Introduction to The Deuterocanon




Preview

  1. Preview
  2. Why Is the Deuterocanon Important?
  3. When and Why Was the Deuterocanon Rejected?
    1. By the Jews?
    2. By Protestants?
  4. Is the Deuterocanon Scripture?
    1. Conviction But Not Certainty
    2. Evangelical Objections to the Deuterocanon
  5. Review (Back to Preview)
  6. Sources
  7. Appendix

Why Is the Deuterocanon Important?

What Is The Deuterocanon (the Apocryphal Books)? [1 ⇑ ↝ ]
“Deuterocanonical books is a term used since the 16th century in the Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Old Testament that are not part of the Hebrew Bible. The term is used in contrast to the protocanonical books, which are contained in the Hebrew Bible. [Most Protestants refer to these books as the Apocrypha.] This distinction had previously contributed to debate in the early Church about whether they should be classified as canonical texts...The word deuterocanonical comes from the Greek meaning 'belonging to the second canon'.” definitions.net

Librovox.org Has Audio Recordings of the Catholic Apocrypha At ... [2 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
https://librivox.org/group/10?primary_key=10&search_category=group&search_page=1&search_form=get_results You can listen to them while driving, housekeeping, whatever, if you want to familiarize yourself with them.

Why Is the Deuterocanon Important? [3 ↜ ⇑ ↝]

  1. The New Testament Writers
    Were Influenced by the Deuterocanon.

  2. The Early Church Fathers
    Were Very Much Influenced by the Deuterocanon.

  3. Jews of the Diaspora and the Holy Land
    Knew of and used the Deuterocanon before, during, and after the life of Christ.

  4. Persecuted Jews As Well As Christians
    Drew Strength from the Deuterocanon's Tales of Triumph Over Persecution.

  5. All the Early Vernacular Bibles
    Contained the Deuterocanon.

  6. Early Protestantism's Leading Lights,
    Rejected the Deuterocanon as Scripture, But Respected These Books as Helpful Aides in Christian Devotion and Living.

  7. 75% of the World's Professing Christians
    Accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture.

  8. The Deuterocanon Connects Many Dots
    Between the Old and New Testaments, and Between the New Testament and the Early Church.

I, The New Testament Writers Were Influenced by the Deuterocanon. [4 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
“But given their early composition, their popularity with the Jewish people, the many allusions, parallels, and ideas in the New Testament … their use by the early church fathers, and their varied inclusion in the best Greek codices of the Bible (such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) one can safely assume that they could be found in the general LXX tradition of the first century A.D. and thus were known to Greek-speaking Christians and the writers of the New Testament.” Patzia, p. 32



II. The Early Church Fathers Were Influenced by the Deuterocanon [5 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
“But given their early composition, their popularity with the Jewish people, the many allusions, parallels, and ideas in the New Testament …their use by the early church fathers, and their varied inclusion in the best Greek codices of the Bible (such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) one can safely assume that they could be found in the general LXX tradition of the first century A.D. and thus were known to Greek-speaking Christians and the writers of the New Testament.” Patzia, p. 32 (Church Fathers Who Accepted or Rejected the Deuterocanon as Scripture)



III. Jews of the Diaspora and the Holy Land knew of and used the Deuterocanon before, during, and after the life of Christ. [6 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
“But given their early composition, their popularity with the Jewish people, the many allusions, parallels, and ideas in the New Testament … their use by the early church fathers, and their varied inclusion in the best Greek codices of the Bible (such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) one can safely assume that they could be found in the general LXX tradition of the first century A.D. and thus were known to Greek-speaking Christians and the writers of the New Testament.” Patzia, p. 32



IV. Persecuted Jews and Christians Drew Strength from the Deuterocanon's Stories of Triumph Over Persecution [7 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
“For the Jews who lived in the century before Christ and for the Jews and Christians who lived in the first centuries after Christ, these books were enormously important. Alongside the writings of the Old Testament, these texts molded the thinking of these centuries. The influenced the writers of the New Testament, and many of these books provided nourishment for the minds of persecuted Christians in the first four centuries, thereby assisting them to form their own view of suffering and martyrdom, as well as other issues related to them.” Ton, p 49.



