deuterocanonicals

[nicholas]

To all,

It was not until 1519 that there arose a huge uncalled-for controversy about how many books the Bible contains. Is it 73, as Catholics claim, or 66, as Protestants hold? In other words, do the books of Tobit, Judith, 1+2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, indeed belong to the Bible, or are they not inspired and should not be contained therefore in the Sacred Scriptures? These disputed books are referred to as the "deutero-canonical books" by Catholics, and as the "apocryphal books" by Protestants.

The question is a relevant one, one that divides Catholics and Protestants still to a great extent. Since Protestantism is based on Sola Scriptura, "Scripture alone," the issue about the deuterocanon is extremely significant since it puts into question the very essence of Scripture.

In a brief way, now, let me present the Protestant position by summarizing their main points:

1. The Jews themselves only have 39 books in their Old Testament, that is without the deuterocanonicals.

2. The Council of Trent added the 7 deuterocanonical books to the Bible in 1546.

3. Jesus never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, so they aren't inspired.

Before I go off into answering their assertions, let me point out that one of the best books to consult in defense of the Catholic position here is Mark. P. Shea, By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition (Huntington, IL: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996). Former Protestant Mark Shea deals with all the issues involving biblical authority, and he explains how he could not remain a Protestant after he had researched the origins and essence of the Bible, and especially the epistemological problems revolving around it, that is, the "How do I know?" questions.

To answer the Protestant assertions:

In response to #1.

It is true that ever since 90 AD., the majority of Jews has not accepted the deuterocanonical books as inspired. Ergo, concludes the Protestant, they are not inspired and thus not Scripture, since "the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2).

We must, however, note that the Jews did not define a canon of their Scriptures until 90 AD., that is after the coming of the Messiah. In 90 AD., the Jews were no longer the true religion, since they had rejected the Messiah. Ever since Pentecost, the Church of Jesus, the Catholic Church, was the institution endowed with all authority (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18; Ephesians 3:10; Acts 15). Therefore, what the Jews may or may not have decided in a council after Christ, in 90 AD., is irrelevant. They had lost their status as the true religion when they rejected Jesus Christ. It has been the Catholic Church, from Pentecost on, which is the true and real "Jewish Church," that is the fulfillment and flower of Judaism, that which Judaism was meant to be.

Why is it that the Jews decided on considering only 39 books inspired? Because they knew that the Christians, their arch-enemies, were using the Greek version of the Scriptures (which included the deuterocanonical books!!), and they wanted to be sure to distinguish themselves clearly from the Christians. They wanted their own identity back. Besides, the deuterocanon contains many Christian prophecies and allusions to the New Testament, something the Jews could not stand at all! A perfect example would be Wisdom 2:10-24, which is the clearest prophecy about Jesus' passion in the entire Scriptures. The Jews, however, were anti-Christian! Indeed, the first Christians did use the deuterocanonical books. Proof of this can be found in art versions of the Scriptures (Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic) as well as by looking at early Church liturgy.

Why, then, would or should we trust an institution that put curses on Christians and repudiated the Messiah and his liberating teachings, in order to know what belongs in the Bible? It makes no sense. Furthermore, if we trust the Jews concerning the Scriptural canon, we must be consistent, and thus we should also throw out all the books of the New Testament, since the Jews believe the New Testament has not been written yet (contains zero books therefore). Yet no Protestant does that. Indeed, Protestants want it both ways. They want to have only 39 books in the Old Testament (relying on the Jews for that decision), but yet also wish to have their 27 New Testament books (NOT relying on the Jews this time). Why this inconsistency?

In response to the second objection of Protestants.

This is my favorite, because it makes so little sense. Let us presume that the charge is true. The Council of Trent added the 7 disputed books in 1546. How, then, could Martin Luther reject those 7 books as early as 1519? It was in that year that Luther had a debate with J. Maier Eck about purgatory. When confronted with 2 Maccabees 12:46 as a proof passage, Luther responded by saying that this book was not Scripture. This was fairly difficult for him to say if the book did not get added until 1546.

