The Apocrypha: is it scripture?

[SalomeBintullah]

This seems to be a fairly new approach taken by Catholic apologists to deal with the problems in Tobit and Judith. However the Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with suggesting they are not historical. For example on Tobit it says:

newadvent.org/cathen/14749c.htm

Interesting. I’ll have to read the article. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia is about a hundred years old, isn’t it? So it wasn’t able to take advantage of the scholarship that has been devoted to Judith and Tobit since then. Personally I think that there’s good evidence that both of them come from a specific literary genre. Although I must confess that I’m not nearly as familiar with the Deuterocanon as I should be; I haven’t read them in years. My project for this summer is to read the entire Old Testament straight through. I’m almost done with Leviticus. :coolinoff:

 

[BernadetteM]

The OP quoted his/her source as CARM lol. It is one of the most anti-catholic forrums I have ever visited.

The CARM people never can answer a question from a Catholic in a civil way. They never have sources except for their own interpretation of the Bible.

They say horrible things about Catholics. If someone uses a source it should be a legitimate source, not just someone’s opinion.

Also it usually is a waste of time to try to explain anything about the Faith to people on CARM, as they already have their minds set and apparently you can’t use logic or historical facts to prove what is truth and what is not.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[SyCarl]

There is a rather blatant internal contradiction in 2 Maccabees which gives two different accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes.

For when the leader himself was in Persia, and with him a very great army, he fell in the temple of Nanea, being deceived by the counsel of the priests of Nanea. For Antiochus, with his friends, came to the place as though he would marry her, and that he might receive great sums of money under the title of a dowry. And when the priests of Nanea had set it forth, and he with a small company had entered into the compass of the temple, they shut the temple, When Antiochus was come in: and opening a secret entrance of the temple, they cast stones and slew the leader, and them that were with him, and hewed them in pieces; and cutting off their heads, they threw them forth.
(2 Maccabees 1:13-16 DRB)

compared with

At that time Antiochus returned with dishonour out of Persia. For he had entered into the city called Persepolis, and attempted to rob the temple, and to oppress the city, but the multitude running together to arms, put them to flight: and so it fell out that Antiochus being put to flight, returned with disgrace.
(2 Maccabees 9:1-2 DRB)

But the Lord, the God of Israel, that seeth all things, struck him with an incurable and an invisible plague. For as soon as he had ended these words, a dreadful pain in his bowels came upon him, and bitter torments of the inner parts. And indeed very justly, seeing he had tormented the bowels of others with many and new torments, albeit he by no means ceased from his malice. Moreover, being filled with pride, breathing out fire in his rage against the Jews, and commanding the matter to be hastened, it happened as he was going with violence, that he fell from the chariot, so that his limbs were much pained by a grievous bruising of the body. Thus he that seemed to himself to command even the waves of the sea, being proud above the condition of man, and to weigh the heights of the mountains in a balance, now being cast down to the ground, was carried in a litter, bearing witness to the manifest power of God in himself: So that worms swarmed out of the body of this man, and whilst he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell off, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to the army. And the man that thought a little before he could reach to the stars of heaven, no man could endure to carry, for the intolerable stench. And by this means, being brought from his great pride, he began to come to the knowledge of himself, being admonished by the scourge of God, his pains increasing every moment. And when he himself could not now abide his own stench, he spoke thus: It is just to be subject to God, and that a mortal man should not equal himself to God.
(2 Maccabees 9:5-12 DRB)

Thus the murderer and blasphemer being grievously struck, as himself had treated others, died a miserable death in a strange country, among the mountains.
(2 Maccabees 9:28 DRB)

And this was the end of Antiochus, that was called the Illustrious.
(2 Maccabees 10:9 DRB)

The Haydock Commentary recognizes this inconsistency and makes a rather feeble attempt to explain it by saying that Antiochus escaped from the temple, even though Chapter 1 says he had been killed and his head cut off.

2Ma 1:16 Slew. Literally, “struck.” Greek, “stoned.” Yet Epiphanes escaped, (chap. x. 9., and 1 Machabees vi.) having received some wounds. But a fall from his chariot, and vexation, hastened his death. (Haydock) — Some of his followers, who had advanced farther into the temple, perished. (Calmet)

 

[gugg15]

There is a rather blatant internal contradiction in 2 Maccabees which gives two different accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Interesting, doesn’t the New Testament also have a blatant inconsistency on the death of Judas? In Matt 27 we’re told Judas died by suicide and in Acts 1 Judas died by accident in a field. How would you explain that? I only ask because this is an issue non-Christians will bring up trying to undermine the legitimacy and truthfulness of the New Testament.

