Deuterocanonicals: Is It Scripture?

ARTICLE INDEX     

Growing up as a protestant, I had only read argumentation from other protestants regarding the apocryphal or as the Catholics call it, "Deuterocanonical" books of the Bible. And, being trusting, I assumed that these great writers must have known what they were talking about regarding this topic, and that there was no need for me to study what the other side had to say.

But, recently, almost 20 years into my Christian walk, I decided to look into it a little deeper, to see what the truth was regarding these Old Testament books of the Bible.

One thing I noticed early on in my research, was that it was not as cut and dry as many Protestants made it out to be. For instance, one little tidbit I learned was that the Septuagint, which includes these Old Testament books, was in existence during Jesus Christ's earthly ministry. The Septuagint is a greek version of the Old Testament, including the Deuterocanonicals, compiled prior to Jesus' birth. This was something I had never heard before.. And I found it very intriguing.

Upon more studies, I learned that there were 3 schools of Judaism in Jesus' time. And that there were three main opinions on what constituted the canon of Old Testament scripture. The Pharisee, for instance, believed loosely that these books were the canon of scripture (Generally, an acceptation of the books found in the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanonicals). More specifically, they separated written and oral and considered the Torah the main scripture and the rest a separate category of scripture. And the Sadducee, believed only the first five books of Moses, were the canon of scripture, throwing out the prophets and psalms, etc. And the Essenes (another group of that time, where we get the "Dead Sea Scrolls" from), accepted the books contained in the Septuagint (in Hebrew, rather than Greek), which also contained the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

Now, at this point, I am wondering, have I been mislead by some of the protestant books I read? And I am wondering even more, why do many protestants not use and even condemn these Old Testament books of the Bible?

Well, first, I discovered, not every protestant believes they are not inspired. Some considered them secondary inspiration, while others considered them historical references. However a very vocal few have used books and other resources to teach protestants that the deuterocanonicals or OT apocryphal books are not scripture and even potentially evil books. And one of their techniques is to muddy the water by lumping these deuterocanonical books of the Bible into the same category as the spurious writings, forgies that were created after the New Testament (Gnostic writings, for instance). This to me, seemed disingenuous. Further, I discover that the most popular Bible, revered by protestants, originally had the deuterocanonical books: the King James Bible. You can see for yourself here. Just scroll down and you will identify all these deuterocanonical books of the Bible and can read them.

If that was not enough, I discovered what source was used as an authority for removing the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. And you learn, it was removed by a jewish Council, sixty years AFTER Jesus had already assended into the clouds. And this council, rejected the New Testament, as well. So, we are relying on a non-Christian council (Council of Jamnia) who decided to remove certain books of the Old Testament and some of these books, contain very clear prophecies of Jesus.

Also, we find even early church Fathers quoting from them as scripture:

And why the Deuterocanonicals were done away with by certain jews (mainly a reaction to Jesus):

Now, maybe I am missing something here, but looking at these set of facts, it seems rather wrong for me to assume the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible are not scripture or atleast a God inspired reference. Seeing they were in use during Jesus' ministry and were thrown out by non-Christians, 60 years after Christianity started.

Further, I just learned, that Matthew, James, and Peter seem to all be quoting from the Septuagint directly within the New Testament.. This is inferred based on the fact that these verses from the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are verbatim exactly the same lines of text(word spellings, characters, phrases, etc), which seems to be a very large proof that early Christians used the Septuagint(which includes the Apocrypha) for a reference while writing the New Testament scriptures. See: Matthew 21:42 and Psalms 117:22(LXX); Revelation 2:27 and Psalms 2:9(LXX); Matthew 21:16 and Psalms 8:2(LXX); etc.

Also, as can be seen evidenced above, certain jewish leaders did not like how Christians were utilizing the Greek Septuagint to prove Jesus was in fact the Christ. So, they went ahead and did two things to the Hebrew text:

