Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[Mannyfit75]

1. Well, if the New Testament never quotes from these seven books, doesn’t that indicate that they were not considered to be inspired?

Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books—such as the Song of Songs—that are also not quoted in the New Testament. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the New Testament does not suggest that a book is not inspired.

Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life.” Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.

1. But the book of Judith says that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians, when he was really king of the Babylonians. If a book has errors, it can’t be inspired.

In reading Scripture, it is imperative that we understand the genre of the work. Is it a historical passage? An apocalyptic one? A parable? A proverb? Knowing this influences how the book should be read. When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds (Matt.13:32), he is not providing a treatise on botany. After all, there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed. When Jesus spoke in parables, the people understood that he was telling a story, and they did not expect it to conform to historical or scientific precision.

The same goes with the book of Judith. “Judith” means “lady Jew,” and she personifies the nation of Israel, as “Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians” personifies the enemies of the nation. The Jews of the time were aware that Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of the Assyrians but that the Babylonians and Assyrians were two of the nation’s worst foes joined into one by the author of Judith for the sake of parable.

1. Which translation did the first Christians use?

Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (, 53). The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.

1. Didn’t Jerome and Augustine disagree about the deuterocanonical books?

Yes, as did other early Christians. Numerous Church Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture (see cin.org/users/james/files/deutero2.htm ), while some did not.

Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: “We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God,” wrote Augustine, “but by the canon of the Catholic Church.”

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

Source: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nancie Lew,

I also like to add why your rebuttal falls short is the reference that Matthew used the Greek Translation of the Bible when he reference the Virgin Birth as prophecized by

Issiah 7:14

From the Septuagint translation:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel.”

From the Tanakh or Hebrew translation:

Issiah 7:14

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold, a young woman shall conceived and bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel.”

From the Gospel of Matthew, 1:23.

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”

Apparently, the Gospel Writer was refering to the Greek Septuagint when he cited Issiah the prophet.

Do declare the Septuagint would false, then Matthew himself citing it is also false. So your argument falls dead flat on the ground.

 

[lak611]

I don’t belong to any .:nope: I came on this board to learn about Catholicism.:yup: I admit that I don’t know a great deal about Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism so I have to do a bit of web-surfing in order to not form a biased opinion in favor of one religion. :yup: However I have read enough now about Methodism to know that

[SIGN]Zoooooooooooooooooooey Girl[/SIGN] :nope: :nope: is not a Methodist .

Why she chooses :tsktsk: to present herself as one is beyond me.

So if you admit that you do not know “a great deal about . . . Protestantism” and “read enough . . . about Methodism” whilst “web-surfing”, how does that make you an authority to tell someone she is “not a Methodist”? Are you able to read a person’s heart? That is something only God is able to do.

 

[Zooey]

I don’t belong to any .:nope: I came on this board to learn about Catholicism.:yup: I admit that I don’t know a great deal about Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism so I have to do a bit of web-surfing in order to not form a biased opinion in favor of one religion. :yup: However I have read enough now about Methodism to know that

[sign]Zoooooooooooooooooooey Girl[/sign] :nope: is not a Methodist :tsktsk: .

Why she chooses :tsktsk: to present herself as one is beyond me.

[SIGN]
http://bestsmileys.com/textinbubble1/1.gif
[/SIGN]

 

[Randy_Carson]

No wonder Kaycee is in shock he relies on Webster as his personal magisterium and sole authority on the matter. Instead of going to primary sources all we get from Kaycee is a cut and paste job from Webster.
We have raised this issue a few times on this thread that Webster sometimes does not use primary source material and many times resorts to personal opinion rather than exact quotes from primary sources.
Gary Michuta has said he has misrepresented some facts as well.
The lesson here is to do your own homework and check the primary source material yourself and check other scholarly opinions other than what seems to be a hack apologist with sometimes sloppy scholarship.

It also appears that William Webster took a few shots at Stephen Ray when the latter’s book “Upon this Rock” was published.

