Who reads the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonicals?

[Mimi]

I don’t think “heretical” is the word, but “apocryphal.”

Here’s another article on this subject I recommend by apologist Mark Shea called 5 Myths about 7 Books. It is very good and addresses the most common criticisms of the Deuterocanonical books.

Thank you for that reference! I found exactly what I needed to help refute someone I’ve been emailing back & forth with. He’s an ex-Catholic who converted to a fundamentalist type sect when some enthusiastic person pointed out to him certain scriptures that told him the Catholic Church was non-Biblical. He should’ve checked with the Church first, but perhaps at the time, there were not good resources available. Apparently, he was not well catechized either, or he would’ve thought to at least check with a priest.

He’s bought into myth no. 2:
Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

Please pray for Jim T. to Come Home!

I hope my constant keeping in touch with this person will bear good fruit, but I may not be aware of it… maybe I’ll see him on The Journey Home some day. Wouldn’t THAT be something?

God bless,
Mimi

 

[BRB]

**

He’s bought into myth no. 2:
Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

**

Now that you mention this … what is the truth ? Any place in NT where the deuteros are quoted ? Chapter/verse.

I am aware that some of the short letters [Jude for example … quotes from a dubious writing that Church rejected as not inspired] … and apparently Paul also quotes a time or two from some of the rejected books.

But, my mentions above are not from the Deuteros … they are from the rejected writings.

 

[MarcoPolo]

myth no. 2:
Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

That is one of the easiest ones to refute.

For BRB, I’ll simply paste Mark’s response that was in the corresponding link: *This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the “Quotation Equals Canonicity” myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren’t these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the 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.

The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ÔI am the Son of God’” (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.” Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ’s words on the occasion of this feast: “Is it not written in your Law, ÔI have said you are gods’? If he called them Ôgods,’ to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken — what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?” Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being “set apart,” just as Judas Maccabeus “set apart” (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) — as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.*

 

[BRB]

Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ÔI am the Son of God’” (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).

.[/INDENT]

It proves the ‘unbelieving Jews’ were quoting scripture to Jesus from book of Wisdom. So we know they read Wisdom … and accepted it as inspired word.

It also would suggest that Jesus/apostles were aware of book of Wisdom, or else Jews wouldn’t be quoting Jesus material he wasn’t familiar with.

 

[Spiller]

The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.

Still, at Council of Trent [1500’s] … they got included.

So, now I’m converted to most Catholic ways of thinking … I’m starting to read them. Having heard the Protestant ‘protestations’ over them … [as works of satan] … I was prepared for the worst.

Read Tobit last night. I was pleasantly surprized … very interesting & inspirational, a great read and I didn’t come across anything too outlandish. Almsgiving is highly advised … 30 % in fact

All together these books cover as much material as the NT .

Should I read the rest of these books in order found in Catholic bible … or is there a preferred way/order of reading them? Which are the Catholic favorites ? Bel and Dragon ???

I hope the rest are as interesting as Tobit was
The Deuterocanonicals are not apocryphal.

 

[RobHom]

I have always enjoyed reading the Book of Wisdom…which so appropriately named.

As an aside… I think sometimes that the reason that Luther railed against the Apocryphal Books…is because they simply were to some extent “contrary” to his beliefs and his personal style… If you read some of the first chapters of “Wisdom” you will see what I mean.

I have never found anything in any of the Apocryphal Books that are contrary to Church teachings… and even the Protestant King James knew that since it was at HIS insistence that they be retained in the KJV.

 

[inthecloud]

Many Jewish Apologist find passages of Wisdom to Christian. That is the reason why the Pharisees did not like that book.
In fact some Jewish scholar said Wisdom was written by christian or protochristians.
Luther took that book of the Bible because the Pharisees took that book of their Bibles becasue it was too Christian.
Go figure.

 

[ragincajunjoe]

The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.

Still, at Council of Trent [1500’s] … they got included.

So, now I’m converted to most Catholic ways of thinking … I’m starting to read them. Having heard the Protestant ‘protestations’ over them … [as works of satan] … I was prepared for the worst.

Read Tobit last night. I was pleasantly surprized … very interesting & inspirational, a great read and I didn’t come across anything too outlandish. Almsgiving is highly advised … 30 % in fact

All together these books cover as much material as the NT .

Should I read the rest of these books in order found in Catholic bible … or is there a preferred way/order of reading them? Which are the Catholic favorites ? Bel and Dragon ???

