Replies

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.

There was no Christian acceptance of the Deuterocanonicals AS Divinely-inspired Sacred Scripture. Not to mention, we don't really know all the books that were translated into Greek in the Septuagint that first century Greek speaking Christians had access to. Let's also not forget that there were FIFTEEN Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books - NOT just the seven the Roman Catholic church decided in the sixteenth century to formally declare part of Divine-inspired Scripture. So what that the quotations of Old Testament Scripture in the Greek came from the Greek translation of the Hebrew? That doesn't prove anything about how either the Apostles or the early Christians saw the those extra-biblical books. Of course the Apostles wouldn't mislead them, which is why none of the Apostles ever quoted any of those books as "thus sayeth the Lord", "It is written" or in any way - if they even quoted them at all - as if these books came from the Holy Spirit. The Jews NEVER accepted those books either as part of their "canon". What makes you think Christians would have? I hope you understand that just by their appearance in the Septuagint is NO indication that they were thought of as God-breathed Scripture.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

Did the reference from Hebrews include any words to the effect that the story in Maccabees was the word of God? No, it didn't. Paul quoted a few pagan sayings, does that make them Scripture? No doubt, the story told in the Maccabees was relating real events experienced by real people, but they never claimed to BE speaking as a prophet of God or revealing Divine truth.

If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

Luther didn't CUT any books out of his German translation of the Bible. When are y'all going to stop repeating that falsehood? If you want to attack someone, pick on Jerome - you know, the guy that redid the Latin translation called the Vulgate. He sure didn't agree they were part of the Hebrew canon and he said so in his prologues to each one. Nobody is arguing that people read these books or found them encouraging to read, just that they were NOT to be used to determine doctrine. Even Augustine said that.

The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

Except they DIDN'T. That is a myth spread by those who cast doubt upon the inerrancy of God's word. Read this is you want to know the truth about that http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm.

There was no Christian acceptance of the Deuterocanonicals AS Divinely-inspired Sacred Scripture.

It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary". [1]

Of course the Apostles wouldn't mislead them, which is why none of the Apostles ever quoted any of those books as "thus sayeth the Lord", "It is written" or in any way - if they even quoted them at all - as if these books came from the Holy Spirit.

On that basis we would have to jettison almost the entirety of the New Testament books that do not refer themselves using those terms.

Luther didn't CUT any books out of his German translation of the Bible. When are y'all going to stop repeating that falsehood?

I suppose when protestants acknowledge that Luther, of his own volition, and without authority, determined the non-canonicity of the deuterocanonicals and relegated them to the appendix as instructive but not Divinely-inspired Scripture. If one is Catholic they understand that this materially removed the deuterocanonicals from the Canon of Scripture. But if protestants want to hang their hat on, "but they were published" Then I guess I should be grateful for their acknowledgement of the basic understanding of material vs. formal.

If you want to attack someone, pick on Jerome - you know, the guy that redid the Latin translation called the Vulgate. He sure didn't agree they were part of the Hebrew canon and he said so in his prologues to each one. Nobody is arguing that people read these books or found them encouraging to read, just that they were NOT to be used to determine doctrine. Even Augustine said that.

I refer you to the words of St. Jerome himself:

What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” [2]

[1] Kelly, J. (1959). Early Christian doctrines. New York: Harper.

[2] Jerome. (1892). Jerome’s Apology for Himself against the Books of Rufinus. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), W. H. Fremantle (Trans.), Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. (Vol. 3, p. 517). New York: Christian Literature Company.