What really happened was that ever since the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century AD, the Christian faithful were taught that the deuterocanonical books are Scripture, and they were used as such. It was not, however, till 1546 that these books were solemnly and dogmatically defined as belonging to the canon, because it was not until then that the inspiration of those books was called into question. And no doctrine is defined till called into question.

Why, though, did Martin Luther deny the inspiration of the deuterocanon? Because the 7 disputed books contain lots of scriptural proof for Catholic doctrine, especially purgatory and almsgiving/penance. This Luther did not like. So he decided it be better to side with the Jews concerning the canon, so as to justify his breaking with Church teaching concerning certain doctrines. What Luther did, then, was simply cowardly. When given biblical proof for a doctrine he disagreed with, he asserted that, "Well, these books shouldn't be in the Bible." But that's easy. Someone could argue that the Virgin Birth of Jesus is not in the Bible. When confronted with passages from Matthew and Luke, the person could just say, "Yeah, well, those books don't belong in the Bible, though." This gets us nowhere.

Finally, a response to the third objection of Evangelicals. Their position is basically that if Jesus didn't quote directly from the deuterocanonical books, they aren't inspired. That charge, though, is insane. First of all, Jesus did not even quote from all of the 39 Old Testament books Protestants considered inspired, either! It is true he quoted from most of them, but that is not enough. "Most" won't do. What about those he did not quote, such as Ruth, Song of Songs, etc.? Are they not inspired? Secondly, we do not know whether Jesus might indeed have quoted from the deuterocanon, since not all revelation is written down in the Bible (John 21:25). Thirdly, quotation from a book does not imply its inspiration. In Hebrews 11:36, for example, the author alludes to the Ascension of Isaiah 5:1-14. In Jude 9, we are told that Archangel Michael had a dispute with Satan over the body of Moses. This dispute is not found in the Old Testament, but in the Assumption of Moses, which is not inspired. The mere alluding to a book or quotation thereof simply does not make a book more or less God-breathed. An even more important aspect is that it is simply not true to say that the deuterocanonicals are never quoted or alluded to in the New Testament. Sirach 5:13-14 matches with James 1:19, Wisdom 2:12-20 with Matthew 27:41-43, and 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 with John 10:22-36.

There is really no reason to reject the 7 disputed books. Protestants accept the 27 books of the New Testament which were defined by the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Florence, and Trent, and yet not the 46 books of the Old Testament defined by the same councils. Why not? Why this inconsistency?

What I have presented in this brief essay is history, it is fact. It is not merely my opinion. There is no reason to reject the deuterocanonical books as un-inspired. It was simply a turn Martin Luther had to take to justify his break-off from a 1500-year-old Church tradition.

Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

Saint Jerome, pray for us.

Article II

Deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) Books

Often people ask why Catholics use the Deuterocanonical books, and many Protestants do not. For the most part there is nothing in the Deuterocanonical books that would separate different forms of Christianity, except for two passages. In 2 Maccabees chapter 12, they pray for the souls of the dead. This passage is significant in that it contradicts justification by faith alone, and supports the idea of purgatory. Another point is in Tobit 12:12 where the angel Raphael presents Tobit's and Sarah's prayers to God. This is an example of intercessory prayer instead of praying "direct to God".

The Old Testament Before Christ

In popular history the earliest known canon of old testament books is known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by seventy (hence Septuagint, commonly abbreviated LXX) scholars for Alexander's great library in Egypt around the year 300 BC. Supposedly, the scholars were commissioned by Alexander the Great to collect the writings of all the major religions of the time. The Septuagint contains the Old Testament books shared by all Christians along with the Deuterocanonical books used by Catholics, traditional Protestants , and many Orthodox Churches.

In "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary" (NJBC) the authors suggest a more plausible history regarding the Septuagint arguing that the existence of the seventy seems unlikely, and it is more likely that the books were collected and translated over time. Other sources give different dates as well, but it is generally agreed the translation was complete by 100 BC.