V. All the Early Vernacular Bibles Contained the Deuterocanon [8 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
“None of the major Bible translations that emerged during the German, Swiss, or English reformations produced a Bible of simply 66 books. It is true that beyond the 66 books the other 7 (or more) were viewed as deuterocanonical, hence the term apocrypha, but nonetheless, they were still seen as having some authority." Witherington

  1. Wycliffe’s Bible
    “In addition, Wycliffe included not only what came to be called the Apocrypha, he threw in 2 Esdras and the second-century work Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans as a bonus." Witherington.

  2. The Great Bible
    “[T]he first authorized English translation of the Bible...the ‘Great Bible’ of 1539, authorized by Henry VIII. Henry wanted this Bible read in all the Anglican churches, and Miles Coverdale produced the translation. Coverdale simply cribbed from Tyndale’s version with a few objectionable features removed, and he completed Tyndale’s translation of the Old Testament plus the Apocrypha." Witherington

  3. The Geneva Bible
    “The Geneva Bible had more vivid and vigorous language and became quickly more popular than the Great Bible. It was the Bible of choice for William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Bunyan, John Donne, and the pilgrims when they came to New England. It, not the KJV, was the Bible that accompanied them on the Mayflower...The Geneva Bible was popular not only because it was mass produced for the general public but also because it had annotations, study guides, cross-references with relevant verses elsewhere in the Bible, and introductions to each book summarizing content, maps, tables, illustrations, and even indices. In short, it was the first study Bible in English." Witherington

  4. The KJV
    Part of the KJV for 214 years. “In fact, the King James Bible of 1611 also incorporated the Apocrypha, including the Story of Susanna, the History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon (both additions to Daniel), and the Prayer of Manasseh… So when and where does the Protestant Bible of 66 books show up? This practice was not standardized until 1825 when the British and Foreign Bible Society, in essence, threw down the gauntlet and said, ‘These 66 books and no others.’ But this was not the Bible of Luther, Calvin, Knox, or even the Wesleys, who used the Authorized Version." Witherington



VI. Early Protestantism's Leading Lights, while rejecting the Deuterocanon as Scripture, valued the books as helpful aides in Christian Living [9 ↜ ⇑ ↝]

  1. Martin Luther:
    “Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” (Luther didn't think very highly of some of the New Testament books we use today.)

  2. John Calvin
    “I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed,...Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine.” John Calvin, Antidote, Response to the 1586 Council of Trent.

    Footnote to Calvin’s Recommended Reading List
    “It is certain from the Prophet Baruch, (4:7,) that “those things that are sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to devils” (Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 96:5.) In that passage in the writings of the Prophet, the Greek translation, which was at that time in common use, has δαιμόνια — demons, and this is its common use in Scripture. How much more likely is it then, that Paul borrowed what he says from the Prophet.” Calvin was making another point here-- obscured by my trimming his quote--but along the way to making his point, Calvin is lending credibility to Baruch.

    Incidentally, Calvin is wrong in asserting that the Deuterocanon's acceptance is done against the consent of the primitive Church. Calvin quotes the writers who agree with him and ignores the many writers who quoted the Deuterocanon in the same manner they quoted the Old and New Testament.He also ignores the 397 Council of Carthage.

  3. WesleyJohn Wesley
    Wesley's Journal Records His Use of the Deuterocanon





VII. 75% of the World's Professing Christians Accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture [10 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches make up about 75% of the world’s professing Christians. These two churches ...


VIII. The Deuterocanon Connects Many Dots Between the Old and New Testaments, and Between the New Testament and the Early Church [11 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
When I compared many of the writings of the Early Church to the Old and New Testament, I frequently found myself wondering, “How could they produce these writings using the Hebrew Old Testament and New Testament as source material?” As I read the Apocrypha, things fell into place. In my opinion, I don’t think you can fully understand the New Testament, the Early Church, and the connection between the Old and New Testaments without familiarizing yourself with the Apocrypha. You don’t have to believe they’re Scripture to learn from them.