I hope the rest are as interesting as Tobit was

hmmm … well, it depends on what you consider interesting I suppose. Also, you’ll find that ECFs as well as early synods supported the deuterocanon. I’m writing a series on my blog on the subject right now, and I address the deuterocanon in general in the first post which I can link you to:

Deuterocanon Series, Pt. 1

as for what you should read next. It depends on what you enjoy reading, I suppose.

If you liked Tobit, you’ll probably like Judith.
If you like the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, you’ll like
1&2 Maccabees, I think … though 2 Maccabees is in a slightly different style.

If you like Proverbs, you’ll like Wisdom and Sirach.

Baruch 1-5 is a lot like the rest of the Prophets, so if you like them, that’s definitely worth the read.

Baruch 6 (the letter of Jeremiah) I find to be quite interesting, and it’s a lot like some of the apocalyptic literature in Daniel and Revelation.

Susannah and Bel and the Dragon are very interesting (and they don’t take long to read).

The Song of the 3 Young Men (contained within Daniel 3) is a lot like some of the Psalms.

Some of the chapters in Esther (including the prologue and epilogue) are interesting, but some of them are not as interesting.

Did I cover 'em all? It’s entirely possible I missed one. Anyway … hope that helps.

 

[inthecloud]

In my opinion Wisdom and Ben Sirach are the the books of the OT that are closer to the Gospels.

 

[peary]

The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.

Still, at Council of Trent [1500’s] … they got included.

So, now I’m converted to most Catholic ways of thinking … I’m starting to read them. Having heard the Protestant ‘protestations’ over them … [as works of satan] … I was prepared for the worst.

Read Tobit last night. I was pleasantly surprized … very interesting & inspirational, a great read and I didn’t come across anything too outlandish. Almsgiving is highly advised … 30 % in fact

All together these books cover as much material as the NT .

Should I read the rest of these books in order found in Catholic bible … or is there a preferred way/order of reading them? Which are the Catholic favorites ? Bel and Dragon ???

I hope the rest are as interesting as Tobit was

If the Church through the Holy Spirit didn’t think that they should be part of the Canon of Scripture, the books would not have been still included. Please DO read the others.

 

[GailMac]

RBR -
You stated in your post: “The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.” I don’t believe this is true as they were quoted by St. Paul.

I will once again refer all those interested to a very informative and accurate writing by Steve Ray, a trustworthy Apologist, for a good explaination of how this controversy is supported by protestants and answered.

Part of what Mr. Ray says is this: “The early Church made wide use the Greek Septuagint, from which St. Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations. The early Church, following the Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it, accepted the Deutero-canonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included in the final collection. The so-called “Council of Jamnia” was a group of Jewish scholars around AD 90 who were granted permission by Rome to meet in Palestine, near the Mediterranean Sea in Jamnia (or Jabneh). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin. Among the many things they discussed was the status of several questioned writings in their Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.”

catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Documents/Jamnia%20for%20Website.doc

As for me, when chosing the very first Bible I owned in my life some years ago, I chose the complete canon, simply because I wanted the full truth and not something someone else thought was the truth. I’d had it with mere human musings about the nature of God and His Church. I was sick and tired of doing it my way and needed to find out how to do things His Way. I guess now, looking back I was lucky to have been guided by grace.

Peace,

Gail

 

[BRB]

RBR -
You stated in your post: “The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.” I don’t believe this is true as they were quoted by St. Paul.

Jerome’s viewpoint … for what its worth

“There circulates also the ‘all-virtuous’ Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira, together with a similar work, the pseudepigraph entitled the Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, entitled not ‘Ecclesiasticus’, as among the Latins, but ‘Parables’. … The later is nowhere found among the Hebrews: its verystyle smacks of Greek eloquence, and several ancient writers affirm it to be the work of Philo the Jew. Therefore as the church indeed reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of eccelsiastical dogmas.”

Again … most of early Fathers had no problems with Church reading the Deuteros [and other Apocrapha] for ‘edification’ — but, not to be used for dogmas.

 

[Janet_S]

Jerome’s viewpoint … for what its worth

“There circulates also the ‘all-virtuous’ Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira, together with a similar work, the pseudepigraph entitled the Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, entitled not ‘Ecclesiasticus’, as among the Latins, but ‘Parables’. … The later is nowhere found among the Hebrews: its verystyle smacks of Greek eloquence, and several ancient writers affirm it to be the work of Philo the Jew. Therefore as the church indeed reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of eccelsiastical dogmas.”

Again … most of early Fathers had no problems with Church reading the Deuteros [and other Apocrapha] for ‘edification’ — but, not to be used for dogmas.

