If the Scripture is inspired then why do the Protestant reject the Deutrocanonical Books?

[guanophore]

Thank you Manny for those insights. I never realized so much of the NT came from the Deuterocanonical books. What I can´t understand is how the protestants can reject these books when they tell such a vital part of jewish history. If you read the book of the Maccabees you cannot help being touched by the Holy Spirit. It´s powerful writing! Not suitable for “diet” christians!

I love the so-called deuterocanonicals. My baby daughter is called Judith. It was funny when a protestant friend phoned to congratulate me on her birth. She asked me where I got the name from and I replied, “from the Bible, where else?”

What I can’t understand is why Protestants think they have any authoritative canon at all! Most have no idea where their Bible came from in the first place, but for those that do, since they reject the authority of the Church to form the canon, on what basis can their Bible be considered an approved collection of books? Recently I brought up this question in a Sola Scriptura thread, and I was told “SS assumes a canon”.

 

[guanophore]

Having said that, there can be no doubt that the early church used the LXX; it was ready to hand requiring no new translation of the OT.

Are you suggesting that the Church compromised?

But there is a reason why your greatest Biblical scholar and translator Jerome rejected the Deuteros as non-canonical and did not translate them (they were later intercalated from existing old Latin texts).

The reason is simple, the books are late, entirely composed in Greek and clearly apocryphal. The Palestinian Rabbinate, even if some part of their intent was anti-christian, arrived at the correct conclusion when they rejected them.

Actually, I think you scholarship may be old. Hebrew copies of the Deuteros have been found. This was a major motivation from the Palistinian Rabbinate also, which has been found to have no merit. However, even if this had not been the case, the fact that the Deuteros were used by Jesus and the Apostles should be sufficient. They are far more authoritative than the Jews who rejected Jesus.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I think what he meant to say is Septuagint. 2/3 of the NT is from the Septuagint, which includes the Deuteros. Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, that is why this one was chosen by the Church as the authoritative scripture in the fourth century.

2/3 of the NT is not from the Septuagint. 2/3 of quotes. The OP contains supposed quotes that are not quotes.

 

[guanophore]

Because they’re really stupid and don’t want to be Christian anymore.

Peace,

Gail

I think this is a little harsh. Most Protestants who are sincere followers of Christ do not even know that Luther took books out. You will often hear them complian that the Catholic Church “added books” to the bible, just like Catholics “add to the word of God with the traditions of man”.

People became Christian, such as those at Pentecost, with no Bible at all. Although these Jews on pilgrimmage were familiar with the Septuagint, not a word of the NT had yet been written.

The truth is that it is possible to be a Christian without a Bible, and Christians did this for centuries until the printing press was created (by a Catholic).

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Because they’re really stupid and don’t want to be Christian anymore.

Peace,

Gail

Right to the point!

 

[Rightlydivide]

Are you suggesting that the Church compromised?

Actually, I think you scholarship may be old. Hebrew copies of the Deuteros have been found. This was a major motivation from the Palistinian Rabbinate also, which has been found to have no merit. However, even if this had not been the case, the fact that the Deuteros were used by Jesus and the Apostles should be sufficient. They are far more authoritative than the Jews who rejected Jesus.

You made a statement that the Deuteros were used. Would you like to go through each of the so called quotes to see exactly what was used?
The LXX was in flux. There is no proof they were in the LXX at the time of Christ. I would imagine you know that though.
Regardless, do you want to go through each of the so called quotes to see if they are indeed have a direct literary dependence on the Deutercanonicals. One at a time if that is what you want.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

You made a statement that the Deuteros were used. Would you like to go through each of the so called quotes to see exactly what was used?
The LXX was in flux. There is no proof they were in the LXX at the time of Christ. I would imagine you know that though.
Regardless, do you want to go through each of the so called quotes to see if they are indeed have a direct literary dependence on the Deutercanonicals. One at a time if that is what you want.

You are being really ridiculous and you are making a fool out of yourself…

 

[SimonArizona]

The books were used by Christians for teaching and liturgy throughout the centuries. Wisdom and The Wisdom of Sirach are incredible

 

[guanophore]

2/3 of the NT is not from the Septuagint. 2/3 of quotes. The OP contains supposed quotes that are not quotes.

Right, right. Point taken.

You made a statement that the Deuteros were used. Would you like to go through each of the so called quotes to see exactly what was used?
The LXX was in flux. There is no proof they were in the LXX at the time of Christ. I would imagine you know that though.
Regardless, do you want to go through each of the so called quotes to see if they are indeed have a direct literary dependence on the Deutercanonicals. One at a time if that is what you want.

I had to do this for myself some years ago. I had spent three years in a Protestant Seminary, and was still struggling with why Catholics taught what they do.

The LXX was not in “flux”. It was closed a couple centuries prior to Christ. What was in “flux”, and I think we can agree on this point, was an authoritative canon defined by Palestinian Jews. some of them (Sadducees) accepted only the Torah, and others (Pharisees) accepted the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets and the “writings” (wisdom books). This is one reason why Paul was able to get a fight started by claiming to believe in the Resurrection or angels.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I’m currently Methodist and while we do not normally promote the deuterocanon we do not decry it either. Much of the worship service and many wonderful sermons originate in the book of Wisdom.

