Just for your information, before the Reformation, the canonicity of what you call the deuterocanonical books had not been officially decided by Rome. Loyal Roman Catholic scholars were on both sides of the issue. Since Judaism had excluded these pre-Christian Jewish texts from their canon in about 100 AD, there was a good argument for Christians to follow suit--but other Christian scholars said that BECAUSE the unbelieving-in-Jesus Jews had thrown them out, that made their reasoning irrelevant, and the books should be kept.
At the Council of Trent, seemingly because Luther had agreed with the Jewish scholarly consensus to exclude the apocryphal books from authoritative canon, Rome officially included them...but even then calling them secondary-canonical (the literal meaning of deuterocanonical).
I for one am happy to stand with the Jews on what is the valid canon of the Jewish portion of the Bible.
They are good for history and understanding ancient Jewish culture, but do not have the authority of God's word.
Just read the book of Tobit, and tell me that doesn't read like a fairy tale. Bears no resemblence to authentic scripture, but it does help us understand the Jewish mindset at the time of Jesus.
As to the issue of the flexibility of Mosaic law--it is true that it was more case law based and flexible, than many early Protestants were able to understand. I agree with you that many early (particularly 2nd generation) reformation Protestants were too literalist. (this in my opinion, is where the baptist controversy sprang from...since the bible no where explicitly show's infant baptism, they said (and say) you CAN'T do it...I think tradition needs to be given its due, and a more positive attitude toward God's permissivness needs to be taken--contra fundamentalism.) On the other hand, the explicit commands of the bible should be obeyed without question--understanding of course we are under the New Covenant.
A man being swallowed and then regurgitated by a whale doesn't? God and Satan gambling with the fidelity of a righteous man doesn't sound "like a fairy tale"?
SD
>> Just for your information, before the Reformation, the canonicity of what you call the deuterocanonical books had not been officially decided by Rome <<
Absolutely false. Ecumenical councils do not invent doctrine, they discern what has always been recognized. Hence, Trent, common to Protestant apologetics, did not invent the canon, rather it recognized what had alwats been seen; it found no credible evidence that any church anywhere had ever rejected the deuterocanonicals as unfit for use in worship.
The only confusion revolves around the books of Esdras. Certain early Christian communities recognized the books of Esdras which became known as Ezra and Nehemiah. Others chose to use a book which has come to be referred to as "Greek Esdras" which was, in essence, a summation of both books into a shorter book. Since Sola Scriptura is a Protestant invention, the issue of a canon is sort of a response to the Protestant crisis. Scripture, for the Catholic church, has two key elements: that it contains essential doctrines, and that it is used in mass. Since there are no doctrines in Greek Esdras, and it is unused in mass, it was allowed to slip into a sort of canonical-status limbo, so to speak.
Likewise, there are a few other "apocrypha" which historical records suggests have been used in certain liturgical contexts, although they possess no unique doctrine, such as 3 Maccabees, and "Psalm 151." They may be found in certain Orthodox and Coptic bibles, but are not typically reprinted in the Catholic bibles.
You will find that the Council of Trent did not so much say, "These books are in the bible, and these are out." Rather, it said, "Catholics are obliged to uphold the doctrines in these books." (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too busy to look the quotes up.)
Your argument about what non-believing Jews should be upheld comes largely from paranthetical notes written by St. Jerome. You will also find that St. Jerome vigorously denied that these notes must not be taken to suggest that they are not inspired scripture; as far back as the 4th-century, St. Jerome felt morally compelled to refute what he plainly considered a heretical notion that the deuterocanonicals were not scriptural. 1,000 years later, with no historical basis to suppose so, Luther would teach that St. Jerome must have been tortured, but that is a self-defeating argument: If St. Jerome said what he did because of torture, that would only further the argument that to deny the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books was officially regarded as heresy by the 4th-century popes.
Finally, the issue as to whether certain early Christians felt that Jews should not be required to ascent to the deuterocanonicals as a requirement for conversion is quite beside the point. Regardless of evangelization tactics, those communities made extensive use of deuterocanonicals in their worship. The book of Wisdom, for instance, has been referred to since the first century during church lenten and Easter services, since it so vividly details the nature of the execution of Jesus Christ. So well, in fact, that anti-Catholic apologists asserted it couldn't possibly be authentic Old-Testament scripture, since its authors had to have witnessed the death of Jesus. And yet, manuscripts of it were found in the Qumran collections which predated Christ.
Yes it had. See the Decree of Damasus of AD 381, the Decree of Gelasius of AD 492, the Decree of the Council of Florence of AD 1438, all establishing the current Catholic Canon with dogmatic exactitude.
Loyal Roman Catholic scholars were on both sides of the issue.
No they weren't.
Since Judaism had excluded these pre-Christian Jewish texts from their canon in about 100 AD, there was a good argument for Christians to follow suit
And those reasons were .... ?????
Rome officially included them...but even then calling them secondary-canonical (the literal meaning of deuterocanonical).
They are nowhere called that in any Roman decree.
They are good for history and understanding ancient Jewish culture, but do not have the authority of God's word.
According solely to your own opinion. Do you have the mind of God, or an inside track to know what He has and has not inspired?
Just read the book of Tobit, and tell me that doesn't read like a fairy tale. Bears no resemblence to authentic scripture, but it does help us understand the Jewish mindset at the time of Jesus.
It isn't particularly dissimilar from the "fairy tales" concerning how Abraham got his wife pregnant, how Isaac and Jacob got their wives, or of Joseph, Moses, and Daniel interpreting dreams.