Scripture During Jesus' Time

Much of the debate today centers on whether Jesus accepted the Septuagint as scripture. In the Gospels Jesus never quotes the Septuagint directly. This does not condemn the Deuterocanonical books since there are many other Old Testament (OT) books Jesus did not quote either. No Christian Church accepts only those OT books quoted by Jesus. Old Testament books not quoted by Jesus are still considered scripture. So what did Jesus mean when he refers to scriptures? This seems to be the more compelling question because apparently there was no closed canon of scripture in Jesus' time.

In The NJBC the authors maintain that there was no clear canon of scripture at the time of Christ. After reviewing the data they state "The conclusion that there was no rigidly closed canon in Judaism in the 1st or 2nd centuries AD means that when the church was in its formation period and was using the sacred books of the Jews, there was no closed canon for the church to adopt" [p. 1041] Part of the evidence they present is the existence of Deuterocanonical books in the Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea scrolls). In these scrolls were found parts of three Deuterocanonical texts giving the impression that there was very little distinction between a closed canon and all other texts. They note that both "scriptural" texts and secular texts are included together, with no apparent distinction.

They also dispel any notion that Jews in Jerusalem had a different canon than Jews elsewhere. "The thesis that the Jews in Alexandria had a different theory of inspiration from the theory shared by the Jews in Jerusalem is gratuitous" [p 1041]

Jamnia

Jamnia, (aka Jabneel) was a city about 12 miles south of Judah near the present day city of Yebna. In the late first century, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, it became a seat of Jewish learning. According to popular history a council was held in Jamnia that determined the canon of the Old Testament. The dates for this council range from 75 AD to 100 AD depending on the reference used. In The NJBC the authors maintain that there never was a council at Jamnia, but instead it was a well respected rabbinical school. "There is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jamnia." (p 1040).

The Deuterocanonical Books in the Early Church

"In the first century the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in the words of the Lord, which long circulated in oral tradition, as is apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians." ("The Early Church" Henry Chadwick p 42)

The LXX version was also used by the authors of the New Testament. Most scholars date the New Testament books to various dates between 75 AD and about 150 AD depending on the book. The authors of scripture, writing in Greek, cite the Septuagint version Old Testament books since the Septuagint was in Greek.

As the Christian Church grew and started separating from Judaism, the Jews also began to codify a set of books that where inspired. (Either in response to Christianity or to divisions between the different Jewish schools.) In the NJBC they assert that the discussions with early Christians also contributed to the decisions of what OT books constituted scripture. In "The Early Church" Henry Chadwick points out that it was only after Christian appeals to the Septuagint became embarrassing that more literal (to the Hebrew) translations became favored by the Greek synagogue (p 12). Some rabbis even denounced the making of the Septuagint as a sin like the worship of the golden calf!

It was in these early years of Church formation that the two distinct Old Testaments were codified. The Jews did not have access to the entire LXX texts in original Hebrew; using this as a basis, they rejected the Deuterocanonical books as not being inspired.

Jerome Versus Augustine

Until the 4th century most Christians used the LXX as the basis for the OT. Of course there was a considerable amount of literature floating around that was also considered scripture and the early Church councils dealt to a large degree with this issue. What exactly constituted scripture?

Surprisingly Saint Jerome, whose Latin vulgate translation became the official translation of the Catholic Church, did not want to include the Deuterocanonical books in the translation. Jerome lived in Palestine and was aware of the Hebrew canon that had developed. His contemporary Saint Augustine arguing from tradition, wanted them included in new vulgate translation. After conferring with Pope Damasus and realizing most people sided with Augustine, Jerome included the Deuterocanonical books in his translation. (It is important to note that many in Rome were opposed to anything Jerome did -- he was not well liked in the ancient capital.)

Jerome's vulgate, although not the only translation in the Church, was widely regarded and used in the Western world. The Septuagint along with Greek texts was widely used in the Eastern Church.

