Double standards.. judging the "Apocrypha"

[exoflare]

This was posted in the Hannukah thread, but I didn’t want to derail it so I’m going off on the tangent here.

SolaFide:

There are a lot of errors of facts and chronology of events in 1 Macabees. It’s interesting reading but it certainly isn’t in the same category of "inspired’ Scripture. In fact, none of the Apocryphal books claim to be inspired. There are no “thus saith the Lords” in the Apocrypha.

It’s interesting to me that every time I see some kind of argument for why the “Apocrypha” (Deuterocanonicals of the OT) are not inspired by God like the rest of the Bible, it always employs some kind of standard that would “disprove” a lot of other parts of the Bible if taken seriously.

Above, the following arguments are given for why 1 Maccabees is not an inspired book:

1. Errors of facts, and chronology (assumption: every book in the Bible MUST be read as literal and chronologically accurate history)

Not much needs to be said here. For one thing, anyone who has read all four Gospels will realize that this argument saws off the very branch it sits on. Any Protestant who accepts this standard will have their work cut out for them explaining “contradictions” in the Gospels, and how all four could possibly be inspired at the same time.

2. None of the “apocryphal” books claim to be inspired.

By this standard, the only book that belongs in the Bible is Revelation. :whacky:

3. There are no “thus saith the Lords” in the Apocrypha.

Would all 66 books of the Protestant canon fit this standard? Please tell me.

This is what happens when you have no basis for which books to call “inspired”, I guess. You just have to take your parents’, pastor’s, etc… word for it that those 66 books of the Protestant canon are all to be considered Sacred Scripture and find whatever reasons you can cherry-pick to try and back up that assumption.

 

[Atemi]

Above, the following arguments are given for why 1 Maccabees is not an inspired book:

1. Errors of facts, and chronology (assumption: every book in the Bible MUST be read as literal and chronologically accurate history)

2. None of the “apocryphal” books claim to be inspired.

3. There are no “thus saith the Lords” in the Apocrypha.

Would all 66 books of the Protestant canon fit this standard? Please tell me.

No, no, no.

You are making the highly erroneous assumption that each of these evidences can stand alone as total proof of non-inspiration.

No.

I see where you are coming from, but you are not addressing anything anyone is actually claiming. No one claims, for example, that the proof of non-inspiration is that there are no "thus saith the Lord"s in the texts.

That may be a proof, but can never be the proof.

The whole case against the inspiration of the Apocrypha is much greater than any one or two of its associated evidences.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

The whole case against the inspiration of the Apocrypha is much greater than any one or two of its associated evidences.

It’s just too bad that Catholics do not accept any “apocyrphal” books as inspired canon.

Anybody seen any Gnostic gospels or the Didache in your Bibles? I sure haven’t. Mine doesn’t even have that doxology to the Our Father that King James has.

The fact is that LONG before there were any “protestants” or “reformers” there was the Christian church which accepted these books as inspired canon, and there is more than sufficient historical documentation of that. Five hundred years ago someone decided he didn’t like these books as well as some New Testament books because they contradicted particular pet novel theologies that he was working up. He even wanted to yank Esther out of the OT, great scholar and theologian that he was.

No… The Deuterocanonical books belong in the Word of God, and that doxology (from the Didache) that some KJV copyist botched up and included in Matthew 6:13 does not.:bible1:

 

[Alexius]

He even wanted to yank Esther out of the OT, great scholar and theologian that he was.

I agree with Luther. The Book of Esther doesn’t acknowledge God ever. Together with the Book of James, it is a writing of chaff. We know that James was wrong because he speaks of justification “by works and not faith alone.” Paul says in Romans that “The just shall live by faith alone.” It is faith alone that justifies us…:doh2:

 

[exoflare]

No, no, no.

You are making the highly erroneous assumption that each of these evidences can stand alone as total proof of non-inspiration.

No.

I see where you are coming from, but you are not addressing anything anyone is actually claiming. No one claims, for example, that the proof of non-inspiration is that there are no "thus saith the Lord"s in the texts.

