, and other extant literature from the period. It didn't seem strange to his original readers. At any rate, Matthew gives a good quotation of Hosea 11:1, "I called my son out of Egypt" (NJB). Equating the Messiah with Israel was anticipated in Isaiah 41-49, especially 49:1-12. Matthew is quite consistent with Old Testament application, that the Messiah would fulfill the purpose of Israel, to reveal God to the world in righteousness and justice. Israel is referred to as son and servant, and the role is fulfilled in the obedient Messiah.

Regarding the word Nazarene, apparently Matthew was noting a word play between the Hebrew word netser (branch, Isaiah 11:1) and the name of Jesus home town, Nazareth. It is very possible that the derivation of the name Nazareth was from that Hebrew source. The same affinity must have been clear to Jesus' critics, because in the Talmud Jesus is disparagingly referred to as "ben neetser" (where the word ben means "son of"). I'm sorry you don't like Matthew's interpretation of prophecy, but the references are neither indirect nor obscure. In most cases he clearly indicates his source, because he is supporting his points with that canonical authority.

essay wrote: One more example, if I may: Paul says 'Only the person who is put right with God thru faith shall live (Rom 1:17), and here the reference is to Habakkuk 2:4, but note the difference in meaning: 'Those who are evil will not survive, but those who are righteous will live because they are faithful to God.'

: So we find that it is not faith, in the sense of belief, which saves, but faithfulness to God and His commandments through out right conduct, and of course, Paul confirms this in Romans 2. In spite of this, there are many who claim salvation is through faith alone, with good works being useless, so here it is the reader and not the writer who misses the sense of the allusion. Glad to hear that you reject the concept of salvation thru faith alone. No question, however, that faith is vitally important.

I'm not sure whether you are taking issue with Paul, or Paul's interpreters in modern times. If you take issue with Paul, you are mistaken. His quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 with reference to faith is good, the same Greek word and the same form of the word is found in the Septuagint for that passage. The Septuagint does add the word "mou" (my) in the Habakkuk text, which neither Paul nor the Masoretic text includes. Paul does no violence to the text. No, it is not faith in the sense of mere belief that saves (as in James 2:19), but faith in the sense of trusting God, and so doing as God says. Faith assures the believer that God will do his part and keep his promises, that it is right and safe to follow him. Paul certainly argues in Romans 4-5 that we cannot earn heaven, and no one other than Jesus ever has. He also affirms (as the Old Testament already taught) that God has no obligation to us beyond what he has chosen to take upon himself (Romans 9-11), he needs nothing from us. Furthermore, Paul demonstrates that we are all in need of God's gift of grace and the righteousness of Christ which we cannot achieve on our own (Romans 2-7). He certainly meant something about what we do with the exhortation to live as sacrifices to God (Romans 12-13).