So What Happened?

For many years throughout Christendom the bible, with the Septuagint, was used. Martin Luther's break from Catholicism and the development of the idea of "faith alone" as the basis for salvation gave the reformers a chance to question books in the bible that did not support this view. The reformers particulary attacked Hebrews, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical books. Since the New Testament books had already been agreed upon at the council at Carthage in 395AD, the idea of removing Hebrews and Revelation from the bible was not widely embraced. The Deuterocanonicals, however, did not fare so well. Some reformation churches included them in scripture and others did not. Finally the Church was forced to formally recognized what books had been traditionally used. This was done at the council of Trent, and this list, based on traditional Christian teaching is the list of books used by Catholic today.

[nicholas]

To all,

References in New Testament Order

Matthew

Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26

Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15

Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1

Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8

Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12

Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24

Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14

Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4

Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60

Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2

Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1

Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s

Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10

Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11

Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15

Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15

Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6

Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37

Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3

Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19

Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17

Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17

Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10

Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17

Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17

Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1

Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19

Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23

Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s

Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s

Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s

Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3

Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15

Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s

Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13

Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21

Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22

Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10

Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15

Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15

Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2

Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4

Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54

Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17

Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28

Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17

Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35

Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2

Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46

Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13

Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20

Top

Mark

Mark 1:15 Tobit 14:5

Mark 4:5 Sirach 40:15

Mark 4:11 Wisdom 2:22

Mark 5:34 Judith 8:35

Mark 6:49 Wisdom 17:15

Mark 8:37 Sirach 26:14

Mark 9:31 Sirach 2:18

Mark 9:48 Judith 16:17

Mark 10:18 Sirach 4:1

Mark 14:34 Sirach 37:2

Mark 15:29 Wisdom 2:17s

Top

Luke

Luke 1:17 Sirach 48:10

Luke 1:19 Tobit 12:15

Luke 1:42 Judith 13:18

Luke 1:52 Sirach 10:14

Luke 2:29 Tobit 11:9

Luke 2:37 Judith 8:6

Luke 6:35 Wisdom 15:1

Luke 7:22 Sirach 48:5

Luke 9:8 Sirach 48:10

Luke 10:17 Tobit 7:17

Luke 10:19 Sirach 11:19

Luke 10:21 Sirach 51:1

Luke 12:19 Tobit 7:10

Luke 12:20 Wisdom 15:8

Luke 13:25 Tobit 14:4

Luke 13:27 1 Maccabees 3:6

Luke 13:29 Baruch 4:37

Luke 14:13 Tobit 2:2

Luke 15:12 1 Maccabees 10:29 [30]

Luke 15:12 Tobit 3:17

Luke 18:7 Sirach 35:22

Luke 19:44 Wisdom 3:7

Luke 21:24 Tobit 14:5

Luke 21:24 Sirach 28:18

Luke 21:25 Wisdom 5:22

Luke 24:4 2 Maccabees 3:26

Luke 24:31 2 Maccabees 3:34

Luke 24:50 Sirach 50:20s

Luke 24:53 Sirach 50:22

Top

John

John 1:3 Wisdom 9:1

John 3:8 Sirach 16:21

John 3:12 Wisdom 9:16

John 3:12 Wisdom 18:15s

John 3:13 Baruch 3:29

John 3:28 1 Maccabees 9:39

John 3:32 Tobit 4:6

John 4:9 Sirach 50:25s

John 4:48 Wisdom 8:8

John 5:18 Wisdom 2:16

John 6:35 Sirach 24:21

John 7:38 Sirach 24:40, 43[30s]

John 8:44 Wisdom 2:24

John 8:53 Sirach 44:19

John 10:20 Wisdom 5:4

John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59

John 14:15 Wisdom 6:18

John 15:9s Wisdom 3:9

John 17:3 Wisdom 15:3

John 20:22 Wisdom 15:11

Top

Acts

Acts 1:10 2 Maccabees 3:26

Acts 1:18 Wisdom 4:19

Acts 2:4 Sirach 48:12

Acts 2:11 Sirach 36:7

Acts 2:39 Sirach 24:32

Acts 4:24 Judith 9:12

Acts 5:2 2 Maccabees 4:32

Acts 5:12 1 Maccabees 12:6

Acts 5:21 2 Maccabees 1:10

Acts 5:39 2 Maccabees 7:19

Acts 9:1-29 2 Maccabees 3:24-40

Acts 9:2 1 Maccabees 15:21

Acts 9:7 Wisdom 18:1

Acts 10:2 Tobit 12:8

Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 10:25

Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 11:30, 33 etc.