The Deuterocanon's Rejection

The Protestant Rejection of the Deuterocanon [12 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
“Protestants had long treated the extra books as, at best, deuterocanonical. Some had even called them non-canonical, and there were some precedents for printing a Bible without these books. For example, there was a minority edition of the Great Bible from after 1549 that did not include the Apocrypha, and a 1575 edition of the Bishop’s Bible also excluded those books. The 1599 and 1640 printings of the Geneva Bible left them out as well. But in any event, these books had not been treated as canonical by many Protestants.” Witherington

An important reason for Protestants rejecting the Deuterocanonical works is that some Deuterocanonical works support the Catholic doctrines of purgatory and praying for the dead (The dead who are in purgatory; Roman Catholics do not believe you can pray a person out of Hell).

The Jewish Rejection of the Deuterocanon [13 ↜ ⇑ ↝]

  1. 1st Century AD
    The Jews first reject the Deuterocanon as a byproduct of rejecting the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Scriptures so powerfully used by early Christians to prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

  2. 6th - 10th Century
    The Jews produce the Masoretic text, the definitive Jewish Bible. Early Protestants, perhaps influenced by Hebraic veritas, follow the Jewish lead and adopt the Jewish Scriptures as the Christian Old Testament. It appears ironic that Christians adopted a text produced by those who had adamantly rejected Christ and Christianity. (I have heard one modern opponent of the Deuterocanon citing Romans 3:2 "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." as Scriptural support for Hebraic veritas, i.e., that we should submit to the Jewish view of the Scriptures.)

Is the Deuterocanon Canonical?

The Debate About the Deteurocanon Has Been Ongoing for 1900 Years. [14 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Non-Canonical Prophecy – In a Previous Bible Study We Made the Case for Modern Day Prophecy Based on Biblical References to Non-Canonical Prophecy… [15 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Was the Deuterocanon ”Inspired”? [16 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
I think anyone reading the New Testament and the Deuterocanon can’t help but see the many connections between them. My CURRENT opinion is that the Deuterocanonical books were inspired, but not canonical, i.e., they were suitable only for a particular time and place. I believe God used the Apocrypha to introduce topics into Jewish culture and conversation throughout Israel and the Diaspora that Jesus later clarified inspirationally and canonically.


Layperson & Scholarly Debate Concerning the Deuterocanon [17 ↜ ⇑ ↝]

Scholars Layperson
  • Arguments based on Latin, Greek, and Hebrew documents
  • Arguments using vast amounts of early Jewish and church writings in their original languages
  • Scholarly books not even in print anymore
Arguments that can be understood by the average layperson

We will start with the scholarly arguments, then move down to the layperson arguments.



Inept and Even Dishonest Debate [18 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Thomas AquinasThomas Aquinas was a master of fair and honest debate. In his Summa Theologica, he always preceded his arguments with the arguments of those holding his view followed by an honest and thorough summation of his opponent's arguments. Aquinas didn't prop up strawman or conceal facts. So far, I have not seen Aquinas's methodology at either web sites or on YouTube videos debating the Deuterocanon.



What disturbs me about the debate that I see is...
In the slides that follow, I am not going to champion or discredit the Deuterocanon. Instead, I am going to try to present how complicated the situation becomes from inept and even dishonest debate.

Conviction But Not Certainty

Fact 1: Why We Can Have Conviction But Not Certainty [19 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Fact 1. No document from before the time of Jesus contains a list of the books considered canonical by the Jews. We can only speculate about which books the 1st century Jews considered to be the Scriptural canon. Look at the dates for each document listed on the right. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html)

Canon Lists


Fact 2: Why We Can Have Conviction But Not Certainty [20 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Fact 2. We have no conclusive evidence 1st Century Jews believed in a closed canon.

  1. Look at the New Testament: many Jews considered John and Jesus to be prophets. Doesn't this belief in prophets contain the idea that John or Jesus could write books to be added to the prophetical books the Jews already had? In other words, their listeners did not consider the canon closed? "[T]he Gospels circulated without debate or controversy among those Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah even though they were written hundreds of years after the time of Ezra. They contain no apologies or defenses explaining how they could be prophetic when all prophetic writing had ceased hundreds of years earlier. There does not appear to be any awareness, even in New Testament books of later composition, of any protest on the part of the Jews against these writings because of the time-limited theory. This is because the time-limited theory was a development in rabbinical Judiasm well after the apostolic period." Michuta

  2. At the end of the 1st Century or beginning of the 2nd Century AD, the Jewish historian Josephus mentions 22 books that form the Old Testament canon in his treatise Against Apion, Book 1, Chapter 8:

    "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, [The Jews conflated books, so that the 12 minor prophets were one book, I and II Kings were one book, and so on] which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death...the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books...The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life." Flavius Josephus

    1. Though the rabbinical schools took up the cry later, Josephus is the first person on record to speak of a closed Hebrew canon.
    2. Against Apion appears 5 to 7 decades after Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and during the period of controversy when Jews were rejecting the Septuagint because of its use by and identification with Christians.
    3. No one had died and left Josphesus in charge of fixing the Old Testament canon if his intent was to weigh in on the Septuagint controversy and fix the limits of the Hebrew canon.
    4. If Josephus was merely reporting what he believed to be the facts, he was in disagreement with other prominent Jews: "We have already seen above that that Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo held that prophetic literature was still being written during his own time. The grandson of Sirach also believed that he was translating a book that was inspired by God and he expected it to be part of the canonical Scriptures. Yet, Sirach was penned hundreds of years after the time when all inspired writing is said to have ceased!" Michuta


Fact 3: Why We Can Have Conviction But Not Certainty [21 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Fact 3. The New Testament contains genealogies for Jesus, but it does not contain a list of the books considered canonical by Jesus, the Apostles, and the New Testament writers. Again, we can only speculate about which books Jesus and the New Testament writers considered to be the Scriptural canon.


Fact 4: Why We Can Have Conviction But Not Certainty [22 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Fact 4. Deuterocanonical deniers put forward that Jesus never quotes the Deuterocanonical books: however ...


Fact 5: Why We Can Have Conviction But Not Certainty [23 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Fact 5. Advocates for the Dueterocanon point out that Hebrews 11:35 almost certainly refers to 2 Maccabees 7:1-29 ..."Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection."

Opponents of the Deuterocanon point out there is no accompanying “It is written," for this reference, there are three problems with using this standard:

  1. Some old Testament books are either never cited, or are cited but not endorsed with an "It is written." Does that mean these uncited or unendorsed OT books are NOT Scripture?

  2. On the other hand, quoting a book proves nothing. "However, even if this [Hebrews 11:35b] is a reference to the apocrypha [2 Maccabees 7:1-29], by no means is the author of Hebrews implying divine authority to Maccabees...The New Testament authors also draw from works other than the Holy Scriptures. For example, the apostle Paul quotes pagan poets and writers (1 Corinthians 15:33; Acts 17:28); Jude quotes from the Jewish apocryphal books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses." Mizzi

    See Appendix for     a table elaborating Mizzi's point.

  3. Some of the verses listed in the Appendix table contain something akin to an "It is written" endorsement. If the "It is written" endorsement proves something is Scripture, doesn't that imply we must be missing books from our Old Testament?