Your above quote is from Jerome’s Prologue to the books of Solomon.

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF JEROME TO THE BOOKS OF SOLOMON
. . . Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas… . .

So you are giving evidence of Jerome’s opinion on the matter, but do you have evidence that the other Fathers had the same opinion?

Because that is the point in Gary Michuta’s book. Jerome stood alone on this point.

Protestant apologists often attempt to make Jerome the spokesman for a large silent majority of knowledgeable Christians in his day; this opinion is supported by no evidence whatsoever. Protestant scholars have long admitted that Jerome was essentially alone in his opposition to the Deuterocanon. It was the product of his own (flawed, as we now know) scholarship. it was also a decisive break from the practice of the ancient Christian Church–something which would have given a humbler man serious pause. Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, page 145

 

[BRB]

.

So you are giving evidence of Jerome’s opinion on the matter, but do you have evidence that the other Fathers had the same opinion?

.

Lets examine Athanasius’s expert opinion on the matter.

“But for the sake of greater accuracy I must needs, as I write, add this: there are other books outside these [the 22 OT canon books], which are not indeed included in the canon, but have been appointed from the time of the fathers to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of true religion. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Widom of Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobit … But while the former are included in the canon and the latter are read [in church], no mention is to be made of the apocryphal works. They are the invention of heretics, who write according to their own will, and gratuitiously assign and add to them dates so that, offering them as ancient writings, they may have and excuse for leading the simple astray.”

So both Athanasius and other Church leaders [appointed from the time of the fathers … so he says above] — held this view on what constituted the true canon [for dogma purposes] & which are the Deutero’s [intended for inspiration / edification of new Church converts], and finally … the Apocrapha [heretical inventions of satan].

 

[Janet_S]

Lets examine Athanasius’s expert opinion on the matter.

“But for the sake of greater accuracy I must needs, as I write, add this: there are other books outside these [the 22 OT canon books], which are not indeed included in the canon, but have been appointed from the time of the fathers to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of true religion. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Widom of Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobit … But while the former are included in the canon and the latter are read [in church], no mention is to be made of the apocryphal works. They are the invention of heretics, who write according to their own will, and gratuitiously assign and add to them dates so that, offering them as ancient writings, they may have and excuse for leading the simple astray.”

So both Athanasius and other Church leaders [appointed from the time of the fathers … so he says above] — held this view on what constituted the true canon [for dogma purposes] & which are the Deutero’s [intended for inspiration / edification of new Church converts], and finally … the Apocrapha [heretical inventions of satan].

You can also add Julius Africanus (160-231 AD) and Melito of Sardis (D170 AD) as other Fathers who set apart the deuterocanonical books from Scripture. So now we have the testimony of 4 early Christians–Julius, Melito, Athanasius, and Jerome. Are their opinions (alone or together) representative of the whole Church? Do the four of them list the same OT canon and is this the same OT canon used by Protestants today? Furthermore, do these men have the authority to speak for the whole Church? Or was the matter of the canon still controversial in their lifetimes, still in a state of flux, only later to be defined by Church Councils?

Regarding Athanasius, Gary Michuta writes about him in his book (pp 107-113), but it’s too long to post here. Still, here are a few of his points:

– His 22 book canon listed in his Festal Letter 39 is unique to him. All other Christian writers, present and past, differ from it. His canon is not identical to the modern Protestant canon; he includes Baruch and excludes Esther.

– Athanasius does not consider the deuterocanonical books “apocrypha,” while modern Protestants do.

If we had only the words of Julius, Melito, Athanasius, and Jerome to guide us, we might come to the conclusion that the deutercanonical books were excluded from the canon of Scripture. But we have much more evidence to the contrary. This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia gives an otherview:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

We have the writings of Clement, Polycarp, Athenagorus, Justin, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and many more to testify otherwise. Gary Michuta goes into it in a lot more detail in his book.

If anything history shows us, it is this: The majority of the Church Fathers quoted and used the deutercanonical books and the protocanonical books the same. Gary Michuta even gives evidence in his book that the deutercanonical books were used to confirm doctrine. However, there were some differing opinions on the OT canon; the most notable being Jerome’s. Thus the need for the Church to meet, pray, and decide with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s what happened in the councils of the Church at Hippo, Carthage, Florence, and Trent. All of these councils --held from the 4th century to the 16th century–have confirmed the same canon.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.

Still, at Council of Trent [1500’s] … they got included.

