Norman Geisler on why Deuterocanonical books are not scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Prodigal1984

Guest
From Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences.

Roman Catholics accept eleven extra books not found in the Jewish (and Protestant) Bible (7 of which appear in the table of contents plus four small books appended, three in Daniel and one in Esther). These are sometimes called Deutero-Canoncal (Second Canon) books. These books were mostly written between 250 B.C. and the time of Christ. Catholics accept these as divinely inspired books and Protestants do not, considering them of various degrees of value historically and devotionally (hence, they were sometimes read in services). Although from the time of Augustine on these books were increasingly cited by some Church Fathers and even some local councils, they were not given an infallible status in the Old Testament canon by Catholics at the Council of Trent (in 1546). In actual fact, this is a good example of the corruption of doctrine in Catholicism since: (1) Unlike most canonical books, there is no implicit or explicit claim in them for divine inspiration; (2) Judaism never accepted these books as inspired. In fact, the first century Jewish historian lists the inspired books of the OT by name which excludes the Apocrypha(see Josephus, Against Apion 1.8); (3) Most of the early Church Fathers did not grant them canonical status; (4) The great Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected this books as part of the canon; (5) Although Jesus cited the vast majority of the Jewish Old Testament books as inspired, he never once quoted from an one of the eleven apocryphal books as inspired; (6) None of the apostles or writers of the New Testament ever cited any of these eleven books as inspired; (7) The Catholic official acceptance of these books (at Trent in 1546) was a sign of its doctrinal deterioration. For they inconsistently rejected an Apocryphal book opposed to praying for the dead (2) [4] Esdras 7:105 and yet accepted an apocryphal book in favor of praying for the dead (2 Mac. 12:45-46). This tended to support several Catholic doctrines which were part of the corruption of Christianity which included prayers for the dead, Purgatory, the unfinished nature of the Atonement, and Indulgences.
 
I think Catholic Answers have published a number of articles refuting Geisler’s claims. I thought there was one that addressed all the ones you’ve mentioned at the same time, but I can’t seem to find it. Don’t know why I remember seeing them before. Anyway, here’s an example of one:

 
(1) Unlike most canonical books, there is no implicit or explicit claim in them for divine inspiration;
Should I just ignore the fact that he admits right here that an implicit or explicit claim in the text is not necessary for the text to be scripture?
(2) Judaism never accepted these books as inspired. In fact, the first century Jewish historian lists the inspired books of the OT by name which excludes the Apocrypha(see Josephus, Against Apion 1.8);
This is a gross misrepresentation of the use of holy texts by Jews at Jesus’ time in Jerusalem and throughout the diaspora.
(3) Most of the early Church Fathers did not grant them canonical status;
.
Most? First, I’d like a source. Second, that isn’t proof against the Church.
(4) The great Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected this books as part of the canon;
Jerome submitted to the Church and later in life showed increasing acceptance of these books as Canon.
(5) Although Jesus cited the vast majority of the Jewish Old Testament books as inspired, he never once quoted from an one of the eleven apocryphal books as inspired; (6) None of the apostles or writers of the New Testament ever cited any of these eleven books as inspired;
What does “as inspired” even mean and what’s he comparing it to? We see some of these books referenced and/or cited in the Gospels and NT.
(7) The Catholic official acceptance of these books (at Trent in 1546) was a sign of its doctrinal deterioration. For they inconsistently rejected an Apocryphal book opposed to praying for the dead (2) [4] Esdras 7:105 and yet accepted an apocryphal book in favor of praying for the dead (2 Mac. 12:45-46). This tended to support several Catholic doctrines which were part of the corruption of Christianity which included prayers for the dead, Purgatory, the unfinished nature of the Atonement, and Indulgences.**
These books were in use well before Trent. Trent was a firm reaction to Protestantism and an official condemnation of their rejection of these books, which had been included in Bibles. The Church was not out of line to do so.