1. In 60 AD, at the Council of Jamnia, they decided to remove certain parts of the Old Testament, so as to make it different from the Septuagint. Keep in mind the Septuagint was considered "scripture" by all people for 300 years, and even quoted by Josephus and Philo (both jews).
2. Between the 7th and 10th, the Masorites added vowel points to the Hebrew Text (essentially adding theology to the text). As I have mentioned before in articles I have written, a person can put their theology into a word's definition or into a translation off an original manuscript. The proof of the alterations (in meaning of Hebrew words) can be seen between the KJV translations of the Hebrew Tanach (Masoritic version) and the Greek Septuagint, which was translated from an a more ancient version of the Hebrew Tanach (even the Dead Sea Scrolls were late compared to the Septuagint).
3. The pronounciation of the Hebrew has been lost atleast partially, as no one can claim authoritive ability in this regard. Also, I believe the definitions have been altered somewhat over time (though the text is essentially the same in Hebrew, other than the vowel points, as the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to prove). With Greek, we have a better foothold on its meaning, and I believe this can be seen with the Septuagint Bible. So, we can more easily examine what the true meaning of the ancient Hebrew text is. So, taking both the Hebrew Text and comparing it with the Septuagint is very wise to ensure a clear understanding of the ancient meaning of the text in question.

Here are some obvious examples, showing the Septuagint is more accurate (atleast with understanding what was meant) than current Masoric Hebrew Texts:

It is true, though, that a majority of these deuterocanonical books were considered as a secondary canon, which in some churches is separate from the official liturgy. Meaning, some Catholic and Orthodox churches do not use certain Deuterocanonical books of the Bible in their church scripture reading. Actually, the Greek Orthodox church at one time did not even have Revelation as part of the Official Liturgy. Yet, both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, consider these books scripture of potentially lesser inspiration. And, at one time, many Protestants also considered them scripture or atleast a good historical, potentially inspired collection.

So, what are some of the arguments protestants make against them?

1. OBJECTION - Certain Early Church Fathers either did not think they were scripture or thought they were just historical in relevance (Amphilochus, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.).
   REBUTTAL - Just as many believed they were scripture and inspired. (Ambrose, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome).
   MY THOUGHTS - Actually, this argument even goes deeper. Potentially the whole argument is based on a misunderstanding of the word "Canon", as Protestants consider "Canon" to mean "the entirety of scripture" and anything outside this Canon is not good. While the Orthodox and Catholics believe Canon means "The Official Scripture to be used in Church". What this means is, maybe these early Fathers were not disagreeing per se on what was inspired, but more along the lines of what books were meeting all the criterion to be included in the "Primary Canon". So, some works should not be included in the Primary Canon, yet could still be included in a lesser, Secondary Canon (the word Deuterocanonicals means "Secondary Canon"). So, when an Early Father says that "Revelation" should not be included in the Canon, he is not saying, throw out Revelation as it is bad, but rather, it is not meeting enough criterion to be included in the Official Primary Canon of Scripture (yet maybe the Secondary Canon).
   
   
2. OBJECTION - The New Testament never quotes any of the Deuterocanonical Books. Therefore, they must not be scripture.
   REBUTTAL - The New Testament also does not quote from Esther, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon.
   MY THOUGHTS - Actually, there are quotes from the deuterocanonicals in the scripture, yet some just question them, because they are not 100% perfectly clear.. Such as Matthew 13:43 - "Then the just will shine forth..." and Wisdom 3:7 - "And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble.". Or Jesus could be quoting Daniel 12:3 - "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament". So, to say it is never quoted would be disingenuous, seeing there could be multiple quotes. Others Potential Quotes: Hebrew 11:35 + 2 Maccabees 7:1-29; Jude + Enoch/Assumption of Moses; etc.
   
   
3. OBJECTION - It was added by the Catholic Church in 1546 AD at the Catholic Council of Trent. So, it was added officially after 1500 years had elapsed.
   REBUTTAL - It was accepted by jews during Jesus day and had already been compiled into single works, such as the Septuagint, including these Deuterocanonical books. Further, it was accepted by the church throughout the centuries.
   MY THOUGHTS - The fact is, it was accepted by various church leaders, there was just controversy on their position.. Some said they were fully inspired.. Others said they are secondary in value to the rest of scripture.. And others potentially wanted to consider them only historical in relevance.. Further, it should be noted that the Orthodox Church also has these books of the Bible and they separated from the Catholic Church back in 1054 AD (The Great Schism) and the Orthodox Church does not recognize any "Councils" of the Catholics after 1054, so obviously a little weird they also have the very same books, if the Catholics "just added it" in 1546 AD.

Now, to be fair, some protestants claim that these books contain some errors and doctrinal problems. However, when I looked at some of their claims, they seem to fall apart often on close inspection..

