A Protestant article critiquing the Deuterocanonical books

  • Thread starter Thread starter thunderbolt94
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thunderbolt94

Guest
Hey,

I recently stumbled upon an article that goes into the “apocrypha” books of the OT, and I wondering if I could get a second opinion as to whether it makes valid arguments against the inclusion of the “apocrypha”.

Here is the article:

tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html#

If anyone can help me here, I would greatly appreciate it.

God Bless
 
I don’t think you’ll get a many opinions about those books being true apocrypha here. Perhaps a better question would be why it is proper to include them?
 
I suggest you read the books yourself and judge for yourself.
There is major suspension of disbelief that has to happen here in order to accept what this individual is saying. He is asking that we completely ignore the elephant in the room: that is the fact that the people that brought us the new testament - yes all that stuff about Jesus - are the same ones who thought it was important to include the Deuterocannon; which BTW does not in clude all of the “apocrypha” that this individual implies. There are far more “apocryphal” works than those included in the Bible and now labled “Deuterocannon”. In any case the Catholic Deuterocannonical books are:
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)[20]
Wisdom
Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)[21]
Additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

There are some amazing gems in these books and frankly, if the same criterion were applied to the rest of the Bible as some “scholars” have applied to these books, the whole thing could be “thrown out”. It is ludicrous.

Tobit is a wonderful story that offers more insight into doing God’s will each time I read it.
Judith hasn’t offered as much for me personally.
The “additions” to Esther are beautiful prayers to God. It is sad and empty to read Esther without her prayers offered to God.
It;s easy to see why the modern Jews would not want “Wisdom” in their cannon. It clarifies the role of the coming Messiah. It clearly point to Jesus (in retrospect).
If Sirach had been left in the Protestant Bibles we wouldn’t have all these cults claiming that medicine should not be used. Sirach says that God gave us the physician for our needs.

I could go on but the baby’s crying… Do please check these out yourself and remember that the same Holy Spirit inspired men that included the books that are in the NT yet leave out numerous apocrypha are the same ones who brought you the current Catholic cannon of the OT.

A lot of people have gone to a lot of work to smear these beautiful books.
Why?
 
I’ll let the Bible scholars argue the details, but I would note that Protestants (and I used to be one) overlook the fact that the group of late 1st century A.D. Jewish scholars who put together a Hebrew canon, which is now the basis for the Protestant OT, also rejected Christianity and all the books and letters we today consider to be part of the New Testament. They were looking to purify their religion after the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D. and to avoid giving credence to the upstart Christian sect. So why would I trust them to decide which books of the OT were inspired?

For my part, I’ll trust that the early Christian church, which relied on the Greek Septuagint text of the OT, was correct in deciding this text was inspired and worthy of inclusion in the Christian canon. It was likely the Septuagint text St. Paul was referring to in his advice to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:14-17.

Yours in Christ,
 
In my opinion, it is a very good and fair article against the Deuterocanonical books. If you are opposed to the Deuterocanonical books, the opponents usually rely on polemics and misinformation to make their point.
This article avoids most of those bad arguments.
Now, the argument against this is rather simple, Catholics should simply assert that the same people who recognized the NT canon in the fourth and fifth centuries recognized these books as well. They should not get bogged down in the specifics. The author of this article acknowledges the diversity of the OT canon but seems to downplay the testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the earliest councils.
The fact is the same arguments against the “inspiration” of the DC books can also be applied to other OT books and so that argument is weak as well.
 
fermat said:
I don’t think you’ll get a many opinions about those books being true apocrypha here. Perhaps a better question would be why it is proper to include them?
Click to expand...
Here are some Typologies of the Deuterocanonical books:
Hebrews 12:12 So steady all weary hands and trembling knees Sirach 25:23 Low spirits, gloomy face, stricken heart: such is a spiteful wife. Slack hands and sagging knees: such is the wife who does not make her husband happy.
Keywords: Weary hands and trembling knees
James 1:19 Remember this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to listen but slow to speak and slow to human anger; Sirach 5:11 Be quick to listen, and deliberate in giving an answer.
Keywords: Quick to listen, slow to anger
James 2:23 In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name ‘friend of God’. 1 Macc 2:52 Was not Abraham tested and found faithful, was that not considered as justifying him?
Keywords: Abraham and Faith
James 3:13 Anyone who is wise or understanding among you should from a good life give evidence of deeds done in the gentleness of wisdom. Sirach 3:18 The greater you are, the more humbly you should behave, and then you will find favour with the Lord;
Keywords: Wise/greater, gentleness/humbly
James 5:3 l your gold and your silver are corroding away, and the same corrosion will be a witness against you and eat into your body. It is like a fire which you have stored up for the final days. Sirach 29:10 Spend your money on your brother or your friend, do not leave it under a stone to rust away. 11 Use your wealth as the Most High has decreed; you will find that more profitable than gold.
 
thunderbolt94 said:
Hey,

I recently stumbled upon an article that goes into the “apocrypha” books of the OT, and I wondering if I could get a second opinion as to whether it makes valid arguments against the inclusion of the “apocrypha”.

Here is the article:

tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html#

If anyone can help me here, I would greatly appreciate it.

God Bless
Click to expand...
In skimming that article, it does not appear to have anything new. The appeal to a “closed canon” of sorts from Luke 24 recollected for me Gary Michuta’s “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.” He discusses that argument specifically on pages 15-19. The short version is, they are drawing a LOT of inference from the phrase “law, prophets, psalms” that it must mean the Protestant OT.

I can’t recommend that book enough. It covers so much of what floats around there all the time. Plus it is a handy catalog of what the Early Church considered Scripture. I don’t think the Protestant argument can account for the multitude of ECFs that accepted Deuterocanonical books as Scripture very well.
 
thunderbolt94 said:
Hey,

I recently stumbled upon an article that goes into the “apocrypha” books of the OT, and I wondering if I could get a second opinion as to whether it makes valid arguments against the inclusion of the “apocrypha”.

Here is the article:

tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html#

If anyone can help me here, I would greatly appreciate it.

God Bless
Click to expand...
The Council of Jamnia is disputed by scholars, however, it was supposedly a reactionary council convened in first century AD by the Pharisees to restore their waning power, and as a reaction to Christianity. The Septuagint, which was frequently cited by Christians, was supposedly thrown out by this council in favor of a Hebrew canon. This is the supposedly final canon that Protestants continually cite in order to refute the traditional Catholic canon.

However, either way you look at it, because the factuality and extent of the Council’s supposed authority are disputed by scholars, Protestants lose this argument.
  1. If it was an authoritative Council, Protestants deferred to the Pharisees (the persecutors of the Christians, or Nazarenes, as they were pejoratively known) in determining their OT canon,
Or
  1. the Council’s authority has been completely exaggerated, and is actually non-binding on the Jewish canon.
Indeed, since the canon of the Ethiopian Jews, which predates the first century ‘Council’, does not reflect the determinations of said council, it does not bode well for the Protestant argument, notwithstanding the paradoxical acceptance by Christians of an OT canon assembled the by the persecutors of the early Christians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top