4 Esdras was most likely written in the late first century during the Christian Era. It’s not accepted by most Orthodox. Praying for the dead has been Christian practice since antiquity and all of the apostolic Churches do it and have similar positions on infused grace and work in this life. Whatever he thinks of the Canon, he’s just plain wrong if he thinks prayers for the dead are a corruption and not from the ancient and apostolic Church.
 
Last edited:
You say?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

Explain me this then, and explain to me how those “apocryphal” books somehow ended up being on the Eastern Orthodox scriptures

Claim 1 can be used against any book of the Bible, since e.g. the canonical letters of Saint Paul and of other Apostles do not claim to be implicitly nor explicitly divinely inspired.

Claim 2 is an outright lie, since i have done Ctrl + F on Against Apion, and could not find any single reference of Josephus quoting the 7 books in question.

Claim 3 is also another lie:

CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp) mentions Tobit.
CHURCH FATHERS: On Christian Doctrine, Book II (St. Augustine) affirms the Deuterocanon.
CHURCH FATHERS: Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII affirms Judith

If 3 examples are not enough, then do your best to scroll into Early Church Fathers’s writings and ctrl+f for deuterocanonial books, the results may suprise you.

Claim 4: He could have had personal disagreements if those books were to be accepted, but he could not deny the fact that those books were to be in scripture, he was no authority in this matter whatsoever.

Claim 5 can also be used with other books from the Bible which Jesus never mentions, should we disregard the Song of Songs and every other book which Jesus did not explicitly mention because he did not mention?

Claim 6 is the same as Claim 5, but instead of Jesus mentioning it, its the Apostles having to say that these books are divinely inspired, which means that we should throw away alot of Holy Scripture because the Apostles forgot to write about the existence of these books let alone the fact that they are divinely inspired.

Claim 7 is the creationist equivalent of saying that the theory of Evolution is a threat to moral and religious well-being because it conflicts with an arbitrary interpretation of Genesis. And perhaps i think that 3 and 4 Esdras are rejected because Catholics held up canonical tradition and affirmed what the Early Church affirmed (You do not see the Esdras that Catholics and Protestants reject as canonical mentioned in the list of books which Augustine and the councils i mention, mention).
 
Last edited:
4 Esdras was most likely written in the late first century during the Christian Era. It’s not accepted by most Orthodox. Praying for the dead has been Christian practice since antiquity and all of the apostolic Churches do it and have similar positions on infused grace and work in this life. Whatever he thinks of the Canon, he’s just plain wrong if he thinks prayers for the dead are a corruption an
What does that have to do with anything?
2 Peter could have been written as late as 150 A.D.
 
Explain me this then, and explain to me how those “apocryphal” books somehow ended up being on the Eastern Orthodox scriptures
Explain to me why Orthodox have more scriptures than Catholics.
 
40.png
Wesrock:
4 Esdras was most likely written in the late first century during the Christian Era. It’s not accepted by most Orthodox. Praying for the dead has been Christian practice since antiquity and all of the apostolic Churches do it and have similar positions on infused grace and work in this life. Whatever he thinks of the Canon, he’s just plain wrong if he thinks prayers for the dead are a corruption an
What does that have to do with anything?
2 Peter could have been written as late as 150 A.D.
Anything else in my post or even just that paragraph you object to besides the one sentence?
 
Honestly, why Orthodox Bibles have more books than Catholics is something that i do not know, though it could be a topic i could investigate right away.
 
I mean, Revelations was writen in the late part of the first century, so this is bad argument in my viewpoint.
 
I mean, Revelations was writen in the late part of the first century, so this is bad argument in my viewpoint.
I’m just saying if it’s a Christian Era book shouldn’t we be discussing including it in the NT, not the OT?
 
Last edited:
I’m just saying if it’s a Christian Era book shouldn’t we be discussing including it in the NT, not the OT?
We are discussing about the canonicity of the Deuterocanon. 3 and 4 Esdras are not part of the Canon which Catholics accept so, but it was mentioned in OP’s post so.
 
