Thanks for your response. I looked the article over and found no direct evidence presented that would show canonicity for any of your deuterocanonical books. That shouldn’t be too surprising, because it’s a very difficult standard to meet. Paul quotes a heathen philosopher when he says we live and move and have our being in God. That does not equate to Paul sanctioning the full text of that writer’s work as canonical. From this we derive a principle that more than mere quotation or allusion or even verification of truthfulness of the particular words quoted is necessary to achieve canonicity for the complete text out of which the quote is taken.
For example, you mention 2 Maccabees as playing a prominent role in Matthew 22:23-33. Not really. We begin with the fact that no certain determination can be made the text of Maccabees was involved at all. Your author suggests that the mere mention of the resurrection as a point of contention between the Pharisees and the Sadducees should be enough to implicate 2 Maccabees. This is so far from a serious argument as to be laughable. Resurrection as a general principle was well attested in several books of the standard OT canon. For that job at least, no deuterocanonicals need apply. Here is an introductory surevy of the subject:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb11/Old.Testament.Teach.Resurretion.html
Your author also makes the argument that because Hanukah was still being observed in Jesus’ day, that somehow this imparts to the Maccabean story the status of God-breathed Scripture. That is a non-sequitur. One might as well say that because a certain type of pottery was used in Jesus’ day, therefore it is holy pottery. That’s just not even the beginning of a credible argument.
Indeed, after looking over your article, it jumps out at me that in not one place did Jesus or an Apostle ever say, “the Scripture says,” or “It is written” or such like, but what it was followed, without exception, with a reference to the primary canon, the one you and I would agree on in a heartbeat. There’s got to be a reason for that.
But if you can find an exception to that rule, or otherwise point me to a text where the reference to a deuterocanonical text is clear and unambiguous, I will be glad to consider it.
Again, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate it.
Peace,
SR
True... It’s not as direct as Jesus reading from Isaiah and closing with this prophesy is filled as you hear it... However, at the end of the day for 1000+ years there was no disputing the OT canon and it was validated by the same authority that validated the NT canon used by all Christians to this day.
Thank you for the charitable exchange.
Which is seems is due the desire behind seeing Mary in a piece of toast, but this manner of extrapolation is what is often seen in RC apologetics, such as pray to departed saints .
The rest of your response is quite good also. I think the Scripture Catholic guy has a list with many contrived quotes from the apoc. which i wanted to deal with one day.