Acts 10:26 Wisdom 7:1

Acts 10:30 2 Maccabees 11:8

Acts 10:34 Sirach 35:12s

Acts 10:36 Wisdom 6:7

Acts 10:36 Wisdom 8:3 etc.

Acts 11:18 Wisdom 12:19

Acts 12:5 Judith 4:9

Acts 12:10 Sirach 19:26

Acts 12:23 Judith 16:17

Acts 12:23 Sirach 48:21

Acts 12:23 1 Maccabees 7:41

Acts 12:23 2 Maccabees 9:9

Acts 13:10 Sirach 1:30

Acts 13:17 Wisdom 19:10

Acts 14:14 Judith 14:16s

Acts 14:15 Wisdom 7:3

Acts 15:4 Judith 8:26

Acts 16:14 2 Maccabees 1:4

Acts 17:23 Wisdom 14:20

Acts 17:23 Wisdom 15:17

Acts 17:24, 25 Wisdom 9:1

Acts 17:24 Tobit 7:17

Acts 17:24 Wisdom 9:9

Acts 17:26 Wisdom 7:18

Acts 17:27 Wisdom 13:6

Acts 17:29 Wisdom 13:10

Acts 17:30 Sirach 28:7

Acts 19:27 Wisdom 3:17

Acts 19:28 Daniel 14:18, 41

Acts 20:26 Daniel 13:46

Acts 20:32 Wisdom 5:5

Acts 20:35 Sirach 4:31

Acts 21:26 1 Maccabees 3:49

Acts 22.9 Wisdom 18.1

Acts 24:2 2 Maccabees 4:6

Acts 26:18 Wisdom 5:5

Acts 26:25 Judith 10:13

Top

Romans

Romans 1:19-32 Wisdom 13-15

Romans 1:21 Wisdom 13:1

Romans 1:23 Wisdom 11:15

Romans 1:23 Wisdom 12:24

Romans 1:28 2 Maccabees 6:4

Romans 2:4 Wisdom 11:23

Romans 2:11 Sirach 35:12s

Romans 2:15 Wisdom 17:11

Romans 4:13 Sirach 44:21

Romans 4:17 Sirach 44:19

Romans 5:5 Sirach 18:11

Romans 5:12 Wisdom 2:24

Romans 9:4 Sirach 44:12

Romans 9:4 2 Maccabees 6:23

Romans 9:19 Wisdom 12:12

Romans 9:21 Wisdom 15:7

Romans 9:31 Sirach 27:8

Romans 9:31 Wisdom 2:11

Romans 10.7 Wisdom 16.13

Romans 10:6 Baruch 3:29

Romans 11:4 2 Maccabees 2:4

Romans 11:15 Sirach 10:20s

Romans 11:33 Wisdom 17:1

Romans 12:15 Sirach 7:34

Romans 13:1 Sirach 4:27

Romans 13:1 Wisdom 6:3s

Romans 13.10 Wisdom 6.18

Romans 15:4 1 Maccabees 12:9

Romans 15:8 Sirach 36:20

Top

1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 1:24 Wisdom 7:24s

1 Corinthians 2:16 Wisdom 9:13

1 Corinthians 2:9 Sirach 1:10

1 Corinthians 4:13 Tobit 5:19

1 Corinthians 4:14 Wisdom 11:10

1 Corinthians 6:2 Wisdom 3:8

1 Corinthians 6:12 Sirach 37:28

1 Corinthians 6:13 Sirach 36:18

1 Corinthians 6:18 Sirach 23:17

1 Corinthians 7:19 Sirach 32:23

1 Corinthians 9:19 Sirach 6:19

1 Corinthians 9:25 Wisdom 4:2

1 Corinthians 10:1 Wisdom 19:7s

1 Corinthians 10:20 Baruch 4:7

1 Corinthians 10:23 Sirach 37:28

1 Corinthians 11:7 Sirach 17:3

1 Corinthians 11:7 Wisdom 2:23

1 Corinthians 11:24 Wisdom 16:6

1 Corinthians 15:29 2 Maccabees 12:43s

1 Corinthians 15:32 Wisdom 2:5s

1 Corinthians 15:34 Wisdom 13:1

Top

2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians 5:1, 4 Wisdom 9:15

2 Corinthians 12:12 Wisdom 10:16

Top

Galatians

Galatians 2:6 Sirach 35:13