Ray destroyed Webster in a 200-page rebuttal posted at www.catholicconvert.com

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Nancie_Lew]

The canon of the OT was not official closed by the Jews until 90 A.D. Prior to that the Jews used both the Hebrew OT and the Greek Translation of the OT.

It was not until the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD when the Jewish religion felt threatened by Christianity because of these Deutrocanonical Books decided to form a Council.

The Christian community or Churches by the late 300 AD canonized Scripture in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage in 396 AD which included the 7 Books more Books in the OT and the 27 Books in NT.

The Council of Trent made the similar list invoke in those Councils, which finally closed the Canon of Scripture.

Hey Manny for the record… there was no such thing as the Council of Jamnia or Council of Rome.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hey Manny for the record… there was no such thing as the Council of Jamnia or Council of Rome.

You know apparently you don’t know history. To say that would be like saying, there was no Holocaust and that Hitler did not kill 6 million Jews in WWII.

There was a Council of Jamnia in 90 AD that rejected the Septuagint and was there to preserve the Hebrew Tradition in a response to Christianity use for the Septuagint and 27 NT text.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

So if you admit that you do not know “a great deal about . . . Protestantism” and “read enough . . . about Methodism” whilst “web-surfing”, how does that make you an authority to tell someone she is “not a Methodist”? Are you able to read a person’s heart? That is something only God is able to do.

Methodists do not believe the Deutrocanonical Books are inspired by God. They only use them for edification.

 

[kaycee]

You know apparently you don’t know history.

There was a Council of Jamnia in 90 AD that rejected the Septuagint and was there to preserve the Hebrew Tradition in a response to Christianity use for the Septuagint and 27 NT text.

IT was NOT a “council” and they never discussed the apocrypha. You have bought wholesale a Catholic apologist spin on a non event. The vast majority of Jews stated and held that after the book of Malachi there were no longer any prophets in Israel. Even the Deuts say that!!!

 

[Mannyfit75]

IT was NOT a “council” and they never discussed the apocrypha. You have bought wholesale a Catholic apologist spin on a non event. The vast majority of Jews stated and held that after the book of Malachi there were no longer any prophets in Israel. Even the Deuts say that!!!

Of course that’s what the Council of Jamnia stated that the last book of Malachi is the final in the Hebrew Text. This was only a response to Christian use of the Greek Translation.

I know what was discuss in the Jamnia, Don’t think I don’t know that.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

I will add that my KJV study bible whose notes and commentaires were created by notable Protestant Pastors and Theologians continually cite the Septuagint.

Are you sure it is the Septuagint? Why would the KJV Bible cite the Septuagint? The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic (Hebrew) texts. The New Testament is translated from Greek but it is not from the Septuagint. If there really was a Septuagint it was laden with errors. I just read on the web about how screwed up the Septuagint is. Why in the world the Orthodox church uses the LXX is a mystery to me.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Are you sure it is the Septuagint? Why would the KJV Bible cite the Septuagint? The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic (Hebrew) texts. The New Testament is translated from Greek but it is not from the Septuagint. If there really was a Septuagint it was laden with errors. I just read on the web about how screwed up the Septuagint is. Why in the world the Orthodox church uses the LXX is a mystery to me.

The original KJV had in its appendix contain the 7 additional books that the Protestants remove during the Reformation

 

[JoeyWarren]

Are you sure it is the Septuagint? Why would the KJV Bible cite the Septuagint? The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic (Hebrew) texts. The New Testament is translated from Greek but it is not from the Septuagint. If there really was a Septuagint it was laden with errors. I just read on the web about how screwed up the Septuagint is. Why in the world the Orthodox church uses the LXX is a mystery to me.

I suggest you purchase an english translation of the Palenstinian Canon and compare it to what is in our standard Bibles whether it be KJV or NAB.

And I don’t mean a Protestant Version of the OT Hebrew but an English Version put out by the Jews themselves.

The text do not jive.

Here are a few examples:

Orginally posted by ScriptureCatholic.com:

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make “His paths straight.” Hebrew - make “level in the desert a highway.”
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).
Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.” Hebrew - thou has “established strength.”
Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound. Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.

