Questions About the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal Books

[SWR11]

The age old controversy,

But I do not know much about the subject. There are countless arguments about why these books should not be canonical, but if the largest Church communion accepts them then there must be something to it…

Anyway, a few questions of my own:

1. Why did some Church councils decide to include Old Testament books that the Jews never considered canonical? I know there was no defined list, but from what I have read the Jews were confident of what books they considered to be inspired.
2. One of the books claim to not be inspired (cannot remember which). The counter-argument to this is that the authors may not know they were inspired. But that would that not mean that the Holy Spirit guided the author to write that he was not inspired by said the Holy Spirit; basically the Holy Spirit lying?
3. Why did Martin Luther suddenly declare some of the books that were commonly accepted are not inspired? What was his backing, and was he the first or alone? (might actually ask this question on a Protestant forum)
4. Does a deuterocanonical book really need a direct reference to be considered inspired? My memory is really malfunctioning today, but one of the OT books (I would say in the Pentateuch) describes an event, and then says it is also written in another book in order to prove the authenticity of the event; a book that is considered apocryphal by all denominations. And is it really enough to have canonized books allude to deuterocanonical books to prove it is inspired?
5. For the Book of Tobit, it is claimed magic was to heal Tobit’s blindness (fish gall on his eyes) and to remove the demon Asmodeus (fumes from the burning liver and heart). Are there any other examples of the like (supernatural acts being performed using animal parts) in the Old Testament that can refute the argument that it is magic?

I think that’s all for now, might add more in response to answers. Please keep all answers topical, I am mainly interested in getting the questions answered but you are welcome to throw in your best argument in your opinion for the canonization of these books, unrelated to the questions themselves if may be. I may have used Deuterocanonical and Apocrypha interchangeably at times, or used them incorrectly. Please do not make claims without any backing/evidence, opinions are welcome if stated. I appreciate being corrected if I have made any mistakes or inaccurate claims myself.

Can’t remember the title of the book but it is by FF Bruce. He wrote there is no evidence the Hellenistic Jews outside of Palestine accepted the Deutorcanon books. As evidence he sites that Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jew, never wrote a commentary on a single one, but he did on the rest of the books considered inspired. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, the Essenes had the books but not a single commentary on the Deutorcaonon books, but they did for the books acknowledged as inspired by the Jewish community at large.

There also seems to be a geographcial differences among the books considered inspired. The closer to Palestine, the fathers accepted 22 or 24 books depending on how they were divided, the same number accepted by the Jews. Fathers in North Africa appeared to accept the Deutorcanonical books. Blessings

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Who cares what the Jews thought about anything?

Either Jews who don’t believe in Jesus have the authority to state the Canon of the Old Testament or Catholics and Christ’s church who believe in Jesus have that authority!

The same crowd that sides with the Jews is the same crowd that would have left with them in John 6:66!

 

[PPC]

Who cares what the Jews thought about anything?

Either Jews who don’t believe in Jesus have the authority to state the Canon of the Old Testament or Catholics and Christ’s church who believe in Jesus have that authority!

The same crowd that sides with the Jews is the same crowd that would have left with them in John 6:66!

I agree with you. History repeats itself. The Jews who left in John 6:66 wanted no part of eating and drinking Jesus’ Body and Blood. Those today who reject the literal presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist are also the same persons who reject parts of the Catholic Old Testament.

2 John 1:7 RSV
[7] For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

For these, and many other reasons, the books have been held canonical in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since day 1.

Just for the record, some Orthodox churches (e.g., Ethiopian Orthodox) reject the canonicity of I & II Maccabees.

 

[po18guy]

Who cares what the Jews thought about anything?

Either Jews who don’t believe in Jesus have the authority to state the Canon of the Old Testament or Catholics and Christ’s church who believe in Jesus have that authority!

The same crowd that sides with the Jews is the same crowd that would have left with them in John 6:66!

Does no one else see the lunacy of going to the Jews (and only the Hebrew speaking Jews at that, and not the Greek speaking Jews of the diaspora) for a list of scriptures? I mean, they rejected Christ 1,500 years prior! And, none of this rejection influenced their “canon”? Really?

And, since everything non-Catrholic seems to hinge on the Greek scriptures, with “petros” and “petra” bandied about incessantly, why then disregard the Greek writings made by Jews?

All very strange.

 

[SWR11]

Who cares what the Jews thought about anything?

Either Jews who don’t believe in Jesus have the authority to state the Canon of the Old Testament or Catholics and Christ’s church who believe in Jesus have that authority!

The same crowd that sides with the Jews is the same crowd that would have left with them in John 6:66!

Rom 3:1-4
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means!
ESV

It is through the Jews that we even have the OT. God chose them and used them to deliver His revelations, His oracles. Blessings

 

[po18guy]

Rom 3:1-4
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means!
ESV

It is through the Jews that we even have the OT. God chose them and used them to deliver His revelations, His oracles. Blessings

And, our Lord proclaimed that the law and the prophets prophesied up to John. Yet, the 66 book bible has a big gap in it. Between Jesus and the reformers, you know Who I am siding with.

 

[po18guy]

Just for the record, some Orthodox churches (e.g., Ethiopian Orthodox) reject the canonicity of I & II Maccabees.

Thank you for pointing this out. Although, they do remain technically heretical, since they hold to “one united nature” in Christ. A question arises: thus believing, how can they claim the title “Orthodox”? A point can be made here that non-Catholic “canons” are spread out much farther over the map, and would have been even worse if certain members of the rebellion had their way. The truth, one can surmise, lies somewhere in the middle

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thank you for pointing this out. Although, they do remain technically heretical, since they hold to “one united nature” in Christ. A question arises: thus believing, how can they claim the title “Orthodox”? A point can be made here that non-Catholic “canons” are spread out much farther over the map, and would have been even worse if certain members of the rebellion had their way. The truth, one can surmise, lies somewhere in the middle

For that matter, all of the Orthodox Churches have biblical canons that differ from the Latinate canon–and from each other. (Maybe that’s what you mean.)