Galatians 4:4 Tobit 14:5

Galatians 6:1 Wisdom 17:17

Top

Ephesians

Ephesians 1:6 Sirach 45:1

Ephesians 1:6 Sirach 46:13

Ephesians 1:17 Wisdom 7:7

Ephesians 4:14 Sirach 5:9

Ephesians 4:24 Wisdom 9:3

Ephesians 6:12 Wisdom 5:17

Ephesians 6:14 Wisdom 5:18

Ephesians 6:16 Wisdom 5:19, 21

Top

Philippians

Philippians 4:5 Wisdom 2:19

Philippians 4:13 Wisdom 7:23

Philippians 4:18 Sirach 35:6

Top

Colossians

Colossians 2:3 Sirach 1:24s

Top

1 Thessalonians

1 Thessalonians 3:11 Judith 12:8

1 Thessalonians 4:6 Sirach 5:3

1 Thessalonians 4:13 Wisdom 3:18

1 Thessalonians 5:1 Wisdom 8:8

1 Thessalonians 5:2 Wisdom 18:14s

1 Thessalonians 5:3 Wisdom 17:14

1 Thessalonians 5:8 Wisdom 5:18

Top

2 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians 2:1 2 Maccabees 2:7

Top

1 Timothy

1 Timothy 1:17 Tobit 13:7, 11

1 Timothy 2:2 2 Maccabees 3:11

1 Timothy 2:2 Baruch 1:11s

1 Timothy 6:15 Sirach 46:5

1 Timothy 6:15 2 Maccabees 12:15

1 Timothy 6:15 2 Maccabees 13:4

Top

2 Timothy

2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 17:26

2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 23:10v1

2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 35:3

2 Timothy 4:8 Wisdom 5:16

2 Timothy 4:17 1 Maccabees 2:60

Top

Titus

Titus 2:11 2 Maccabees 3:30

Titus 3:4 Wisdom 1:6

Top

Hebrews

Hebrews 1:3 Wisdom 7:25s

Hebrews 2:5 Sirach 17:17

Hebrews 4.12 Wisdom 18.15s

Hebrews 4:12 Wisdom 7:22-30

Hebrews 5:6 1 Maccabees 14:41

Hebrews 7:22 Sirach 29:14ss

Hebrews 11:5 Sirach 44:16

Hebrews 11:5 Wisdom 4:10

Hebrews 11:6 Wisdom 10:17

Hebrews 11.10 Wisdom 13.1

Hebrews 11:10 2 Maccabees 4:1

Hebrews 11:17 1 Maccabees 2:52

Hebrews 11:17 Sirach 44:20

Hebrews 11:27 Sirach 2:2

Hebrews 11:28 Wisdom 18:25

Hebrews 11:35 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42

Hebrews 12:4 2 Maccabees 13:14

Hebrews 12:9 2 Maccabees 3:24

Hebrews 12:12 Sirach 25:23

Hebrews 12:17 Wisdom 12:10

Hebrews 12:21 1 Maccabees 13:2

Hebrews 13:7 Sirach 33:19

Hebrews 13:7 Wisdom 2:17

Top

James

James 1:1 2 Maccabees 1:27

James 1:13 Sirach 15:11-20

James 1:19 Sirach 5:11

James 1:2 Sirach 2:1

James 1:2 Wisdom 3:4s

James 1:21 Sirach 3:17

James 2:13 Tobit 4:10

James 2:23 Wisdom 7:27

James 3:2 Sirach 14:1

James 3:6 Sirach 5:13

James 3:9 Sirach 23:1, 4

James 3:10 Sirach 5:13

James 3:10 Sirach 28:12

James 3:13 Sirach 3:17

James 4:2 1 Maccabees 8:16

James 4:11 Wisdom 1:11

James 5:3 Judith 16:17

James 5:3 Sirach 29:10

James 5:4 Tobit 4:14

James 5:6 Wisdom 2:10

James 5:6 Wisdom 2:12

James 5:6 Wisdom 2:19

Top

1 Peter

1 Peter 1:3 Sirach 16:12