That may be a proof, but can never be the proof.

The whole case against the inspiration of the Apocrypha is much greater than any one or two of its associated evidences.

…

If it’s not THE proof, then why bother listing it as any sort of evidence in the first place? The only way this would make any sense is if there were some wider standard that incorporated this and other factors into some consistent method of evaluation… and both of us know that Protestants didn’t come to the conclusion they did by any such comprehensive system.

Rather, certain details of the books are cherry-picked AFTER the Protestant’s conclusion has already been made. These details don’t even have to be relevant to the actual purpose the book was written for, as long as they can be twisted into something that sounds bad somehow in general (i.e. “chronologically inaccurate”). This way, they are used as a kind of ad hoc “proof” that the book in question cannot be inspired.

 

[Valke2]

I agree with Luther. The Book of Esther doesn’t acknowledge God ever. Together with the Book of James, it is a writing of chaff. We know that James was wrong because he speaks of justification “by works and not faith alone.” Paul says in Romans that “The just shall live by faith alone.” It is faith alone that justifies us…:doh2:

Sometimes God remains hidden and leaves it up to us to save ourselves. Maybe we should remove the story of Joseph from Genesis?

 

[Zooey]

I agree with Luther. The Book of Esther doesn’t acknowledge God ever.

It does if you read the unabridged version; try any Catholic Bible. God is in there. (For that matter, He’s in the abridged Esther too; just not by name).

Together with the Book of James, it is a writing of chaff.

:nope::bigyikes: :nope: :bigyikes:

We know that James was wrong because he speaks of justification “by works and not faith alone.” Paul says in Romans that “The just shall live by faith alone.” It is faith alone that justifies us…

Paul does not say " faith alone". The only place that uses the phrase " faith alone" is James, and that says that “faith alone” will NOT save you!
(You seriously have gotta read, say, the Latin. Or the original Greek).

 

[Atemi]

If it’s not THE proof, then why bother listing it as any sort of evidence in the first place?

Huh?

An evidence does not amount to all evidence.

This is basic.

The only way this would make any sense is if there were some wider standard that incorporated this and other factors into some consistent method of evaluation… and both of us know that Protestants didn’t come to the conclusion they did by any such comprehensive system.

I “know” no such thing.

The point remains that your apologetic and complaint is faulty and broken.

You make an assumption about the evidences that even those citing them do not make.

…

 

[Lev23]

Anybody ever read the Book of Enoch"?

Amazing stuff in there!

 

[Pwrlftr]

It’s just too bad that Catholics do not accept any “apocyrphal” books as inspired canon.

Anybody seen any Gnostic gospels or the Didache in your Bibles? I sure haven’t. Mine doesn’t even have that doxology to the Our Father that King James has.

The fact is that LONG before there were any “protestants” or “reformers” there was the Christian church which accepted these books as inspired canon, and there is more than sufficient historical documentation of that. Five hundred years ago someone decided he didn’t like these books as well as some New Testament books because they contradicted particular pet novel theologies that he was working up. He even wanted to yank Esther out of the OT, great scholar and theologian that he was.

No… The Deuterocanonical books belong in the Word of God, and that doxology (from the Didache) that some KJV copyist botched up and included in Matthew 6:13 does not.:bible1:

I’m not sure why you bring up the doxology issue. It’s not like all Catholic bibles are w/ out textual errors such as including the Johannine comma.

Additionaly, the earlier councils (Carthage and Hippo) did not settle the matter for the church universal as they were provincial in nature, not ecumenical.

Also from the early days of the church up to Jerome and then up to Trent there were those who rejected the deuterocanonicals so it isn’t like Luther or any other reformer was alone or unique in this.

 

[b_justb]

First it’s the dradle, now this. You leave Joseph of Genesis alone right now!

(if you’ve never heard the brittney spears sound bite this isn’t that funny. OK so even if you have heard it it’s only slightly amuzing, now get off my cloud)

Valke2:

Sometimes God remains hidden and leaves it up to us to save ourselves. Maybe we should remove the story of Joseph from Genesis?