 

[po18guy]

For that matter, all of the Orthodox Churches have biblical canons that differ from the Latinate canon–and from each other. (Maybe that’s what you mean.)

Yes. They hit the target high, while the 66 book bible strikes low.

 

[SWR11]

And, our Lord proclaimed that the law and the prophets prophesied up to John. Yet, the 66 book bible has a big gap in it. Between Jesus and the reformers, you know Who I am siding with.

Why did the Jews stop? Why is there a gap? Josephus wrote it was because there was no continuity of prophets any longer. God’s revelation had stopped until the time of Christ. However, God’s revelation fortold the time of Christ, and that is why the Law and Prophets “prophesied up to John.” Blessings

 

[po18guy]

Why did the Jews stop? Why is there a gap? Josephus wrote it was because there was no continuity of prophets any longer. God’s revelation had stopped until the time of Christ. However, God’s revelation fortold the time of Christ, and that is why the Law and Prophets “prophesied up to John.” Blessings

There is a gap because a rebellious Augustinian monk violated his vows and allowed his ego to lead him. You do not have to believe in God. You do not have to believe in Christ. You do not have to believe in the Holy Spirit. You do not have to believe in the Catholic Church. But as Paul writes: “All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.”

The books that first mention eternal life; that first mention the resurrection; that first demonstrate the practice of prayer for the dead so that they may be loosed from their sins in the next life; books that document the restoration of the Mosaic law to Israel in time for our Lord to be born under the law so that He could fulfill the law; books that were used by the Christian Church from its inception - these have become just so much chaff to many Christians these days. Sad.

 

[po18guy]

Rom 3:1-4
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means!
ESV

It is through the Jews that we even have the OT. God chose them and used them to deliver His revelations, His oracles. Blessings

Nothing to disagree with here. Yet, Jesus founded a Church with all authority. He sent Apostles forth, not scripture. If we choose to disregard them, we choose to disregard Christ, Who sent them.

 

[SWR11]

There is a gap because a rebellious Augustinian monk violated his vows and allowed his ego to lead him. You do not have to believe in God. You do not have to believe in Christ. You do not have to believe in the Holy Spirit. You do not have to believe in the Catholic Church. But as Paul writes: “All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.”

The books that first mention eternal life; that first mention the resurrection; that first demonstrate the practice of prayer for the dead so that they may be loosed from their sins in the next life; books that document the restoration of the Mosaic law to Israel in time for our Lord to be born under the law so that He could fulfill the law; books that were used by the Christian Church from its inception - these have become just so much chaff to many Christians these days. Sad.

You didn’t directly address my post, but side-stepped it. Why is there a gap? It is not because of Luther, for Luther accepted most of what the church accepted as canon until that time, ie 66 books. Blessings

 

[SWR11]

Nothing to disagree with here. Yet, Jesus founded a Church with all authority. He sent Apostles forth, not scripture. If we choose to disregard them, we choose to disregard Christ, Who sent them.

The Apostles went forth with OT scriptures and the message of Christ. The church was not founded at that time, but came into fruition as the message was preached, that contained the nascent organization of the church. The church has its origins in the message and needs to be subservient to the message. For the message gave rise to the church, not the church to the message, that eventually became the NT. Blessings

 

[pablope]

You didn’t directly address my post, but side-stepped it. Why is there a gap? It is not because of Luther, for Luther accepted most of what the church accepted as canon until that time, ie 66 books. Blessings

It is historical fact that Luther did not exclude from the original OT canon that Catholics have today…he included the 7 books removed by protestants later…though he placed them in a separate section…so in essence, Luther had a 73 book bible.

The actual removal of the 7 OT books from the OT came at about 1826 or so…to save on printing costs…to save money.

 

[pablope]

The Apostles went forth with OT scriptures and the message of Christ. The church was not founded at that time, but came into fruition as the message was preached, that contained the nascent organization of the church. The church has its origins in the message and needs to be subservient to the message. For the message gave rise to the church, not the church to the message, that eventually became the NT. Blessings

On the contrary…Christ said he will build his church…to Peter in Matt 16…and the actions of Peter and the apostles in Acts show a Church functioning.

So…how do you think the gospel was spread without a Church?

And where is the command or words of Christ to write the NT?

 

[SWR11]

It is historical fact that Luther did not exclude from the original OT canon that Catholics have today…he included the 7 books removed by protestants later…though he placed them in a separate section…so in essence, Luther had a 73 book bible.

The actual removal of the 7 OT books from the OT came at about 1826 or so…to save on printing costs…to save money.

No doubt Luther included the Deutorcanonical books, but he did not consider them inspired. Blessings

 

[po18guy]

You didn’t directly address my post, but side-stepped it. Why is there a gap? It is not because of Luther, for Luther accepted most of what the church accepted as canon until that time, ie 66 books. Blessings

I cannot side-step a point which I cannot discern from your post. Please re-state your question.

 

[SWR11]

On the contrary…Christ said he will build his church…to Peter in Matt 16…and the actions of Peter and the apostles in Acts show a Church functioning.

So…how do you think the gospel was spread without a Church?

And where is the command or words of Christ to write the NT?

Most of the father’s interpreted that passage to mean upon his confession of faith, and not any special authority or privilege accorded to Peter alone. And it is the confession that builds the Chruch, which is included in the message that went out with the Apostles and other’s who spread the word. Blessings