You don’t accept the Catholic Bible? That’s between you and God. At least when you see Him him you can list all the arguments you’re giving us here. Only He can judge if those are legitimate or not, for only He can know the hearts of men.

Until you can clearly explain the inconsistencies in the Scripture you do except, don’t start trying to undermine the perceived shortcomings in the Scripture you don’t personally except.

 

[Hisalone]

And yet you believe that Noah gathered 2 (or more) of every animal that walked the earth onto one small boat?

Yes I do. The ark wasnt that small.

 

[Zooey]

Interesting, doesn’t the New Testament also have a blatant inconsistency on the death of Judas? In Matt 27 we’re told Judas died by suicide and in Acts 1 Judas died by accident in a field. How would you explain that? I only ask because this is an issue non-Christians will bring up trying to undermine the legitimacy and truthfulness of the New Testament.

You don’t accept the Catholic Bible? That’s between you and God. At least when you see Him him you can list all the arguments you’re giving us here. Only He can judge if those are legitimate or not, for only He can know the hearts of men.

Until you can clearly explain the inconsistencies in the Scripture you do except, don’t start trying to undermine the perceived shortcomings in the Scripture you don’t personally except.

Well said!!:clapping:

 

[GodIsGracious]

Do we really need three threads by Christalone about the canon of the Bible? Why not condense them all to one thread — or, better yet, check out some old explanations on Catholic Answers instead of starting new arguments.

He, or she, is coming over here to try and prove us “heathens” wrong, like many before him and after him will try and fail.

 

[SyCarl]

Interesting, doesn’t the New Testament also have a blatant inconsistency on the death of Judas? In Matt 27 we’re told Judas died by suicide and in Acts 1 Judas died by accident in a field. How would you explain that? I only ask because this is an issue non-Christians will bring up trying to undermine the legitimacy and truthfulness of the New Testament.

You don’t accept the Catholic Bible? That’s between you and God. At least when you see Him him you can list all the arguments you’re giving us here. Only He can judge if those are legitimate or not, for only He can know the hearts of men.

Until you can clearly explain the inconsistencies in the Scripture you do except, don’t start trying to undermine the perceived shortcomings in the Scripture you don’t personally except.

There is a difference between the inconsistency in 2 Maccabees and the supposed inconsistency in the death of Judas. 2 Maccabees is inconsistent within itself, so the same writer, describing the same event, has different descriptions of Antiochus’ death. Having one’s head cut off in a temple cannot be reconciled with dying due some wasting plague on the way back.

The accounts of Judas’ death are by two different writers who are internally consistent within their own books. It is not hard to reconcile the two accounts. The common explanation given by both Protestants and Catholics generally follows that given by Wesley.

This man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity - That is, a field was purchased with the reward of his iniquity; though very possibly Judas might design the purchase. And falling down on his face - It seems the rope broke before, or as he died.

from Wesley’s explanatory notes.

I do think that the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books are quite valuable and I have read them several times in several versions. That by itself has confirmed my opinion of them. While there are some differences between various textual traditions of the New Testament, the difference between the Deuterocanonicals in the Douay-Rheims version and the modern Catholic versions are quite extensive, particularly in Tobit and Judith. It does not seem that the contents of these books have been very well preserved. So while they are useful, I, myself could not see relying on them as a basis for doctrine.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word “apocrypha” (απόκρυφα) means “Hidden.” These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.

Is the Apocrypha Scripture? Protestants deny its inspiration but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it.

Yes, it is.

And it’s not only the Roman Catholic Church that affirms it. So does Orthodoxy.

Those who deny it are in the MINORITY of Christians.

 

[SyCarl]

Yes, it is.

And it’s not only the Roman Catholic Church that affirms it. So does Orthodoxy.

Those who deny it are in the MINORITY of Christians.

However, is it not also true that Orthodoxy contains more books than the Roman Catholic Church does. I find both Orthodoxy and Protestantism somewhat more consistent than the Catholic Church. My understanding is that Orthodoxy includes all the extra books from the Septuagint not included in the Palestinian Jewish canon while Protestants reject them all. The Catholic Church accepts some and rejects others.

