=============================================
Catholic Bibles have seven more books than Protestant Bibles do: Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith, and Tobit. We call these books together "the Deuterocanonical Books." Another difference is that the Catholic Book of Esther has six more parts than the Protestant Book of Esther does (some parts are single verses, some are whole chapters), and the Catholic Book of Daniel has about 66 more verses in chapter 3 than the Protestant Book of Daniel does, plus two additional chapters at the end.
Protestants say that these Books, chapters, and verses are part of the "apocrypha" -- uninspired religious writings that were written during Old Testament times. But in reality, they are not additional "apocryphal" material; they are all equally inspired Bible-material that has simply been subtracted from the Protestant Bible, by Protestants!
On this page I will try to show Protestants that you only reject the Deuterocanonical Books ("the Deuteros") because the reformers did not pass them on to you and therefore you are not familiar with them; but that is simply a prejudice that needs correction. Here I will also show that the Catholic Books really are as inspired as the rest of the Bible, and they belong in every Bible that claims to be complete.
=============================================
These are the common Protestant objections to the Deuteros -- click them to see the answers to them!
=============================================
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: The Deuteros have never been accepted by the Jews. St. Paul wrote in Romans 3:1-2, "what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." If they were entrusted with the oracles of God, and they rejected the Deuteros, then we are under obligation to follow their lead.
=============================================
Answer:
That is both ignorant and irrelevant. It is ignorant because the Deuteros were accepted by some Jews; Ethiopian Jews still accept them today. Some of the commentaries in the early Jewish Talmud quote the Deuteros as Scripture. Some Jewish writers were still citing the Deuteros as Scripture into the fourth century. Moreover, the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint included the Deuteros, as I will prove in answering another question on this page.
Judaism was never united about the contents of the Bible until the late first century A.D. The Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as inspired; the Pharisees were divided over the Deuteros because they had been written only recently. Then, Christianity came onto the scene and used the Deuteros constantly to prove that Jesus was the promised Redeemer. Many Jews founded an educational school (the "School of Jamnia") in 90 A.D. and taught their students to reject both the New Testament and the Deuteros; they gradually imposed their ideas throughout Judaism as time passed, under the guise of distancing themselves from Christianity. But at that point it didn't matter what they said about what was or was not an oracle of God: for the authority of the Jewish religion had been passed on to the Christian (Catholic) Church, and the early Church accepted the Deuteros, as I will prove in answering another question on this page. Yes, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God; notice the past-tense. It's not, "they are entrusted with them," but they were. Until when? Until Christ came. Now, the Church has been entrusted with the oracles of God, and the Church has accepted that the Deuteros are Scripture.
Think about this, my brother in Christ: if you really want to adopt the Jewish Bible over the Catholic one, then you will lose not only the Deuteros, but also the New Testament, and you will have adopted an historical revision that was originally meant to forsake the Christian Way and reject the Christian Scriptures. It is a sad commentary on Protestant scholarship that the best reason Protestant scholars can come up with, to justify rejecting the Deuteros, is the pretense that we should rely on the people who rejected the Savior rather than on the people who accepted Him. And besides this, these same scholars believe that this Jewish "crutch," on which they base their whole argument, ultimately got it wrong anyway. Why have they not seen this? Because they aren't basing their arguments against the Deuteros on reality, for reality knows that they are Scripture -- Protestant scholars reject the Deuterocanon because they pre-supposition that these Books aren't biblical; and that is the definition of prejudice.
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: The New Testament cites from almost every imaginable part of the Old Testament, but not from the Deuteros. They are never referred to as Scripture or assigned to the Holy Spirit or to God as their ultimate author.
=============================================
Answer:
This is simply false. First, many quite imaginable parts of the Old Testament are never cited in the New Testament: including 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra, Judges, Lamentations, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Song of Songs, and Zephaniah. These are never quoted or even mentioned in the New Testament. The idea that the New Testament must cite the Books of the Old Testament for them to be inspired, is simply prejudicial.