**
Totally incorrect. **You need to know a bit of history of the Jews and of early Church councils to know the accurate and correct answer. The early Catholic Church in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the Old Testament Scriptures as defined by the Council of Alexandria which took place between 250 and 125 BC by a collection of Jewish scholars. They accepted all the books of the Old testament which we hold as true. The collection of scholars was called the Septuagint, meaning seventy. Actually it was seventy-two because it was 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. The books accepted were written in both Hebrew and Greek. Greek was the language of many of the Jews who were scattered in the early diaspora and captivities, who did not return to Israel, but held to their faith. The Old Testament books written in Greek were: 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, part of Daniel and I believe either Sirach or Baruch I am not sure which. These books are not in the protestant bible.

The entire New Testament was written in Greek. In 94AD the Jews held the Council of Jamnia wherein they declared that only those books written in Hebrew were the correct collection. They did this partly in reaction to the new “sect” called Christiani who’s books were written in Greek. The only problem was that the Old Testament ended with the Crucifixion when the curtain of the Temple was torn asunder from top to bottom when Jesus died on the Cross. The Jews were no longer under under the guidance of the holy Spirit. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage which took place around 394 AD ± under the guidance of the Holy Spirit accepted the books defined by the Septuagint and the present books we hold as the New Testament writings. These were accepted throughout the Christian world and were not rejected until the protestant reformation after nearly 1500 years of Christian Catholic history. They were rejected by Luther because the Greek Old Testament books would conflict with his doctrine of salvation by faith alone. He accepted those books defined by the Council of Jamnia (not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), not the Council of Alexandria (which was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). He even wanted to reject the Epistle of James, but was convinced that he should not do so.

I wrote this in another post about 6 months ago and one poster questioned where it says the Jews were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My response was simply to point that person to the creed we recite at Sunday mass wherein it says of the Holy Spirit that, “H**e has spoken through the prophets.” ** Hopefully this will help.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B.

 

[BRB]

**
The entire New Testament was written in Greek. .**

Nope, not all. Eventually Matthew and Luke, and possibly even Mark … written in Hebrew, were later translated into Greek.

 

[richardwy]

Last winter, early, I read both Maccabees.

 

[GailMac]

Dear BRB - You stated:"Again … most of early Fathers had no problems with Church reading the Deuteros [and other Apocrapha] for ‘edification’ — but, not to be used for dogmas."

While it is true that St. Jerome had his doubts that these books should be included, he did conceed his point and they were included. I’m sure others had their doubts too, but then as now, the Church made the final decision and St. Jerome obeyed.

What you profess, that there may be a “legitimate” reason to exclude these books as acceptable, does mainly two things in my opinion:

1. It serves as a disrespect to St. Jerome,
2. And fosters dissenting “opinions” among those who may or maynot know the whole story.

We are not to look at the Fathers for reasons to dissent from Church teaching but rather to enhance our understanding of how the Church renders her decisions and to support our faith. Protestants routinely dissect the old writings searching (in vain) for support for their protestant ways. This should be lesson enough for any Catholic who desires to remain faithful to Church teaching.

As for your excluding these books for yourself and only accepting them for the purpose of “edification,” the fact that they contain references to know Catholic dogmas and for those who are Sola Scriptura adherents, this would be rather convenient. Are you saying that you exclude the dogmas they support as well? How close to the edge do you wish to skate?

Peace,

Gail

 

[BRB]

As for your excluding these books for yourself and only accepting them for the purpose of “edification,” the fact that they contain references to know Catholic dogmas and for those who are Sola Scriptura adherents, this would be rather convenient. Are you saying that you exclude the dogmas they support as well? How close to the edge do you wish to skate?

Peace,

Gail

I’m finding the Deuterocanonicals very interesting, enjoyable, and inspiring.

However, I do think the early Church Fathers had a better ‘feel’ for which belonged in the primary canon that I.

Athanasius and Jerome were early intellectual towers … so their opinions should weigh heavily in our considerations. It would appear however that Jerome made mistakes. For example he promoted the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John chronological ordering of NT gospels … and Church followed his idea. Today, it would appear the Clementine order of gospel chronology is more likely the correct order.

I, like they, don’t think dogmas should be based on these secondary canon books alone. Luckily, I don’t think the Church bases many of its dogmas on them alone. To the extent the Deuteros support the primary canon … all well and good.

Personally, I would probably allow in more of historical books than the Church does … for edification reasons. I don’t think censorship is good idea, unless it is clearly evident that a particular apocraphal book is a fraud.