 

[gugg15]

However, is it not also true that Orthodoxy contains more books than the Roman Catholic Church does. I find both Orthodoxy and Protestantism somewhat more consistent than the Catholic Church. My understanding is that Orthodoxy includes all the extra books from the Septuagint not included in the Palestinian Jewish canon while Protestants reject them all. The Catholic Church accepts some and rejects others.

I do find it curious why Martin Luther rejected books of the Bible that the Jews took out of their canon around 70-100 years after Christ as as a response to the growing Christian sect. From what I understand, they did so mainly due to the Christian nature of the books (however, why they did not also reject Exodus with it’s strongly Eucharistic and Redemptive typology, or even Genesis and Isaiah with the the respective protoevangelion and messianic prophecies, I do not know). Nevertheless, they were the same Jews that rejected our Lord and Christianity, their revision of the Old Testament canon is an example of this. Why the reformers would consider their actions as examples to follow rather than the actions of the Christians who were lead by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed “A Spirit of Truth” is still quite baffling to me. As St. Jerome once said “Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ.” I would paraphrase and say 'Rejection of Scripture is Rejection of Christ." I’m not saying that you per se reject Christ, but the Jews who’s decisions the reformers highly valued certainly did.

 

[SyCarl]

I do find it curious why Martin Luther rejected books of the Bible that the Jews took out of their canon around 70-100 years after Christ as as a response to the growing Christian sect. From what I understand, they did so mainly due to the Christian nature of the books (however, why they did not also reject Exodus with it’s strongly Eucharistic and Redemptive typology, or even Genesis and Isaiah with the the respective protoevangelion and messianic prophecies, I do not know). Nevertheless, they were the same Jews that rejected our Lord and Christianity, their revision of the Old Testament canon is an example of this. Why the reformers would consider their actions as examples to follow rather than the actions of the Christians who were lead by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed “A Spirit of Truth” is still quite baffling to me. As St. Jerome once said “Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ.” I would paraphrase and say 'Rejection of Scripture is Rejection of Christ." I’m not saying that you per se reject Christ, but the Jews who’s decisions the reformers highly valued certainly did.

Those Reformers also highly valued the opinion of Jerome who included his feelings in the prefaces to various books in the Vulgate. I understand that he put the Deuterocanonicals in a separate section but I can’t remember where I read that. However, aside from Chapter 2 in the Wisdom of Solomon, I do not see much of a Christian or Messianic nature in the rejected books. Many of the retained books have far more support for Christianity than the excluded ones do.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word “apocrypha” (απόκρυφα) means “Hidden.” These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.

Is the Apocrypha Scripture? Protestants deny its inspiration but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it.

The CC does not admit as canonical the two Ezra books, or the Prayer of Manasseh. It does admit as canonical the other “books called Apocrypha”. 1 Esdras (IIRC) is quoted in the pre-1969 Liturgy, much as part of Ecclesiasticus is read in the Liturgy of the Church of England.​

There are far more apocryphal books than the 14 or 15 well-known ones. Some of these books are not apocrypha, but pseudepigrapha - also a large class. And then there are the NT apocrypha & pseudepigrapha. Some of the books are probably more usefully thought of as post-canonical Jewish literature. There is no hard and fast dividing line between books in the Jewish canon OTOH, & mediaeval literature OTO - they are on a continuum, in which the one set of books shades imperceptibly into the other through a number of other sorts of book.

 

[Canto]

A few thoughts

The Council of Rome said 27 NT and 46 OT books 382 AD – the list has not changed since then.

The deuterocanon was originally in Hebrew aside from I think one book but parts of the OT are in Aramaic and the NT is in Greek

There are NT deutrocanonical books too like Revelation for example.

They may not claim inspiration but neither do some OT books and St Paul says he “thinks” he has the Spirit of God c.f. 1 Cor 7:40

The deuterocanon was included in the LXX and some Jews e.g. Ethiopian Jews still use it to this day. Becuase of Christian use of the LXX the Jews rejected it and undertook a new transaltion.

At the time of Christ there was no official set canon of Jewish scripture. The Sadducees only accepted the first five books for example.

Some say they contain error but what about the two different accounts of the death of Aaron? The Book of Numbers (33:38) tells us that Aaron died on Mt. Hor, and the Book of Deuteronomy (10:6) tells us that Aaron died in Mosera. by God.