1 Peter 1:7 Sirach 2:5

1 Peter 2:25 Wisdom 1:6

1 Peter 4:19 2 Maccabees 1:24 etc.

1 Peter 5:7 Wisdom 12:13

Top

2 Peter

2 Peter 2:2 Wisdom 5:6

2 Peter 2:7 Wisdom 10:6

2 Peter 3:9 Sirach 35:19

2 Peter 3:18 Sirach 18:10

Top

1 John

1 John 5:21 Baruch 5:72

Top

Jude

Jude 13 Wisdom 14:1

Top

Revelation

Revelation 1:18 Sirach 18:1

Revelation 2:10 2 Maccabees 13:14

Revelation 2:12 Wisdom 18:16 [15]

Revelation 2:17 2 Maccabees 2:4-8

Revelation 4:11 Sirach 18:1

Revelation 4:11 Wisdom 1:14

Revelation 5:7 Sirach 1:8

Revelation 7:9 2 Maccabees 10:7

Revelation 8:1 Wisdom 18:14

Revelation 8:2 Tobit 12:15

Revelation 8:3 Tobit 12:12

Revelation 8:7 Sirach 39:29

Revelation 8:7 Wisdom 16:22

Revelation 9:3 Wisdom 16:9

Revelation 9:4 Sirach 44:18 etc.

Revelation 11:19 2 Maccabees 2:4-8

Revelation 17:14 2 Maccabees 13:4

Revelation 18:2 Baruch 4:35

Revelation 19:1 Tobit 13:18

Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 3:25

Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 11:8

Revelation 19:16 2 Maccabees 13:4

Revelation 20:12s Sirach 16:12

Revelation 21:19s Tobit 13:17

Why were these rejected?

If they were good enough for Jesus are they not worthy?

Nicholas

[mobile21]

That's a great read Nicholas, thanks for posting it.

[irishcowboy]

what about the Original King James Version that had 80 books in it????? what were the other 7 that you are leaving out???

what about Bartholomew's letters/writings? or the other apostles.....

[nicholas]

mike,

You need to be more specific in your question. what this is talking of is the old testament, and why protestants have decided to reject the books of the bible that the Jews rejected after Christ. These books are books that Christ used and refered to why do Protestants follow the lead of the Jews for guidance.

If they were good enough for Jesus they are good enough for me.

Nicholas

[mobile21]

mike,

You need to be more specific in your question. what this is talking of is the old testament, and why protestants have decided to reject the books of the bible that the Jews rejected after Christ. These books are books that Christ used and refered to why do Protestants follow the lead of the Jews for guidance.

If they were good enough for Jesus they are good enough for me.

Nicholas

Well, I think I have the answer for that: when the first protestants separated from the Church, they needed a new source of legitimacy so they decided they would be "more jewish" even if the only thing that matters about the jewish culture is the legacy of salvation and not the culture in itself.

