Alright, here’s another reason off the list my fundamentalist Christian friend gave me for why he doesn’t think the deuterocanonicals should be included in Scripture.
Before I get to your post, since you’re dealing with popular objections to the ‘Deuterocanonicals’, let me recommend the following entry on my blog (which does not address the subjects you brought up here, but may help with future objections you encounter):
blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=125682309&blogID=240765838
"These books abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies, such as ‘Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians at Nineveh’ (Judith).
I’m curious as to why exactly this is an error. Babylon, Assyria and Nineveh are all part of Iraq. The Babylonian empire came after the Assyrian empire, but that does not mean there were not Assyrians in Babylonian territories. Being the king of Babylon can ver sensibly include being the ruler over whatever Assyrians were still living in Nineveh. If I were you, I’d ask your source to be more specific as to what the precise “error” is.
The book of Baruch claims to be written by the secretary of the prophet Jeremiah (7th century B.C.), but he quotes from the prophet Daniel (who wrote in the 6th century B.C.-- 70 to 80 years after Baruch’s death)."
This is news to me. In what verse does Baruch quote Daniel? I’d like to examine this in more detail.
I know how to refute the attack on Judith as it was an intentional inaccuracy on the part of the author of that book to combine the Jewish nation’s worst enemies into one
Indeed, many have taken this approach. Don’t be so certain it is correct.
Also, are there historical inaccuricies in the NT?
Point blank, NO. And there are no historical inaccuracies in the ‘Deuterocanonicals’ either. Gary Michuta’s book,
Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, offers the following quote from the 16th century Anglican Archbishop John Whitgift:
“The Scripture here called Apocrypha, abusively and improperly, are Holy Writings,** VOID OF ERROR**, Part of the Bible, and so accounted of in the purest time of the Church and by the best Writers; ever read in the Church of Christ, and shall never be forbidden by me, or by my consent.”
Ah, let us pray that we can at least be blessed with the faith and confidence of an Anglican archbishop.
And if there are, should they be taken seriously or not? Would errors like that throw into question the fact of their inspiration?
If you ever tell a Protestant that the New Testament contains errors, aside from the fact that your claim would be wholly untrue, it would also confirm the gross stereotypes of so many of them that Catholics hate the Bible. From their perspective, he was attacking books that are not scripture, and in response you attack books that are scripture.
Look at it this way. I’m sure we are all well aware of the fact that many critics of the Bible claim there are alleged contradictions in the text, and some of these critics produce lists with examples numbering in the hundreds. Most, if not all, of these alleged contradictions have an explanation, but in some cases a bit of imagination is employed to come up with explanations that the critics consider tortuous or strained. In light of that, when I see people claiming there are alleged contradictions between the ‘deuterocanonicals’ and the Protestant canon, I get the strong impression is an unwillingness to employ the same effort to reconcile those alleged contradictions. In other words, one who accepts the ‘deuterocanonicals’ might make an effort to reconcile alleged contradictions, while one who rejects the deuterocanonicals might suddenly see alleged contradictions everywhere (similar to how persons who side with only the Hebrew Bible and reject the NT suddenly see numerous allegedly irreconcilable contradictions between the Old and New Testaments).
That being said, if you want to give an example of a difficulty in the New Testament (i.e. one I have, up to this, had a hard time coming up with a solid answer for), do a google search of Richard Carrier’s criticism of the date of the Nativity according to Luke and Matthew. He covers most of the arguments to date, and makes a difficult case. Though I don’t have an answer, he has not convinced me, and I doubt he will convince your Protestant friends. Those who believe in the Bible trust in the Bible, and, more importantly, in the Lord, rather than leaning on their own understanding (Prov 3:5).