For instance, one objection is that Sirach 3:33 and Tobit 12:9 are in direct contradiction to the Christian doctrine of atonement or salvation. The verses read:

Now, I will agree, at first, this seems to really contradict atonement according to the New Testament.. However, I did a little investigating, instead of just taking it at face value. And what did I discover? It is very interesting what I discovered. Here is the passage in the New Testament that seems to really relate to these two passages:

And also:

Yet, also:

Now, just think a little bit about this.. Is not Jesus saying here to the rich man, you must give up your false god of money, by giving it away, to serve the true God? And, perhaps, that is what is meant in Sirach 3:33. That a good way to "show" your repentence and faith towards God, is to give money to the poor? And that, for a rich man, the only way to truly give up his god is to literally give it up through giving it away. As it can be used in conjunction with repentance and saving faith, considering money is often a false god and a temptation to people. Could you imagine an alcoholic getting saved, but keeping his whole stock of alcohol at home and somehow, not sinning?

It seems to me that Jesus made a unique distinction about the evil of loving money.. And that alms-giving does go hand in hand with repentance, particularly for someone who loved money. Kind of like Baptism, it is a sign of your repentence and rebirth. Maybe not on the same scale as baptism, but it is clear, Jesus even told a man, to give up his money and follow him. As he can not serve "God and money" at the same time.

Now, you can make of Sirach 3:33 & Tobit 12:9 what you will, but isn't it wiser to actually look into a matter, rather than judging it quickly? As it says in Proverbs, "1:5 A wise [man] will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

Another, deuterocanonical scripture that protestants object to is Wisdom 8:19,20 -

Ironically, the protestant argument against this scripture is that it contradicts the doctrine of "orginal sin". Yet, "original sin" is a Catholic doctrine that Protestants espouse, and Catholics do not have a problem with this scripture.

At any rate, lets tackle this objection. When I look at it, I think to myself, when does original sin occur? Does it occur before or at the moment the egg is fertilized? Does not this scripture elude to him being good prior to birth? When God creates your spirit, prior to it entering your body for the first time, would it be sinful or clean at this point? And would not the sinful nature from the body, be what defiles the spirit? Or would the spirit prior to entering the body be already defiled? Do you see what I am saying here? So, I believe this argument defeats itself. As Paul makes it clear in Romans that your body is where sin and temptation originally come from. "Who shall save me from this body of death?", as Paul said. But, once the spirit enters the body for the first time, it would be then defiled and original sin takes effect. This is just one plausible way to explain this scripture.

Yet another deuterocanonical text, that protestants point to as contradicting scripture is Sirach 12:4-7

Now, look at this teaching of Jesus:

or this scripture:

Now, for sure, this really appears to be contradicting scripture, right?

Well, what about this scripture here?

Now, it appears here that David is definitely not doing good unto those who are doing evil to him. As he is cursing his enemies and praying they will be destroyed.. Is it possible, there is a double edged sword to how we deal with our enemies? Maybe it is we only do good unto them when they are in a weak or humbled position, to heap hot coals on their head, but when they are in plenty, we avoid helping them? Could it be, when they have been humbled and are like the prodigal son, we should take them in, clothe them and show them Christ's love? And then, when they are in riches, laughing, mocking, we do not help them? Notice Jesus' and Paul's statements above. Do not both of them refer to situations where your enemy is in need or humbled or in some want? And that, we are to love them and do good unto them in this position. We are always to do good, but maybe, when they are rich, drunk, mocking God, we do not give to them and pray bad things occur, so maybe they will one day be humbled and repent?

And those who are fighting against us, could there be two types of prayer? One of God's vengence against them and judgement. Another of love towards them and compassion? Does not Jesus have these two sides of his character? 2000 years ago, we saw his compassion and love towards human kind. And at the judgement seat and when he makes war against the Devil, we see his wrath and judgement? Another plausible way to look at these deuterocanonical texts.

I have seen similar patterns with other citations of "errors" within the Deuterocanonical texts. The above is a few of the common ones usually cited. Of course, I am still studying this topic, but to me, it seems pretty clear that the deuterocanonicals are inspired by God. I am guessing they did not meet all of the requirements set forth to be included in the primary canon, hence they were put in the secondary canon (the term deuterocanonicals means secondary canon). Do you see the error that many protestants made by throwing out these books of the Bible?

FURTHER READING: