Replies

Quick debuking:
1. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

That all scripture is profitable does not follow that nothing which is not scripture is not profitable. But then, since the “apocrypha” were cited as scripture by the early Church Fathers, and by the New Testament itself, this assertion does not argue against the “apocyrpha.”

Along these lines, your reading of this scripture begs your argument, since Catholic Tradition is not the tradition of men, but rather Public Revelation, which has been preserved in the Tradition as well as in Scripture: “”Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” To make plain: Public Revelation is NOT the Tradition of men.

And there most certainly is a distinction between the Tradition of Men and the Tradition of teh Church: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thess 3:6) Indeed, the Gospel of John notes that Tradition is larger than the Scripture: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:” If it were not remembered, how could it be a sign?

2. Was the Apocrypha Ever Considered To Be Part of the Jewish Scripture?

The Aprocrypha are neither “the Prophets,” nor “The Law.” But then, neither are most of the Khetuvim, which is the class of books to which the apocrypha belong. Hence, there are few citations of the Khetuvim in the New Testament. Only AFTER Christ, did the Jews decide which books belonged to the Khetuvim, such as Josephus, whom you cite. And why did Jospehus reject the “apocrypha”? Josephus denied the existence of prophecy, a notion which is contradicted by Luke 2, Luke 4, John 1, Matthew 1, and Mark 1.

Meanwhile, your source tries desperately to erase the presence of the deuterocanonicals in the Qumran scrolls.

3. The Apocrypha Was Not Used as Inspired Scripture by the New Testament Writers

This simply is untrue. The original claim was that the Apocrypha were not used by Jesus in the gospels. The problem with this claim is that only a minority of Old Testament books were; Focusing on the books universally accepted by his Jewish audience, Jesus cites mostly Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Pslams, Isaiah, and Kings. This standard would cast doubt as to whether Joshua, Numbers, Job, Chronicles, Ruth, and several of the prophets were biblical, let alone most of the Wisdom books. The Epistles cite many other books, yet far from all of the Protestant canon, but they also cite 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom and Sirach.

4. The Patristic Writers Were Far From Unanimous in Their Use of the Apocrypha

This is kinda true; several Patristic writers were concerned with countering Jewish arguments, and therefore felt it unwise to cite as scripture books which the Jews did not regard as scripture.

5. The Majority of Early Christians Who Prepared Lists of the Old Testament Canon Specifically Excluded the Apocrypha

Look at the “majority” he cites: Not a one describes the Protestant canon, except for Jerome. The inclusion of Jerome always cracks me up. He specifically states his reason for excluding the deuterocanonical books was simply he had no Hebrew version to translate. And while I think you can reasonably infer from his introductions OUT OF CONTEXT the notion that he was stating that they were non-Canonical, he responded to this notion by stating it was obvious he upholds the Catholic faith which includes them and calls those who say he meant to suggest otherwise “fools and slanderers.”

But lets say Jerome actually recanted under pressure (which, contrary to Protestant implications, there is no historical record of). Suppose Jerome really did write those introductions having been convinced that they should be excluded. What does the episode tell us? That Jerome knew that his argument was counter the doctrine of the Catholic/Orthodox church at the time!

6. There is No Clear Evidence That the Apocryphal Books Were Even Included in the Septuagint Until the 3rd Century

The author holds that since the apocrypha were written, in part at least, after the 72 translators, then they could not have been part of the original translation. But the author misunderstands the history of the 72: Those translators are credited with having translated only the Pentateuch. The Septuagint, as a collected work, the one apon which the New Testament draws nearly of its OT citations, was completed much later; in fact, most modern authors consider the legend of the 72 translators to be completely legendary.

The Apocrypha Was Indeed Added to the Canon in 1546 by the Council of Trent as Specific Response to the Reformation

There was no canon to which the apocrypha did not belong, ever. Ecumenical councils only resolve doctrinal disputes once they have been disputed. There had never been any authoritative definition of the canon prior to the Council of Trent. How could this be? How could the church have lasted 1500 years without defining the canon at all? The simple answer is that the contents of the canon was a matter of Tradition, and only of Tradition. Here’s the self-negating core of Sola Scriptura: there is no definition of Scripture within Scripture! ONly when the Protestants risibly denied the canon did the Catholic Church have to definitely state what the canon was: before that, the canon was simply the collection of books used in mass.