Second, the New Testament does cite the Deuteros. Here's a few examples:
(1) In John 10:22, Jesus celebrated the Jewish feast of the Dedication of the Temple, also known as Hannukah; but the command to celebrate this feast is found only in 1 Maccabees 4:56–59 and 2 Maccabees 10:5-8. Jesus took this occasion to teach that He also had been specially dedicated by God (in John 10:34-36). If the Feast of Dedication was not a biblical feast, then this passage is not consistent with the rest of the Gospel of John, which thematically portrays Jesus teaching the Jews about Himself at the major biblical feasts that the Jews kept (see John 5:1-47, John 6:4-51, John 7:2-38, John 10:22-39, John 11:56--12:33).
(2) In Hebrews 11, God writes about various Old Testament figures who were faithful in times of trouble; in Heb. 11:35-36, he mentions "[those who] were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life," and others who "suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment." Such stories are found nowhere in the whole Protestant Old Testament: but they appear in 2nd Maccabees 6-7, where a man named Eleazar was imprisoned and mocked for his faith, and seven brothers were tortured for keeping the Law of Moses. But they all had faith "[in] being raised again by [God]." (2 Maccabees 7:13-14) The fact that these stories are being cited in Heb. 11:35-36 is made even clearer in the fact that two of the words used in Heb. 11:35-36 referring to these events -- the Greek words for "tortured" and for "mocking" -- are found in the whole Bible only there and in the Books of Maccabees! Take this together with the fact that in Heb. 11:1-2, the author states that all these people are mentioned in the divine testimonies -- i.e. the Old Testament -- and you have proof that the Books of Maccabees were in his Bible.
(3) There is very good linguistic evidence that 1 Cor. 2:7-9 mixes a loose citation of Isaiah 64:4 with an exact quote of Sirach 1:8.
Isaiah 64:4 says, "Since before time began, no one has ever imagined, no ear heard, no eye seen a God like you."
Sirach 1:4-8 says: "Wisdom was created before all things...and [God] supplied her to those who love him." 1 Cor 2:7-9 mixes these together: "we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. ...as it is written:
'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived' 'what God has prepared for those who love him.' " 1 Cor. 2 speaks of God giving "wisdom" to those who ask, saying that this comes from the Old Testament; yet the passage from Isaiah that he quotes doesn't mention wisdom. So since this passage from Sirach does speak of wisdom, it is logical to infer that Paul was quoting the Book of Sirach and combining that quote with one from the Book of Isaiah; plus, in Greek the final phrase in 1 Cor. 2:9 is identical to the passage in Sirach:
τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν in Sirach and
τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν in Corinthians, and they both say that God gives wisdom "to those who love him."
(4) In 2 Tim. 2:19, St. Paul quotes the Old Testament as saying "And let him depart from unrighteousness," but this quote comes from Sirach 17:26: "Return to the most High, and depart from unrighteousness." Again, the Greek is the same:
καί ἀπόστρεφε ἀπὸ ἀδικίας in Sirach and
καί ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας in Timothy.
(Someone might protest that the corresponding phrases in #3 and #4 could be coincidental. But remember that St. Paul classified both of these as Old Testament citations: "as it is written," he said in 1 Cor. 2:9 right before three words mirrored only in Sirach 1:8; and, "God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal:" he said, before 2 Tim. 2:19 cited four words mirrored only in Sirach 17:26. The fact that these quotes are identical to those passages in Sirach, and that Paul talks about these quotes as if he is citing from the Old Testament, is evidence too strong for anyone to protest that it is coincidence. Indeed, neither of those quotes has any parallel in the rest of the Old Testament: the Book of Sirach is the only source with something like what Paul quotes, and more than being "like" it, it is identical. And since he prefaces these citations with "it is written" [1 Cor. 2:9] and the contention that the saying comes from God [2 Tim. 2:19], he is clearly suggesting that Sirach has Scriptural authority.)
τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν in Corinthians, and they both say that God gives wisdom "to those who love him."
(4) In 2 Tim. 2:19, St. Paul quotes the Old Testament as saying "And let him depart from unrighteousness," but this quote comes from Sirach 17:26: "Return to the most High, and depart from unrighteousness." Again, the Greek is the same:
καί ἀπόστρεφε ἀπὸ ἀδικίας in Sirach and
καί ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας in Timothy.