The Early Church Fathers on the Deuterocanon [24 ↜ ⇑ ↝]

Canonical (Quoted as Scripture) Helpful, But NOT Canonical
  • Barnabas (Epistle of Barnabas)
  • Justin Martyr
  • Clement of Alexandria
  • Tertullian
  • Cyprian of Carthage
  • Eusebius
  • Methodius
  • Hillary of Poitiers
  • Athanasius
  • Irenaeus
  • Augustine
  • Origen
  • Cyril of Jerusalem
  • Jerome
  • Ruffinius


The Early (Pre-Catholic) Church And the Deuterocanon [25 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Third Council of Carthage, 397
(Which may have been just a reaffirmation of the Ecumenical Council of Hippo, 393)
 Sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae hae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Naue, Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quator, Paralipomenon libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque, libri duodecim prophetarum, Jesaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo. "The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [I, II Samuel; I, II Kings], two books of Paraleipomena [I, II Chronicles], Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus], the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah [Including Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah], Ezechiel, Daniel [Additions], Tobit, Judith, Esther [Additions], two books of Esdras [Ezra], two books of the Maccabees."

Evangelical Objections to the Deuterocanon

Blackwell's Reasons for Rejecting the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) [26 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
Don BlackwellWorld Video Bible School’s Don Blackwell offers an extended and strong, though uneven, case for why the Deuterocanon does not belong in the Bible. (Blackwell’s target seems not so much the Deuterocanon as the Catholic Church.) Blackwell, who comes across as an earnest and well-intentioned evangelical, makes some very strong arguments, but some of his reasoning is circular and some of his arguments invite rebuttal because he ignores facts.

For instance, the Deuterocanon can’t be inspired because these books appeared during the “Silent Period” between the two testaments when no prophet was speaking. Blackwell is plugging the “Silent Period” into the evidence slot when it is not evidence but a still unproven conclusion. I have summarized and seconded/rebutted some of Blackwell’s arguments below.



The Jews Did Not Recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture (A) [27 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
The Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. The most damaging counter to this point should be obvious; Jews don’t recognize the New Testament or the Septuagint as Scripture either. Blackwell’s logic would be weak here even if his proposition were true, but his proposition is not true.


The Jews Did Not Recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture (B) [28 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
The Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. While Josephus and the later rabbinical writers of the Talmud rejected the Deuterocanon, large numbers of the common Jewish people had read these books, had been influenced by these books, and had considered these books inspired Scripture.


The Jews Did Not Recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture (C) [29 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
Jesus did not recognize the Apocrypha as being Scripture ...

“He told them, ’These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Luke 24:44		 Jesus did not include the Deuterocanon in this list of the Scriptures about Him. This does lend support to Blackwell’s thesis.


Some Translation Committees Omitted These Books [30 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
”Some translation committees did not translate it [the Deuterocanon] at all…The American Standard Version, The New American Standard Version, and The New King James Version.” Other translation committees did translate them …Common English Bible, Douay-Rheims 1899, Good News Translation, New American Bible Revised, New Revised Standard Version (All 4 Versions), Orthodox Study Bible, Revised Standard Version (2 Versions), and Wycliffe Bible

Arguing that these other translations are Catholic or Orthodox translations is easily refuted by saying the ASV, NASV, NKJV, and others are Protestant translations.


Jesus Did Not Recognize the Apocrypha As Scripture [31 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT

Jesus did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture....

“So all the righteous blood shed on the earth will be charged to you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah.” Mt 23:35

Blackwell argues that including only the martyrs from Abel in Genesis to the Zechariah in II Chronicles OR the minor prophet Zechariah, excludes the Apocryphal martyrs, thereby proving his case.

But the minor prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, was not  murdered, and the Zechariah murdered in II Chron 24:20-21 is the son of Joiada, not Berechiah. Since we don’t have a clear idea of who Jesus is talking about, Blackwell can't support his point regarding Zechariah's martyrdom.

The New Testament Nowhere Validates the Apocrypha [32 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
The New Testament nowhere validates the Apocrypha.

Sherlock DogJesus explicitly attacked the Oral Law but never challenged the Apocrypha. (The dog that didn't bark cropping up again.)

In John 10:22-23, Jesus is in the Temple during the Feast of Dedication/Feast of Lights/Hannukah. This feast was established in I Maccabees 4:58-59 to celebrate the cleansing and rededication of the Temple after its defilement by Antiochus Epiphanes. Jesus celebrated this Feast without condemning its origins. "58 Thus was there very great gladness among the people, for that the reproach of the heathen was put away. 59 Moreover Judas and his brethren with the whole congregation of Israel ordained, that the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year by the space of eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, with mirth and gladness."