 

[Mannyfit75]

This was posted in the Hannukah thread, but I didn’t want to derail it so I’m going off on the tangent here.

It’s interesting to me that every time I see some kind of argument for why the “Apocrypha” (Deuterocanonicals of the OT) are not inspired by God like the rest of the Bible, it always employs some kind of standard that would “disprove” a lot of other parts of the Bible if taken seriously.

Above, the following arguments are given for why 1 Maccabees is not an inspired book:

1. Errors of facts, and chronology (assumption: every book in the Bible MUST be read as literal and chronologically accurate history)

Not much needs to be said here. For one thing, anyone who has read all four Gospels will realize that this argument saws off the very branch it sits on. Any Protestant who accepts this standard will have their work cut out for them explaining “contradictions” in the Gospels, and how all four could possibly be inspired at the same time.

2. None of the “apocryphal” books claim to be inspired.

By this standard, the only book that belongs in the Bible is Revelation. :whacky:

3. There are no “thus saith the Lords” in the Apocrypha.

Would all 66 books of the Protestant canon fit this standard? Please tell me.

This is what happens when you have no basis for which books to call “inspired”, I guess. You just have to take your parents’, pastor’s, etc… word for it that those 66 books of the Protestant canon are all to be considered Sacred Scripture and find whatever reasons you can cherry-pick to try and back up that assumption.

SolaFide’s argument falls into collapse after you read this interesting Article to refute his claims. The Catholic Apologist debunk Mr. Cloud who had the same view as our friend SolaFide.

Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals

Here is a thorough overview:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

 

[SolaFide]

Above, the following arguments are given for why 1 Maccabees is not an inspired book:

1. Errors of facts, and chronology (assumption: every book in the Bible MUST be read as literal and chronologically accurate history)

Not much needs to be said here. For one thing, anyone who has read all four Gospels will realize that this argument saws off the very branch it sits on. Any Protestant who accepts this standard will have their work cut out for them explaining “contradictions” in the Gospels, and how all four could possibly be inspired at the same time.

1. None of the “apocryphal” books claim to be inspired.

By this standard, the only book that belongs in the Bible is Revelation.

1. There are no “thus saith the Lords” in the Apocrypha.

Would all 66 books of the Protestant canon fit this standard? Please tell me.

This is what happens when you have no basis for which books to call “inspired”, I guess. You just have to take your parents’, pastor’s, etc… word for it that those 66 books of the Protestant canon are all to be considered Sacred Scripture and find whatever reasons you can cherry-pick to try and back up that assumption.

Let’s take these one at a time shall we?

1. Errors of facts, and chronology (assumption: every book in the Bible MUST be read as literal and chronologically accurate history)

While other books of the Bible have slight variancesin numbers and times, the Apocryphal books have literal hundreds of year leaps in time! Big difference.

For one thing, anyone who has read all four Gospels will realize that this argument saws off the very branch it sits on. Any Protestant who accepts this standard will have their work cut out for them explaining “contradictions” in the Gospels, and how all four could possibly be inspired at the same time.

The gospels don’t have “contradictions” they have different tellings of the same event. But if we put all the gospels together we get the full story. This is like interviewing four people who saw a car accident. You might get slight variances on the story but you put them all together and you know what happened.

The Apocryphal books have leaps! That would be like having two people who said they saw a car accident and one saying they say it in Reno, Nevada on June 17, 2007 and another saying they saw the same accident in Toledo, Ohio on January 4, 1952!!

1. None of the “apocryphal” books claim to be inspired.

By this standard, the only book that belongs in the Bible is Revelation

Also not true. Almost every OT book claims to be written by a man of God that was “recognized” inspired literature: Moses, Joshua, Samuel and all the prophets have “thus saith the Lord” in them.

NT: The writings of Paul were already considered “inspired” and put in the same category as the Old Testament inspired Scriptures by the time Peter wrote 2 Peter.