In the Synoptic Gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk) Jesus is tried before the whole Sanhedrin yet in John He is subject in private with Annas and Caiaphas

Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, but it is not. This ‘error’ does not take away from the meaning of the parable. Jesus is not giving us a lesson in horticulture.

Some say the deuterocanon contains immoral practices and unbelievable events but so do other OT books. In 1 Samuel ch 28, Saul has recourse to a witch for help, this witch actually brings back the spirit of the prophet Samuel. Through the witch, Samuel prophases the death of Saul’s two sons, and his defeat at the hands of the Philistines.

What about King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent arranged murder of her husband Uriah in 2 Samuel Chapters 11,12? In I Kings chapter 11 we find that Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. His wives turned away his heart away from the true God, his wives turned away his heart after other gods such as “Ashtoreth” the goddess of the “Zidonians”, and “Milcom” the abomination of the Ammonites. In Hosea ( 1:2) God instructs Hosea to “take a wife of harlotry”.

 

[Canto]

-The Didache a first century Christian document quotes them - c70 AD
-Clement I of Rome quoted from them for example her calls Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) “Scripture” (The Instructor, I:8)

• Ecclesiasticus means ‘Book of the Church’
  -Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian for example all quote from Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees (I and II) and Daniel ‘additions’ for example in their writings
• Hippolytus cites the book of Baruch as Scripture (Against the Noetus, 2)
• Origen defended the canonicity of Susanna [Daniel 13], Bel and the Dragon [Daniel 14], the prayers of Azarias [Daniel 3] and the hymn of praise of the three youths in the fiery furnace [Daniel 3] in his Epistle to Julius Africanus around the year 254.
  -In the year 248 A.D., Origen cited the book of Sirach 21:28 as Scripture. (Against Celsus,7:12)

The following citation from Origen citing the Book of Maccabees as Scripture shows that it was accepted at that time (230 A.D.):

“But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ’ ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.’[2 Maccabees 7:28]”, (Fundamental Principles,2:2)

St. Cyprian in 252-258 A.D., cites the books of Tobit (Treatise 4,32), Sirach (Treatise 7,9), and the story of the three youths in Daniel 3:37-43 (Testimonies, 20. See also Treatise 4,8.), as Scripture several times in his writings.

St Jerome said What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? . . . I was not relating my own personal views [when I wrote the objections of the Jews to the longer form of Daniel in my introduction], but rather the remarks that [the Jews] are wont to make against us [Christians who accept the longer form of Daniel], (Against Rufinius, 11:33).

In the above quote we see Jerome defending his uses of the Deuterocanonical parts of Daniel and defending the Church

“…does not the scripture say…” (epistle 108 404 AD – Jerome quoting Ecclesiasticus)

“…remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ…” (Jerome epistle 31:2 384 AD)

“Do you expect me to explain the purposes and plans of God? The book of Wisdom gives an answer to your foolish questions… and in the same place ‘In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God.’ You will perhaps deny the authority of this book…” (Jerome against the Pelagians)

 

[Canto]

Apocrypha means ‘hidden’ but the term does not mean false or spurious.
The deuterocanon was never hidden.

Some say the deuterocanon was never quoted in the NT, though I beg to differ, neither were some other OT books and some apocryphal writings were quoted in the NT.

Romans 11:34
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Wisdom 9:13
For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?

To those who reject the deuterocanon, aside from with what authority, what are your thoughts on the following…?

Matthew 27:41-43
41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, "but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ "

Wisdom 2:15-18
15 Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." 21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, 22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

 

[kalt]

Yes I do. The ark wasnt that small.

And elephants, hippos, and even cows aren’t that small. For those who reject the science of evolution, you have to make room for dinosaurs. I think 2 T-Rex’s take up a lot of room. An don’t forget the bugs. You have to keep all of them safe from trampling and from predators. Don’t forget that you have to store water and food for all those days and for every creature on the boat.

Have you ever owned a boat?

Do you ever wonder why the Bible says that the ark held every kind of animal, but not animals from the Americas was mentioned? No penquins. No grizzlies. No bison.