As a child growing up, the book of Tobit was a source of indescribable comfort to me.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Right, right. Point taken.

I had to do this for myself some years ago. I had spent three years in a Protestant Seminary, and was still struggling with why Catholics taught what they do.

The LXX was not in “flux”. It was closed a couple centuries prior to Christ. What was in “flux”, and I think we can agree on this point, was an authoritative canon defined by Palestinian Jews. some of them (Sadducees) accepted only the Torah, and others (Pharisees) accepted the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets and the “writings” (wisdom books). This is one reason why Paul was able to get a fight started by claiming to believe in the Resurrection or angels.

I spent two years getting a four year degree myself…probably read all the same books. It boils down to if Christ and his apostles viewed the Deuterocanonical books as scripture. What would you like to do to prove or disprove this. The quotes used by Manny are discredited. What we could do was establish that most scholars recognize 3-5 references to the DC in the NT but no direct citations. We could go through each one as well.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Can we go back to Manny’s list? Part of the problem is the sheer volume of quotes. What if we get rid of the absurd ones first,** one at a time?**

Like this one?

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Here is the verse.

Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched;

Mark 9:48 references Judith? Really? Isaiah comes BEFORE Judith. This is an example of the utter dishonesty or incompetence of this list. This list is filled with pretend references to the DC that ignore the OT. Mark references Isaiah. They are not telling the truth.

 

[CWBetts]

Mark 9:48 references Judith? Really? Isaiah comes BEFORE Judith. This is an example of the utter dishonesty or incompetence of this list. This list is filled with pretend references to the DC that ignore the OT. Mark references Isaiah. They are not telling the truth.

and of course, no passage can reference multiple others

 

[Rightlydivide]

and of course, no passage can reference multiple others

The site is not referring to multiple references. It is attempting to prove that the NT quotes the DC. I have no doubt that Judith can quote Isaiah. But Isaiah is first. You cannot say that Mark is quoting Judith when an earler verse is the source of both.
Judith and Mark are AFTER Isaiah.

 

[CWBetts]

The site is not referring to multiple references. It is attempting to prove that the NT quotes the DC. I have no doubt that Judith can quote Isaiah. But Isaiah is first. You cannot say that Mark is quoting Judith when an earler verse is the source of both.
Judith and Mark are AFTER Isaiah.

Or we can also say that Mark is quoting both. The fact remains that the Deuterocanonicals were in the Christian Canon for a millennium and a half, befoer they were removed by Luther.

 

[KingAlfred]

“If the Scripture is inspired then why do the Protestant reject the Deutrocanonical Books?”

Sectarianism, the root cause of most Christian in-fighting. Much of what Christians believe to be theological is nothing but sectarian prejudice, based on propaganda from the pulpit.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Or we can also say that Mark is quoting both. The fact remains that the Deuterocanonicals were in the Christian Canon for a millennium and a half, befoer they were removed by Luther.

We are trying to establish literary dependence, or the lack thereof
.

This what Judith says:

17: Woe to the nations that rise up against my kindred! the Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgment, in putting fire and worms in their flesh; and they shall feel them, and weep for ever.

Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched;

Clearly Mark is quoting Isaiah, the words are exact. Judith is not.

When you speak of something being in a Christian canon for a millennium and a half (1500 years) that would indicate that there was a Christian canon in the first century. That is not accurate.

It should be noted that the Waldensian Confession of 1120, somewhat controversial in date and content, separates them as well.

 

[Steadfast]

No one questioned the Deuterocanonical texts until Luther cam along, who, admittedly, had a knack for making up doctrine.

Plenty of people questioned their canonicity, most notably the most important Biblical scholar ever, Jerome.

At the time of Luther the RCC had not yet promulgated a definitive OT Canon. They did not do so until Trent.

Until then scholars were free to question the inclusion of these books. Though never a majority, a good number did and in the 16th century, with the rise of Cisneros and Erasmus, the number was growing.

 

[Steadfast]

Are you suggesting that the Church compromised?

No, I am saying that they did not immediately reinvent the wheel.

Actually, I think you scholarship may be old. Hebrew copies of the Deuteros have been found. This was a major motivation from the Palistinian Rabbinate also, which has been found to have no merit. However, even if this had not been the case, the fact that the Deuteros were used by Jesus and the Apostles should be sufficient. They are far more authoritative than the Jews who rejected Jesus.

I’d be interested in seeing evidence of Hebrew copies of the Deuteros. My understanding was that they were of bits and pieces of Daniel.

Whether Jesus and the Apostles used the OT Deuteros, understanding them to be canonical, inspired texts is the very question at hand here. Thus far there is no evidence.

 

[The_Preacher]

The origin of the omission lays in the incomplete sources used by the King James translators. The inssistance on the King James and it’s daritive tradition is soceological, not theological. To challange it is to challange the onthic myth of “consertive Anglo Saxons.” All scripture is inspired and it is inerrant, but only when properly inturpreted by the Magesterium of the Church. That was Luther’s error. The Bible is a creature of the Church, a piller but not the total of the Tradition. Luther made the Church a creature of the Bible and Zwilglig and then the English made hash of the Faith. Well, that’s what Purgatory is for. My Vocation the last twenty years has been Historic Redactive Analysis, and I’ve come to understand what The Preacher of Eccleasties was saying. Wise man that.