2Pe 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul was already quoting Luke and putting it alongside the OT as “Scripture”

1Ti 5:18 **For the Scripture **says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and "The worker deserves his wages."

quoting:
Luke 10:7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

This is how Peter describes the inspiration of the OT prophets:

2Pe 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

In Paul’s epistles he claims to be speaking for God and giving commands on behalf of God:
1 Corinthians 7:10
1 Corinthians 14:37
2 Thess. 3:6 and 12

More in next post.

 

[SolaFide]

1. There are no “thus saith the Lords” in the Apocrypha.

Would all 66 books of the Protestant canon fit this standard? Please tell me.

This is what happens when you have no basis for which books to call “inspired”, I guess. You just have to take your parents’, pastor’s, etc… word for it that those 66 books of the Protestant canon are all to be considered Sacred Scripture and find whatever reasons you can cherry-pick to try and back up that assumption

It may not fit all 66 books of the Bible but it certainly applies to all the ones I’ve listed above. Go onto an online concordance and type "thus saith the Lord’ or “this is what the Lord says…” and you’ll be so busy checking references you won’t have time for anything else.

We DO have a basis for the books we call “inspired.” All of the above reasons for those books and Jesus made this reference:

Luk 11:50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,
Luk 11:51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
Luk 11:52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

Now, as I’ve said before. We need to look at a historical/grammatical view of Scripture and realize that this is a Jewish man talking to Jewish educated men: Pharisees. We must apply that fact to what we read.

The traditional Jewish canon divided the Scriptures into three categories: the Law (Torah), the Prophets, and the Writings (historical books like 1 & 2 Kings [which was one book in the Hebrew Scriptures] and 1 & 2 Chronicles [also one book]. Thus the Law came first and the historical books last with Chronicles being placed after Ezra-Nehemiah. None of the Apocryphal books are listed in that Jewish canon order at this time.

Thus Jesus’ words reflect the settled canon of the Jewish scriptures of His day. Abel was the first martyr in the Scriptures in Genesis and according to the canonical order of the Jewish Scriptures with 2 Chronicles being listed last, Zedekiah was the last martyr listed in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22.

The Jews recognized that there were not prophets in Israel during the approx. 400 year time that we call the Intertestamental period. Also Josephus a Jewish historian when writing of the books of the Jewish Scriptures excludes the apocryphal books and Philo, a Jewish teacher never once quotes the Apocrypha.

BTW: both of these are available online as there works are ancient and considered public domain.

There are more reasons, but just to show you that we have very good reasons not to include the Apocrypha.

That’s not to say they aren’t interesting reading but they shouldn’t be used at all for faith or doctrine

 

[exoflare]

Huh?

An evidence does not amount to all evidence.

This is basic.

Again you’re missing the point. It can only be considered “evidence” if you have some kind of consistent standard that you’re weighing all the facts against. You do not, and neither does any other Protestant.

I “know” no such thing.

The point remains that your apologetic and complaint is faulty and broken.

You make an assumption about the evidences that even those citing them do not make.

…

Keep telling yourself that if you want. If people really want to know, they can read what I said for themselves.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It may not fit all 66 books of the Bible but it certainly applies to all the ones I’ve listed above. Go onto an online concordance and type "thus saith the Lord’ or “this is what the Lord says…” and you’ll be so busy checking references you won’t have time for anything else.

We DO have a basis for the books we call “inspired.” All of the above reasons for those books and Jesus made this reference:

Luk 11:50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,
Luk 11:51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
Luk 11:52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

Now, as I’ve said before. We need to look at a historical/grammatical view of Scripture and realize that this is a Jewish man talking to Jewish educated men: Pharisees. We must apply that fact to what we read.

The traditional Jewish canon divided the Scriptures into three categories: the Law (Torah), the Prophets, and the Writings (historical books like 1 & 2 Kings [which was one book in the Hebrew Scriptures] and 1 & 2 Chronicles [also one book]. Thus the Law came first and the historical books last with Chronicles being placed after Ezra-Nehemiah. None of the Apocryphal books are listed in that Jewish canon order at this time.

