Except these books do not claim to BE from Almighty God, they have no recognized prophets (in fact, in I Maccabees 9:27, they acknowledged that there WERE no prophets in Israel in their time). If, as you say, God used this "intertestamental" period (interesting choice of word) to prepare the Jews for the imminent coming Messiah, why is there NO new prophecy about the Messiah in them? Also, some of these books were purportedly added to recognized Old Testament books that were written way before this period (c. 400-100 B.C.). For example, additions to the book of Esther and Daniel that were NOT there prior to the Septuagint. The books of the Apocrypha teach things not found in other Scriptures of the Old Testament such as (from http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm:
A good soul fell to Solomon’s lot. Wisdom 8:19, 20
The body weighs down the soul. Wisdom 9:15
Whoever honors his father atones for sins. Sirach 3:3
God is unaware the origin of some is evil. Wisd. 12:10
" That is why God gave them a chance to repent which they did not take.
To none has he [God] given power to proclaim his works;..." Sirach
Never use deceit (Sirach 25:26) vs. Deceive people for God (Judith)
Divorce if your wife does not obey you-Sirach 25:26
"for from garments comes the moth, and from a woman comes woman's wickedness. Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace." Sirach 42:14
"Wine is like life to men, if you drink it in moderation. What is life to a man who is without wine? It has been created to make men glad." (Sirach 31:27) {Does A.A. quote this often?}
"Pamper a child, and he will frighten you; play with him, and he will give you grief." Sirach 30:9
"Speak, you who are older, for it is fitting that you should, but with accurate knowledge and do not interrupt the music." Sirach 32:3
"My son, do not lead the life of a beggar; it is better to die than to beg." (and it goes on) Sirach 40:28-30.
Jeremiah, though dead, prays for Jews 2 Mac5:12-16
We should pray for the dead 2 Macc 12:44 (just might be where Catholics got the idea since nowhere else is it found in Scripture)
Jeremiah took the tabernacle of the ark to a cave in the mountain Moses saw Canaan. 2 Macc 2:1-16
· Tobias used magic, the heart, liver, and gall of a fish, to drive away a demon. The Bible says we are not to use magic. An angel lies and claims to be Azarius son of Ananias
· Tobit 1:4-5 + 1:11-13 + 14:1-3 say Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes (997 BC.); he was deported to Ninevah with Naphtali (740 BC.) yet he only lived 102 years.
Judith: It is unclear where the Book was Judith was written. The at least fourteen errors in the book cover falsehoods of the people and geography of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and even gross errors on the geography of Israel. In short, · Nebuchadnezzar was the King of Babylon; he did not rule from Ninevah, · he was not king of the Assyrians, and the Assyrians (or Babylonians) · never sacked Ecbatana or Ragae. · Assyrians and Babylonians did not rely predominately on their cavalry. · The Babylonian and Assyrian rulers wanted people to worship their gods, but not them-selves (unlike later Romans and Persians.) · The people had not returned from exile in the time of the Assyrians or Babylonians. · The Moabites and Ammonites were descendents of Lot; they were not Canaanites. · General Holofernes and his massive campaign in Palestine are unknown to history and archaeology. · a city with towers called Bethulia, on the plain of Esdraelon near Dothan, able to resist 132,000 soldiers, has not been found. · Balbaim and · Cyamon have not been found either.
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible even says in Intro "The book of Judith in particular shows a bland indifference to history and geography."
· Mordecai taken by Nebuchadnezzar (617 BC.)
2nd year of Artaxerxes court (~130 years later). Contradicts regular part of Esther: (additions to Esther)
· Haman was an Agagite, not Macedonian. -add Esth.
· Do not remember the dead (Sirach 38:21-23) vs. pray for the dead (2 Macc 12:44)
· Baruch not really in Babylon 1:1,2 vs. Jer.43:5-7
· Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve Babylon for 7 generations. Jeremiah 25:11 & 29:11 says 70 years; .
· The Babylonians did not worship and feed a living dinosaur-like creature. (additions to Daniel 14:23-27)
· In 2 Macc 8:10 Nicanor wanted to pay 2,000 talents to the Romans; the Seleucids were not under the Romans.
· In 2 Macc 8:20 8K Seleucids plus 4K Macedonians did not destroy 120,000 Galatians in Babylonia.
· Minor historical discrepancies between 1 & 2 Mac.
Writers of Sirach (prologue) and 2 Mac (2:24-43; 15:38-40) indicate they were not inspired.
The whole reason these books were rejected by the Jews, some early Christian Fathers as well as the Reformers is because they contain errors and that disqualifies them from being considered Divinely-inspired. It should be noted that, all along we have NOT be arguing that these contested books were not in some canons, nor that they were not present in the Septuagint and even the early KJV of the Bible in a separate section. What IS the argument is that these books were/are NOT inspired from God, not God-breathed Holy Scripture. That the Catholic Church officially accepts them as inspired, brings into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can err in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church?
I don't see this issue as "short-sighted" at all. It is one of many other issues where the Catholic Church has moved away from what has "always and everywhere" been the truths of the Christian faith as expressed in the Holy Scriptures. If, as they claim, they get their teachings directly from the Apostles, where is the proof that the Apostles accepted these books, for example? There is no proof. My personal feelings for why these books are allowed by the Catholic Church is to take away the Bible's trustworthiness and authority and to make it subservient to the magesterium of the Catholic Church. Now, for many Catholics, that is completely acceptable. It isn't for me and that is why I will continue to defend God's word - which HE says will endure forever.
Every argument you have made against the Deuterocanonical books, if taken at the level of principle, would also decanonize the entire New Testament:
The fact remains that the Bible itself contains no written internal criteria for determining what books comprise the Bible. It simply does not. Therefore--- and this is inescapable --- one must rely on on some external criteria: some council (Jewish or Christian) or some scholarly hermeneutic, or some rough-consensus-over-time, or some authority.
No Christian (individual or group) ever insisted on a 66-book canon for the first millennium-and-a-half of Christian history. That makes the shorter 66 book canon dubious from a historic perspective, "historic" meaning "what actually happened."
Even Church Fathers who expressed vehement doubts about one book or more --- Jerome is an example here --- ended up convinced that their doubts had been in error, and that the overwhelming testimony of the whole Church, east-and-west, north-and-south, kata-holos, across 3 continents and many centuries, was, in fact, correct.
(And by the way, as The_Reader_David says, you always seem to ignore the churches --- in Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, Nothern Africa, Ethiopia, etc . --- whose canons are a millennium older than that of the Reformation. who do not recognize "Roman" councils like Florence and Trent, and who always include the so-called Deuterocanonicals.)
You are left, I'm afraid, without an external criterion by which to arrive at a canon.
Thats's why your argument is unconvincing.
Blessings upon you, my friend.