The New Testament Nowhere Validates the Apocrypha [33 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
The New Testament nowhere validates the Apocrypha. "Though the Apocryphal books are never quoted, they contain ideas that bridge the Old and New Testament. Besides giving valuable historical background material, the books of the Apocrypha show the development of some important concepts found in the New Testament, such as Demons, resurrection & rewards, the kingdom of God, the Son of Man.” Patzia, p. 34


The Writer of Ecclesiasticus Admits Error [34 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT

Blackwell quotes the author’s admission of fallibility in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus as evidence that the author himself is admitting that he is not offering up the inspired, infallible Word of God:

“Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret."

 Blackwell does not finish the quote, which reveals Sirach is in fact talking about how a translation into a second language is not always as powerful as the original language. “For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.”


Tobit Teaches Salvation By Works, Specifically Almsgiving [35 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
Blackwell claims Tobit 12:9 teach us that alms (good works) save us. “9 For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.” The OT and NT has many verses that –when taken alone--suggest salvation is earned.
  • Nehemiah’s plea, Neh 5:19
  • Lazarus and the rich man in Hell
  • Matthew 25’s judgment of the sheep and goats
  • James 2
  • Sell your possessions and give to the poor to get treasure in heaven, Luke 12:33


Wisdom of Solomon Refutes Ex Nihilo Creation [36 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
Apocryphal Solomon refutes Genesis 1:1 by claiming God created the world out of formless matter and not ex nihilo. “17 For your all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter,” Wisdom 11:15-17 Apocryphal Solomon could be alluding to Genesis 1:2, where God created this present world from its original formless and void state. The ex nihilio contention about an original matterless state is Blackwell's inference.


Wisdom of Solomon Teaches the Pre-Existence of the Human Soul [37 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
Blackwell says that Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 teach the pre-existence of the human soul. “19 As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; 20 or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.“ The author appears to be talking about the personification of Wisdom, not a flesh and blood human being.


Taking Action On Behalf of the Dead Is Unbiblical [38 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT

Blackwell contends that taking action on behalf of the dead is completely unbiblical:

“43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.” II Maccabees 12:43-45

Should we then remove I Corinthians from the canon? "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” I Cor 15:29


The Book of Tobit Teaches That Angels Have Families [39 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
Blackwell claims this passage erroneously teaches angels, who neither marry or are given in marriage, have families. "11 Then Tobit said to him [the disguised angel Raphael] , "Brother, of what family are you and from what tribe? Tell me, brother." 12 He replied, "Why do you need to know my tribe?" But Tobit said, "I want to be sure, brother, whose son you are and what your name is." 13 He replied, ‘I am Azariah, the son of the great Hananiah, one of your relatives.’” Tobit 5:11-13 People who accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) are troubled by this passage, but not because they believe it teaches angels have families. They find the passage troubling because the angel Raphael is lying to Tobit about having a family.


The Book of Judith Praises a Sin that God Condemned [40 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
Blackwell contends the book of Judith praises a sin that God condemned. “2 O Lord God of my ancestor Simeon, to whom you gave a sword to take revenge on those strangers who had torn off a virgin's clothing to defile her, and exposed her thighs to put her to shame, and polluted her womb to disgrace her; for you said, "It shall not be done'—yet they did it; 3 so you gave up their rulers to be killed, and their bed, which was ashamed of the deceit they had practiced, was stained with blood, and you struck down slaves along with princes, and princes on their thrones.” Judith 9:2-9 Judith commends Simeon for avenging his sister by slaughtering the men who had defiled Dina. Jacob condemned Simeon and Levi and his other plundering sons because it created problems for him with his neighbors, not because he thought God was offended.
Double-Check This
Blackwell also rightly contends that Judith fails the test of canonicity on its historical inaccuracies. We will look at those when we study Judith.