 

[BrianH]

This line of apologetics occurs far too much. If someone attempts to persuade someone that the DC is “just as inaccurate as the rest of the Bible”, you might get them to agree with you…
You also might get a person who abandons the whole thing.
Careful what steps you will go to just to persuade.
IMO

 

[JonNC]

And “Dr Luther” may put that in his pipe and smoke it. Don’t you all wish I had had the chance tohttp://bestsmileys.com/angry1/4.gif tell him so to his http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/4.gifface?

Given the trend of Christalone to post more than one thread of essentially the same subject, I’ll link to a dialogue between Gabriel of 12 and me on the subject of Luther and the canon. Perhaps before you “tell it to his face”, you might want to know what Dr. Luther (no need for quotes) did.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=347086&page=3
posts 37 - 40.

Jon

 

[Algernon]

Perhaps this will help.
I got this from this blog:

There was certainly controversy in the past surrounding the books of the Old Testament deuterocanon, because they were written after the Hellenization of the Middle East by Alexander the Great, and were therefore never written in Hebrew, but in Greek. Thus, the Jews rejected these books at the Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 in an attempt to rid their culture of everything they felt was not entirely Jewish.

For this reason and others, certain members of the early Church (including St. Jerome, who first translated the Bible into Latin) felt that these books should not be included in the Biblical Canon. The Church, however, ultimately decided in favor of these books (as well as certain other controversial books, like Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation).

The deuterocanonical Old Testament books were included in the Septuagint, which is the version of Scripture that Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted, and have been part of the liturgical life of the Church since the very beginning. They were part of the canon approved by the Council of Rome in 382, the Synod of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397. They were in the fifth-century Latin Vulgate (St Jerome’s translation), in the Middle English translation by John Wycliffe in 1382, and in the Bibles that Gutenberg printed in the mid 1400’s.

Objections to the use of the Deuterocanon:
From the Christian Research Institute (CRI): “They contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical.”

Well the thing is, any teaching is unbiblical… if you remove it from the Bible!
Excising chunks of the long-accepted Canon because it doesn’t conform with what you think is proper doctrine is no different from removing a few sentences from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and claiming that the virgin birth of Christ is unbiblical! This argument is silly at best, blasphemous at worst. And besides, since when is it the practice of Protestants to tailor the content of the Scriptures to match their beliefs?

Also from CRI: “There have been a number of authoritative testimonies against the acceptance of these books, including those from the Jewish scholars of Jamnia, as well as many of the church fathers and scholars, like Athanasius and Jerome.”

1. The scholars of Jamnia also rejected the Gospels. And Christ. And when have Christians ever been subject to the decisions of a post-Christian Jewish council anyway? And why are Protestants using the Old Testament given to them by the Masoretes—medieval Hebrew translators—rather than the one used and handed down by Christ, His Apostles, and His Church?
2. There was also much scholarly objection to the inclusion of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, but the Church ultimately accepted them as it accepted the books of the deuterocanon. Why accept this New Testament deuterocanon and reject the Old Testament deuterocanon? There is much we can learn from the Church Fathers, like Sts. Athanasius and Jerome (who, by the way, ultimately did include the deuterocanon in his copy of the Scriptures), but as pious and knowledgeable as they were, they were not the “pillar and foundation of truth”—the Church is.

Also from CRI: “These books were never directly quoted by Jesus or by any of the New Testament writers.”

This argument assumes that quotation or citation qualifies a book for canonicity. There are at least two problems with this assertion:

1. Several non-canonical books actually are quoted or cited in the New Testament:

Jude 1:14–15 quotes from the Book of Enoch 1:9.
Hebrews 11:37 alludes to the Ascension of Isaiah 5.1-14
Acts 17:28 quotes Cretica by Epimenides and Phaenomena by Aratus.
Titus 1:12 also quotes Cretica.
1 Corinthians 15:33 quotes Thaïs by Menander.
2 Timothy 3:8 references either the Gospel of Nicodemus, Ch. 5 or the Book of Jashar 79.27.**

If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren’t these writings among the canon of Scripture?

1. There are several other Old Testament books—accepted by Protestants—that are also not quoted or cited in the New Testament:

Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Obadiah
Zephaniah
Judges
1 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Lamentations and
Nahum

Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament. But the fact of the matter is that we really don’t know for sure Christ didn’t quote from all of the books of the proto- and deuterocanon, because the Gospels don’t record everything Jesus said and did (Jn 21.25). He may have quoted from the deuterocanon daily; we just don’t know.

(continued below…)