[homebild]

All I can say to this 'argument' is that it is extremely poorly framed. appeals to a 'false dichotomy' using a false 'Catholic vs Protestant' thesis, and fails to acknowledge that even before and after Carthage and all the other councils there never was any unaninimity on just what was and was not canon...even by Catholic saints.

The reality is that from early on 'canon' has always varied from as many as 83 books of Ethiopian Orhtodox Christians to as few as the 66 books of some Protestant bibles.

Even within the Roman Catholic Church, the official position is that while at Trent the current canon was currently 'fixed' it was never 'closed'...leaving open the distinct possibility that even Roman Catholic Canon could change given the proper archeology, scholarship and proof.

That said, Nicholas argument falls flat on most points and remains specious at best.

[nicholas]

Homebild,

So how are we to view the deuterocanonicals? Inspired or not.

The Church for 1700 years has held them as inspired. Whether or not the Church has closed the official position on them, the Holy Spirit has guided the Church to this decision apparently to stay as 'inspired' up to the present.

So how are the faithful to view them? Why are they violently rejected by many?

Some of the Saints have had the opinion that they should not have been included as inspired, (ie. St. Jerome), but even St Jerome does not have the Authority to make these decisions, the bishops do. St. Jerome then accepted the view of the church and translated them to Latin, (OBEDIENCE). Against his personal views he stayed obedient to the guidence of the Holy Spirit, to the Church.

Should they be included?

What is your arguement pro or con?

You say the arguement of history, guidence of the Holy Spirit, references from the New testament to them, the fact that the Septuagint was used by Christ himself is all "extremely poorly framed." Then what is your arguement?

Should the Jews be our leaders, or the God given Authority of the Bishops?

I believe this arguement is more than specious.

Nicholas

[homebild]

Homebild,

So how are we to view the deuterocanonicals? Inspired or not.

The Church for 1700 years has held them as inspired. Whether or not the Church has closed the official position on them, the Holy Spirit has guided the Church to this decision apparently to stay as 'inspired' up to the present.

So how are the faithful to view them? Why are they violently rejected by many?

Some of the Saints have had the opinion that they should not have been included as inspired, (ie. St. Jerome), but even St Jerome does not have the Authority to make these decisions, the bishops do. St. Jerome then accepted the view of the church and translated them to Latin, (OBEDIENCE). Against his personal views he stayed obedient to the guidence of the Holy Spirit, to the Church.

Should they be included?

What is your arguement pro or con?

You say the arguement of history, guidence of the Holy Spirit, references from the New testament to them, the fact that the Septuagint was used by Christ himself is all "extremely poorly framed." Then what is your arguement?

Should the Jews be our leaders, or the God given Authority of the Bishops?

I believe this arguement is more than specious.

Nicholas

"So how are we to view the deuterocanonicals? Inspired or not?"

Well according to the Catholic Church, these 'second Law' or 'deuterocanonicals' remain 'canon'.

And yet, the claim to deuterocanonicity was NEVER universally accepted...not even by Catholic scholars, saints or others....as I am sure you know.

Nor were these proclamations of 'canonicity' ever accepted as 'universal' by the entire Christian Church....not even beofre there were Protestants.

The fact remains, that "Canon" has ALWAYS been "Fluid" and that just what should be or should not be considered 'inspired scripture' never wholly agreed upon by all the Church no matter what some 'segments' of the Church may claim.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble and takes us no closer to a proper 'definition' of just what Biblical canon 'should' be...but it IS the TRUTH....

[nicholas]

No bubble burst here.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not understand how one would be right in "bucking" the guidance that the Holy Spirit has given to the authority of the church, and what arguement does one have at the present to disregard the deuterocanonicals as canon?

The hypethetical point that you have holds no precedence in the present. So what do the faithful do in the present?

This is the no spin zone! What say you? You still have failed to answer the question. Should they be included now in the present? With the facts that we now have, not with the assumptions of the facts that we may have in the future.