40.png
Wesrock:
I’m just saying if it’s a Christian Era book shouldn’t we be discussing including it in the NT, not the OT?
We are discussing about the canonicity of the Deuterocanon. 3 and 4 Esdras are not part of the Canon which Catholics accept so, but it was mentioned in OP’s post so.
As I stated, then, 4 Esdras is not accepted by most Orthodox Churches to begin with. And Geisler’s theorizing that it disproves praying for the dead is clearly bunk considering the practices of all apostolic churches and that they’ve also been doing so since antiquity.
 
As for your first phrase, i see so. And as for the rest, it only puts in question wether or not is 4 Esdras a book we should accept as canonical or not. You can not compare 4 Esdras with 2 Maccabees, because to use an Apocryphal book against another supposed “Apocryphal” book requires the burden of proof that 2 Maccabees is indeed apocryphal and should not be seen as canonical.
 
Okay, I just read 4 Ezra 7: 105 and surrounding verses… Am I missing something? Is Geisler just making things up? This part clearly says we’ll be done praying for others and the dead ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT and specifically goes on to state that praying for others in this day and age was done and is done and is acceptable.

4 Ezra 7: 102 to 115
I answered and said, If I have found favor in your sight, show further to me, YOUR servant, whether on The Day Of Judgment the righteous will be able to intercede for the checedless or to entreat the Most High YAHWEH for them, Fathers for sons or sons for parents, brothers for brothers, relatives for their kinsmen, or friends for those who are most dear. He answered me and said, Since you have found favor in MY sight, I will show you this also. The Day of Judgment is decisive and displays to all The Seal Of Truth. Just as now a father does not send his son, or a son his father, or a master his servant, or a friend his dearest friend, to be ill or sleep or eat or be healed in his stead, So no one shall be able to pray for another on that day, neither shall anyone lay a burden on another; for then everyone shall bear his own righteousness or unrighteousness. I answered and said, How then do we find that first Abraham prayed for the people of Sodom, and Moses for our fathers who sinned in the desert, • Gen 18:23 And Yahshua Ben Nun after him for Yisrael in the days of Achan, • Ex 32:11 And Samuel in the days of Saul, and David for the plague: and Solomon for those in the sanctuary, And Eliyah for those who received the rain, and for the one who was dead, that he might live And Hezekiah for the people in the days of Sennacherib, and many others prayed for many? • 2Kgs 19:15-19 Therefore the righteous have prayed for the checedless now, when corruption has increased and unrighteousness has multiplied, why will it not be so then as well?" He answered me and said, “This present world is not the end; the full splendor does not abide in it; therefore those who were strong prayed for the weak. But The Day Of Judgment will be the end of this age and the beginning of the immortal age to come, in which corruption has passed away, Sinful indulgence has come to an end, unbelief has been cut off, and righteousness has increased and Truth has appeared. Therefore no one will then be able to have mercy on him who has been condemned in The Day Of Judgment, or to overwhelm him to harm him who is victorious.”
It doesn’t say at all what he says it says. It doesn’t contradict praying for the dead.
 
Last edited:
So no one shall be able to pray for another on that day, neither shall anyone lay a burden on another; for then everyone shall bear his own righteousness or unrighteousness.
I can kind of see that being a refutation for praying for the dead, however only if you read it in a strict sense of that verse. The surrounding parts seem to mean it doesn’t imply that. I think what it is implying it you can’t expect to pray for the deceased on the day of judgement. Which is totally orthodox.
 
Last edited:
Also I think it is sort of ironic that he uses this book to deny prayers for the dead when this book is the basis for our public prayer for the dead, Eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them
2(4) Esdras 2:34-35
 
What translation is this? I kind of like it.
I’m not sure. Just one I found in a Google search and can’t find again.

This topic actually piqued my interest and I’m reading the whole thing now start to finish. A different translation, though, I think. I just finished the first seven chapters. It’s longer than I thought.
 
I was going to write my own point-by-point response, but you pretty much nailed it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top