Thus Jesus’ words reflect the settled canon of the Jewish scriptures of His day. Abel was the first martyr in the Scriptures in Genesis and according to the canonical order of the Jewish Scriptures with 2 Chronicles being listed last, Zedekiah was the last martyr listed in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22.

The Jews recognized that there were not prophets in Israel during the approx. 400 year time that we call the Intertestamental period. Also Josephus a Jewish historian when writing of the books of the Jewish Scriptures excludes the apocryphal books and Philo, a Jewish teacher never once quotes the Apocrypha.

Christians at the time of Josephus used both the LXX and the Hebrew Canon. It was not until the Council of Jamnia that Jews reject the Deutrocanonical Books which you called Apocrypha.

Obviously the Septuagint was organized with both the Protocanonical books with the Deuterocanonical books also alongside them. Thus, the Jewish Bible that most of the Jews had, included all the books that are in the Catholic Bible. So the fact that the Septuagint existed, which included all these books that Geisler calls ‘apocryphal’, demonstrate that the idea that the apocryphal books were ‘never’ listed in the Jewish Bible is flat out false and Geisler should know that.

The Jews did not have a set canon for a long time. The Sadducees had a separate canon. The Pharisees had a separate canon. The Essene Jews had a separate canon. The Ethiopian Jews had (and still have) a separate canon. The Alexandrian Jews did have a canon that included these books, and as demonstrated even in the center of Jerusalem, the Septuagint in the first century was widely distributed. The question of the Jews and the canon was not settled for many years even after Jesus was crucified so even if the statement was correct, it would be irrelevant on whether Christians are supposed to accept their canon I have shown that at this url

 

[Mannyfit75]

Finally, the fact that the Jews did not have an organized canon until long after Christianity started, shows that they did not operate on a Sola Scriptura basis. If Scripture was the sole binding authority, obviously the extent of the canon would have been decided long before Christianity existed.

The following books, almost 1/3rd of the books of the Protestant Old Testament) are NOWHERE quoted or even alluded to in the New Testament: Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, Nahum. Thus, the same argument excludes all these books. In fact, all of these mentioned books would have been excluded by many of these points attempted to be used by Geisler to exclude the Deuterocanonicals.
Even if there were no specific citations where there was “It is written” in the New Testament in reference to the Deuterocanonical books, there are clear references to the Deuterocanonicals. The book of Hebrews, Hebrews 11:35 is:

Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.

This is as close to a citation as one could get, as it is obvious that Hebrews 11:35, the second part, is speaking of the brothers in the Maccabees who died in the hope to rise again to a better life. No Protocanonical book has those events. Also, there is a borrowing from Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, even if there is not formal citations which are preceded by “It is written.” Paul in Romans 1:19-32, clearly alludes to Wisdom 13, for example. Also, James 1:19 clearly alludes to Sirach 5:11:

There are other references as well. Even if there are not quotations per se, the ideas are clearly intertwined and a borrowing from the Deuterocanonicals is clear. An url that goes into even more allusions and borrowing from the Deuterocanonicals is here (including prophecies): scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Taken together this provides overwhelming evidence that the Apocrypha was not prophetic and, therefore, should not be part of the canon of Scripture. (Geisler, p. 167).
In sum, taken together, no points are made at all. The criteria that he used to deny the Deuterocanonical either don’t apply to those books, or if they do apply they would also eliminate a large portion of both New and Old Testament books that Geisler himself accepts.

 

[exoflare]

While other books of the Bible have slight variancesin numbers and times, the Apocryphal books have literal hundreds of year leaps in time! Big difference.

Once again, this is all purely subjective. For one thing, where exactly are we supposed to draw the line between a “slight variance” and a “big difference” in numbers and times? A difference of 5, 50, 5000? Help me out. Once you’ve clarified this we can go on…

The gospels don’t have “contradictions” they have different tellings of the same event. But if we put all the gospels together we get the full story. This is like interviewing four people who saw a car accident. You might get slight variances on the story but you put them all together and you know what happened.

