The Deuterocanonicals...again, I'm sure

  • Thread starter Thread starter hatsoff
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hatsoff

Guest
Hi, all. This is my first post to this forum.

I’m an agnostic raised Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS). As you can imagine, I was indoctrinated into 66-book inerrancy. At age 23 or so (I’m 27, now), I lost my faith, drifted into agnosticism, and haven’t come back since.

Anyhoo, since I had been raised in a strong evangelical family (my brother is an LCMS ordained minister, for example), my disbelief didn’t fully deter my interest in Christian culture and history. Yet, I never really learned anything about Catholic doctrine. Generally speaking, I was warned that it was too legalistic, and focused on man-made tradition rather than Sola Scriptura (typical, yes?). But I never really looked into it for myself.

That is, until recently.

The problem is, all my Christian associations are evangelicals. I’ve never had much of any Orthodox or Catholic instruction. Consequently, I’m not up to snuff, so to speak, on issues like the deuterocanonicals.

I’ve made a thread in an evangelical forum about this same issue. I want to make a thread here, as well, in order to get a relatively balanced response.

So, I’m sure you’re all familiar with the typical Protestant objections. You know–no Hebrew originals, anachronisms, historical errors, no citations in the NT, all that. What are your responses? I can think of a few, already, which I am waiting to throw at the evangelicals. But I have to admit the historical and patristic support for the deuterocanonicals are a little bit weaker than the rest of the OT books–and that presents a real problem.

I would thank you in advance for your help in this matter.
 
One thing that just cant be brushed off is a prophecy from Wisdom 2:12-20 (written by Jews long before Jesus came around)…if this isnt inspired then I dont know what is:
12 Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
 
I have a friend (who was Protestant at the time) who decided to do a personal Bible study on the women that St. Paul lists as heroes or saints of the Old Testament. Things were going fine until she got to Susanna. Her story is in part of Daniel that is considered Deuterocanonical. Hmm…

As for the inconsistencies, there are some arguments that some of them are intentional. Please see the This Rock article on Judith and Tobit. catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp

Maccabees 1 and 2 has several instances of praying for the dead or references to the afterlife. Since Luther wanted to debunk prayers for the dead and the Jews had moved away from belief in an afterlife, the book had been cut from Jewish usage and Luther was only too happy to toss it. (He also wanted to cut James, since it pointedly says, “Faith without works is dead.”)
 
hatsoff said:
Hi, all. This is my first post to this forum.

I’m an agnostic raised Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS). As you can imagine, I was indoctrinated into 66-book inerrancy. At age 23 or so (I’m 27, now), I lost my faith, drifted into agnosticism, and haven’t come back since.

Anyhoo, since I had been raised in a strong evangelical family (my brother is an LCMS ordained minister, for example), my disbelief didn’t fully deter my interest in Christian culture and history. Yet, I never really learned anything about Catholic doctrine. Generally speaking, I was warned that it was too legalistic, and focused on man-made tradition rather than Sola Scriptura (typical, yes?). But I never really looked into it for myself.

That is, until recently.

The problem is, all my Christian associations are evangelicals. I’ve never had much of any Orthodox or Catholic instruction. Consequently, I’m not up to snuff, so to speak, on issues like the deuterocanonicals.

I’ve made a thread in an evangelical forum about this same issue. I want to make a thread here, as well, in order to get a relatively balanced response.

So, I’m sure you’re all familiar with the typical Protestant objections. You know–no Hebrew originals, anachronisms, historical errors, no citations in the NT, all that. What are your responses? I can think of a few, already, which I am waiting to throw at the evangelicals. But I have to admit the historical and patristic support for the deuterocanonicals are a little bit weaker than the rest of the OT books–and that presents a real problem.

I would thank you in advance for your help in this matter.
Click to expand...
Welcome. 🙂
Most evangelicals (Protestants) refer to the dueterocanonicals as apochypha or the second canon, but they are more clearly known as secondarily included in the canon as were many New Testament books, i.e., Revelation and Hebrews and others. The deuterocanonicals are supported as being in the texts (scrolls actually) from which Jesus and the Apostles read, and by the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain the deuterocanonicals and that the septuagint contained the dueterocanonicals. This article may help. It gives an overview of the canon which was first cited at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 A.D…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
 
Although I’m Protestant, I’ve started rotating the Deuterocanonicals into my regular reading of the Scriptures.