 

[Wisdom]

IT was NOT a “council” and they never discussed the apocrypha. You have bought wholesale a Catholic apologist spin on a non event. The vast majority of Jews stated and held that after the book of Malachi there were no longer any prophets in Israel. Even the Deuts say that!!!

Actually it is a protestant spin on a non-event it is catholic apologist like Steve Ray, Gary Michuta, THis Rock Magazine which pointed this out to me and others on this board and we have had to correct protestants on this point… Your point about Malachai is problematic for the Plalestenian canon as Baruch, Sirach were probably written before the time period had closed and Daniel was written after the period of Malachi even protestant scholar Bruce Metzger says this. ANd Jesus said the last prophet was John the Bapstist and not Malachi furthermore the dueteros are WIsdom Books not prophetic books as are many books in the old testametn taht don’t claim to be written by a prophet. THeir is nothing prophetic about Esther and Job but there they are in the Bible just becasue a book is not prophetic does not mean they are not canonical. You accept your premise primarily because it is the tradition of Luther who gave this tradition to the protestant movement.

 

[lak611]

Actually it is a protestant spin on a non-event it is catholic apologist like Steve Ray, Gary Michuta, THis Rock Magazine which pointed this out to me and others on this board and we have had to correct protestants on this point… Your point about Malachai is problematic for the Plalestenian canon as Baruch, Sirach were probably written before the time period had closed and Daniel was written after the period of Malachi even protestant scholar Bruce Metzger says this. ANd Jesus said the last prophet was John the Bapstist and not Malachi furthermore the dueteros are WIsdom Books not prophetic books as are many books in the old testametn taht don’t claim to be written by a prophet. THeir is nothing prophetic about Esther and Job but there they are in the Bible just becasue a book is not prophetic does not mean they are not canonical. You accept your premise primarily because it is the tradition of Luther who gave this tradition to the protestant movement.

Great post. BTW, kaycee and Nancie Lew, Metzger is a Protestant.

 

[kaycee]

Actually it is a protestant spin on a non-event it is catholic apologist like Steve Ray, Gary Michuta, THis Rock Magazine which pointed this out to me and others on this board and we have had to correct protestants on this point… Your point about Malachai is problematic for the Plalestenian canon as Baruch, Sirach were probably written before the time period had closed and Daniel was written after the period of Malachi even protestant scholar Bruce Metzger says this. ANd Jesus said the last prophet was John the Bapstist and not Malachi furthermore the dueteros are WIsdom Books not prophetic books as are many books in the old testametn taht don’t claim to be written by a prophet. THeir is nothing prophetic about Esther and Job but there they are in the Bible just becasue a book is not prophetic does not mean they are not canonical. You accept your premise primarily because it is the tradition of Luther who gave this tradition to the protestant movement.

Silly me. I thought Philo, Josephus, Jerome, Athanasius, Pope Gregory and the many other Dr.s of the Church were before Luther.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Silly me. I thought Philo, Josephus, Jerome, Athanasius, Pope Gregory and the many other Dr.s of the Church were before Luther.

Philo and Josephus are Dr’s of the Church?

 

[Wisdom]

Silly me. I thought Philo, Josephus, Jerome, Athanasius, Pope Gregory and the many other Dr.s of the Church were before Luther.

Yes silly you as Philo and Josephus were post temple Jews and we have always acknowledge the Jews who rejected Christ had a shorter canon, the Question is why do you accept the canonof the these Jews who had no authority over the Church and obviously rejected Christ and rejected the New Testament canon of the early church as well as it old testament canon. Well before Jerome’s objection all the early ante-nicean christians accepted the duteros as scripture Ignatius. Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Cyprian, and Origen Hippolytus and on and on it goes the constant an unamimous tradition before Nicea.

We have gone over your misinformation before Athanasius accepted some dueteors and rejected some so he cannot be referred to be as agreeing with you unless you accept Baruch, Letter of Jermiah, Bel and the Dragon and the Greek addition of Esther.