The Book of Tobit Legitamizes Magical Practices [41 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
Blackwell accuses the book of Tobit of advocating magic by burning fish innards to drive away demons. “8 He replied, ‘As for the fish's heart and liver, you must burn them to make a smoke in the presence of a man or woman afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, and every affliction will flee away and never remain with that person any longer. 9 And as for the gall, anoint a person's eyes where white films have appeared on them; blow upon them, upon the white films, and the eyes will be healed.” Tobit 6:1-7 In all fairness,
  • Was Jacob practicing magic when he set up stakes to get spotted goats? (Gen 30)
  • Was Isaiah practicing magic when he told Hezekiah to pound his arrows on the floor? (II Kings 13)
  • Was Jesus practicing magic when he used muddy spittle to heal the blind? (John 9)


II Maccabees Praises Suicide As A Manly Act [42 ↜ ⇑ ↝]
POINT COUNTERPOINT
2 Maccabees 14:41-43 cannot be Biblical because it praises suicide as a manly act. “41 When the mob was about to take the tower, forcing open the door of the courtyard, they commanded that the door be set on fire. Razis was surrounded on every side, so he fell on his own sword. 42 He wanted to die bravely rather than fall into the hands of sinners and suffer outrages unworthy of his own high birth. Again, in all fairness,
  • “Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and kill me with it! Otherwise, these uncircumcised men will come and kill me or torture me.” But his armor-bearer refused because he was terrified. So Saul took the sword and impaled himself on it.”  I Sam 31:4
  • “a woman dropped an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head and cracked his skull. 54 He quickly cried out to the servant who carried his armor, “Draw your sword and kill me. Don’t let it be said of me, ‘A woman killed him.’” So his servant stabbed him, and he died.” Judges 9:53

Sources

Appendix

This table elaborates on Mizzi's point. (This is my first ever Wikipedia citation in this history series.)

Pagan Authors Meander, Epimenides, Aratus
Non-Canonical Books Quoted or Alluded To Book of Enoch (Jude 1:4, 1:6, 1:13, 1:14–15, [22], 2 Peter 2:4; 3:13,[23][24] and John 7:38 [25])
Book of Jasher (2 Timothy 3:8, 2 Samuel 1:18, Joshua 10:13[1])
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16 "read the epistle from Laodicea")
Life of Adam and Eve (2 Corinthians 11:14 "Satan as an angel of light", 12:2 "Third Heaven")[26]
A lost section of the Assumption of Moses (2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 9 "Michael.. body of Moses")
Martyrdom of Isaiah (Hebrews 11:37 "they were sawn in two")
Paul's letter to the Corinthians before 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote to you in my letter...")
An unknown messianic prophecy possibly from a non-canonical source, quoted in Matthew 2:23 that states "...he will be called a Nazorian." ("ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται"). "Nazorian" is typically rendered as "Nazarene" ("from Nazareth"), as in Acts 24:5, where Christians are referred to as "the sect of the Nazorians/Nazarenes" ("τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως"). This is speculated to be a vague allusion to a quote by Samson in Judges 13:5 that uses a similar-sounding word: "the child shall be a Nazirite" (ναζιρ)
An unknown version of Genesis (possibly a targum, midrash or other commentary), quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45, as a reference to Christ's being "the Last Adam who became a life-giving spirit" (οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται· Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν· ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν.). It has been speculated that Paul is simply paraphrasing Genesis 2:7, but there is no clear indication that this is not a complete quote.
An unknown text quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9, suggested by Origen to be a lost apocryphal book [27]: "But as it is written, 'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined the things that God has prepared for those who love him." This may also be an allusion to the similar Isaiah 64:4, "For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear, nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him.'"[28].
An unknown messianic prophecy, possibly from a non-canonical source, quoted in Luke 24:46, speculated to be a vague allusion to Hosea 6:2 [29]: "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day."
An unknown messianic prophecy, possibly from a non-canonical source, quoted in Mark 9:12, speculated to be a vague allusion to Isaiah 53: "and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought."

Return to Where You Were