I am currently reading Tobias, and as of Chapter 12, I have found at least 4 things that seem to be quoted or refered to in the NT. I will be checking them out further, and if this thread is still going in a few days, I’ll post them.
 
The Journey Home just had an hour on this very subject this past Monday Night. EWTN will be showing the encore of it Saturday Night at 11PM Eastern. I recommend watching or taping it.

He had on Gary Michuta, who just wrote a book entitled, “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger.” grottopress.org/html/best_sellers_detailed_list_17.html

One point I took from the interview is that Luther quoted and wrote about the deuterocanonical books as scripture until he was cornered about purgatory in the great debate with Johanne Eck (who cleaned Luther’s clock by all accounts). Suddenly, they became demoted…

Personally, I believe his tearing apart the Bible (in addition to the deuterocanon, he tried to eliminate several NT books) was the worst of his many crimes of arrogance. It is also quite ironic that many who follow the reformists now call themselves “Bible Christians.”
 
I just got though reading Gary Michuta’s book “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger”. It was excellent! He does a really good job of explaining what went on in the early Church and he provides you with tons of material so you can do your own research into this. I would definitely recommend reading his book.
 
Thanks for the responses so far! I haven’t checked out all the links yet, but I will pretty soon.

I had a quick question, though: Are the deuterocanonicals included in any Jewish-only (IE, not Christian) Bible? That is, are all the extant mss. Christian works?
 
hatsoff said:
I thank you for the link, and it was helpful to some degree. However, it doesn’t answer the toughest arguments against the DCs. Also, I’m disturbed by its factual error regarding Jamnia.
Click to expand...
I’ll bite. What error?

M
 
One critical thing to keep in mind is that no Council or pope ever put forth the Protestant canon in any authoritative document. The Protestant canon is nowhere to be found in Church history. That alone should give one pause.
 
VociMike said:
One critical thing to keep in mind is that no Council or pope ever put forth the Protestant canon in any authoritative document. The Protestant canon is nowhere to be found in Church history. That alone should give one pause.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly my beef, so to speak. The problem is, Protestants generally differentiate between OT and NT. The OT canon was closed, they say, prior to Christ. The patristics, though allegedly inspired by God to canonize the NT, were somehow unfit to canonize the OT. Protestants say that the Jews closed the canon with the Tanakh.

Unfortunately, they have some answers to these charges, and they are compelling to some degree.
 
VociMike said:
One critical thing to keep in mind is that no Council or pope ever put forth the Protestant canon in any authoritative document. The Protestant canon is nowhere to be found in Church history. That alone should give one pause.
Click to expand...
When you say the “Protestant canon is nowhere to be found in Church history.”, do you mean no one rejected the books you guys call deutero’s?

What exactly do you mean?
 
Calvinator said:
When you say the “Protestant canon is nowhere to be found in Church history.”, do you mean no one rejected the books you guys call deutero’s?

What exactly do you mean?
Click to expand...
I mean that in no authoritative action (Council or papal) did the Church say “this is the canon of scripture” and listed the Protestant version. While in several authoritative actions (long before Trent) the Church did say “this is the canon of scripture” and listed the Catholic version.
 
VociMike said:
I mean that in no authoritative action (Council or papal) did the Church say “this is the canon of scripture” and listed the Protestant version. While in several authoritative actions (long before Trent) the Church did say “this is the canon of scripture” and listed the Catholic version.
Click to expand...
The issue wasn’t settled before Trent though, was it?
 
Calvinator said:
The issue wasn’t settled before Trent though, was it?
Click to expand...
Only if you are also prepared to say that the issue of the canonicity of e.g. the Gospel of John wasn’t settled before Trent.

Either nothing was settled before Trent, or the entire Catholic canon was settled before Trent, take your pick. But there is no in-between where the Protestant canon was settled but not the Deuterocanonicals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top