Pope Gregory is misrepresented again by your sole source of information Webster he acknowledges a first canon of the Jews and a second canon by the Christians and for him the dueteros are scriptures. “For of him it is written, But by envy of the devil death entered into the world’[Wisdom 2:24]”
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Pastoral Care,10(ante A.D. 604),in NPNF2,XII:32

“[L]et them hear what is written, ‘Give to every man that asketh of thee’[Luke 6:30]. Lest they should give something, however little to those on whom they ought to bestow nothing at all, let them hear what is written. ‘Give to the good man, and receive not a sinner: do well to him that is lowly, and give not to the ungodly’[Sirach 12:4]. And again, ‘Set out thy bread and wine on the burial of the just, but eat and drink not thereof with sinners’ [Tobit 4:17].”
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Pastoral Care,20(ante A.D. 604),in NPNF2,XII:45

Even today catholics acknowledge this as we call it the duterocanon the second canon. Your appeal is not the the Councils of the Church as the Bible shows us is what we should do in matter of dispute Matthew 18 and Acts 15 but rather you appeal to the Jews which reject Christ the Pharissees no less. YOu appeal to the error of opinion of one man Jerome whose was the first objection in the Christian west for 400 years. Your telling me it took 400 years before the truth was known in the Christian West the hub of early orthodoxy which corrected the errors of the east for the first millinium Arianism among them? Give it up and become a rabbinical Jew as you have rejected the very same process which infalliably gave you the 27 new tetstmanet books you don’t seem to have a problem with even though a number of thier books were not accepted as canon until the 400’s while the acceptance of the duteros were common in the first 400 years of the church.
Again another argument of straw appealing to Philo and Josephus what next appealing to Caiphas?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes silly you as Philo and Josephus were post temple Jews and we have always acknowledge the Jews who rejected Christ had a shorter canon, the Question is why do you accept the canonof the these Jews who had no authority over the Church and obviously rejected Christ and rejected the New Testament canon of the early church as well as it old testament canon. Well before Jerome’s objection all the early ante-nicean christians accepted the duteros as scripture Ignatius. Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Cyprian, and Origen Hippolytus and on and on it goes the constant an unamimous tradition before Nicea.

We have gone over your misinformation before Athanasius accepted some dueteors and rejected some so he cannot be referred to be as agreeing with you unless you accept Baruch, Letter of Jermiah, Bel and the Dragon and the Greek addition of Esther, Pope Gregory is misrepresented again by your sole source of information Webster he acknowledges a first canon of the Jews and a second canon by the Christians and the dueteros are scriptures even today catholics acknowledge this as we call it the duterocanon. Your appeal is not the the Councils of the Church as the Bible shows us is what we should do in matter of dispute Matthew 18 and Acts 15 but rather you appeal to the Jews which reject Christ the Pharissees no less. YOu appeal to the error of opinion of one man Jerome whose was the first objection in the Christian west for 400 years. Your telling me it took 400 years before the truth was known in the Christian West the hub of early orthodoxy which corrected the errors of the east for the first millinium Arianism among them? Give it up and become a rabbinical Jew as you have rejected the very same process which infalliably gave you the 27 new tetstmanet books you don’t seem to have a problem with even though a number of thier books were not accepted as canon until the 400’s while the acceptance of the duteros were common in the first 400 years of the church.
Again another argument of straw appealing to Philo and Josephus what next appealing to Caiphas?

That is what puzzled me towards Protestant Christians. Why do they use the Jewish canon who reject Jesus as their canon for the OT?

 

[JoeyWarren]

That is what puzzled me towards Protestant Christians. Why do they use the Jewish canon who reject Jesus as their canon for the OT?

They are cafeteria Christians accepting only those parts of the truth that suit their minds. Most non-Catholic Christians don’t even have a clue as to where and how “Jews don’t recognize the deutero’s as Inspired” came from. I Boss used the above statement, and then I replied which Jews and how do you know that all Jews reject this? He was at a loss for words. All they know is what they have been taught by their Pastor or have read in a book by a non-Catholic. It is interesting that these same Pastors that do have this knowledge of the Rabbi’s of Jamnia actions, they nearly 100% of the time omit these other truths established by these Rabbis…