That doesn’t address the entire problem. You listed “errors of chronology” as a proof that certain books are not inspired. When different Gospels place the same events in completely different orders, they cannot ALL be accurate chronologically. Of course that’s not really a problem when you take the real purpose of the Gospels into account, but it doesn’t live up to the standard you have set.

The Apocryphal books have leaps! That would be like having two people who said they saw a car accident and one saying they say it in Reno, Nevada on June 17, 2007 and another saying they saw the same accident in Toledo, Ohio on January 4, 1952!!

Before going on, what exactly are you referring to here? Can you give an example of one of these “leaps”?

Also not true. Almost every OT book claims to be written by a man of God that was “recognized” inspired literature: Moses, Joshua, Samuel and all the prophets have “thus saith the Lord” in them.

Are you assuming that if the phrase “Thus saith the Lord” appears once in a book, it MUST be referring to the whole book itself?

NT: The writings of Paul were already considered “inspired” and put in the same category as the Old Testament inspired Scriptures by the time Peter wrote 2 Peter.

You’re changing your standard now… first the book had to claim its own inspiration, and now you say it suffices that enough people just considered the book to be inspired at some point?

Paul was already quoting Luke and putting it alongside the OT as “Scripture”

1Ti 5:18 **For the Scripture **says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and "The worker deserves his wages."

quoting:
Luke 10:7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Fine, but what does this prove? If you’re implying that any book quoted by scripture must also be inspired, what is your opinion of Jude quoting the book of Enoch?

This is how Peter describes the inspiration of the OT prophets:

2Pe 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Why are you telling me stuff I already agree with? This was never up for debate in the first place.

In Paul’s epistles he claims to be speaking for God and giving commands on behalf of God:
1 Corinthians 7:10
1 Corinthians 14:37
2 Thess. 3:6 and 12

1 Corinthians 7:10 - Paul is pointing out that one particular instruction was given to him by the Lord. It’s still a jump to assume that the same must necessarily go for the entire letter.

1 Corinthians 14:37 might fit the bill, actually. But 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 12 are also referring to the specific instructions that directly follow them.

 

[exoflare]

It may not fit all 66 books of the Bible but it certainly applies to all the ones I’ve listed above.

So what is your reason for letting the others off the hook?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Christians at the time of Josephus used both the LXX and the Hebrew Canon. It was not until the Council of Jamnia that Jews reject the Deutrocanonical Books which you called Apocrypha.

There is no evidence that the rabbi’s at Jamnia even discussed the deuterocanonicals.

Obviously the Septuagint was organized with both the Protocanonical books with the Deuterocanonical books also alongside them. Thus, the Jewish Bible that most of the Jews had, included all the books that are in the Catholic Bible.

Can you quote some source for these claims, other than an apologist? You haven’t established what books were included in the Jewish Septuagint and which books in the Jewish septuagint were considered canonical and which books weren’t.

So the fact that the Septuagint existed, which included all these books that Geisler calls ‘apocryphal’, demonstrate that the idea that the apocryphal books were ‘never’ listed in the Jewish Bible is flat out false and Geisler should know that.

What is the earliest version of the septuagint that we have evidence of? FF Bruce says that the only fragments we have of the septuagint are from Christians. He may not be correct but I am curious if you can back up your claim.

The Jews did not have a set canon for a long time. The Sadducees had a separate canon. The Pharisees had a separate canon.

Again, Beckwith and Bruce disagree w/ you Manny. Can you provide a primary source for your claim?

The question of the Jews and the canon was not settled for many years even after Jesus was crucified so even if the statement was correct, it would be irrelevant on whether Christians are supposed to accept their canon I have shown that at this url

Can you quote someone, say a Josephus, Philo who agrees that the deuterocanonicals were regarded as scripture?