(Someone might protest that the corresponding phrases in #3 and #4 could be coincidental. But remember that St. Paul classified both of these as Old Testament citations: "as it is written," he said in 1 Cor. 2:9 right before three words mirrored only in Sirach 1:8; and, "God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal:" he said, before 2 Tim. 2:19 cited four words mirrored only in Sirach 17:26. The fact that these quotes are identical to those passages in Sirach, and that Paul talks about these quotes as if he is citing from the Old Testament, is evidence too strong for anyone to protest that it is coincidence. Indeed, neither of those quotes has any parallel in the rest of the Old Testament: the Book of Sirach is the only source with something like what Paul quotes, and more than being "like" it, it is identical. And since he prefaces these citations with "it is written" [1 Cor. 2:9] and the contention that the saying comes from God [2 Tim. 2:19], he is clearly suggesting that Sirach has Scriptural authority.)
(5) 1 Cor. 10:1-8 cites various Old Testament stories somewhat ambiguously, but in verses 9-10 it says:
"Neither let us tempt Christ: as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents. Neither do you murmur: as some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer."
This seems to have come from Judith 8:24-25 -
"But they that did not receive the trials with the fear of the Lord, but uttered their impatience and the reproach of their murmuring against the Lord, Were destroyed by the destroyer, and perished by serpents."
Notice the exactness of the descriptions of punishment, and the parallel blame of "murmuring." In verse 11 Paul concludes: "Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come." Therefore the One Who wrote them was not a mere human, for a mere human could not have foreseen that it would instruct Christianity; but it was written by God, to Whom all things are foreknown.
"Neither let us tempt Christ: as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents. Neither do you murmur: as some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer."
This seems to have come from Judith 8:24-25 -
"But they that did not receive the trials with the fear of the Lord, but uttered their impatience and the reproach of their murmuring against the Lord, Were destroyed by the destroyer, and perished by serpents."
Notice the exactness of the descriptions of punishment, and the parallel blame of "murmuring." In verse 11 Paul concludes: "Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come." Therefore the One Who wrote them was not a mere human, for a mere human could not have foreseen that it would instruct Christianity; but it was written by God, to Whom all things are foreknown.
(6) In Luke 21:20-24, Jesus says that "When Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, then you will know that its desolation is near... For this is the time of punishment that fulfills all that has been written... Many shall fall by the edge of the sword." This is an allusion to Sirach 28:14-18: "Slander has shaken many, and scattered them from nation to nation, and destroyed strong cities, and overturned the houses of great men. ... Many have fallen by the edge of the sword."
Here Jesus repeats the words of Sirach, with the formula "[it] has been written." To see this as a quote, or as an example of fulfilled prophecy, is to place a somewhat uncomfortably spiritual reading of Sirach in Jesus' words though -- Sirach was actually speaking about the dangers of the tongue when he wrote these words. Nevertheless, it is very common for the New Testament to glean prophecies from the Old Testament by interpreting the words in a spiritually foreshadowing way, and if this is a quote from Sirach it is a very reasonable example of that. Add to it that Jesus quotes the words practically verbatim, and attributes it to the Scriptures where Sirach is the only possible source, makes this a solid piece of biblical evidence that Jesus had Sirach in his bible. The only question is: will Protestants follow His example?
(7) The Letter to the Hebrews introduces us to Jesus' divinity with the words, "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets." (Hebrews 1:1) But note his words in verse 3, calling Jesus "the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance": the word for "effulgence" (apaugasma) appears in the Greek Old Testament only once, where it is translated "refulgence," and that is in Wisdom 7:26: "For she is the refulgence of eternal light...the image of his goodness." The parallel is clear: the Book of Wisdom was in the Bible of the writer to the Hebrews. It should be in Protestant Bibles too.
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: The Deuteros were not accepted by the early Church
=============================================
Answer:
Oh yes they were! The early Christians used the Deuteros as equal to the other Scriptures. This has been definitively proven by Catholic apologist Gary Michuta in his brilliant book, "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger." He also has a large document available for download on his website where he has compiled the writings of all the early Christians that he was legally allowed to, and shows that they all -- pretty much unanimously -- used the Deuterocanonical Books as inspired Scripture. (I have converted that document to a .pdf file and uploaded it to my website because it is such a stupendous resource; that .pdf file is available here: Patristic Index - from Gary Michuta)
The early Church council of Carthage in 393 A.D. settled the matter: "The Synod defines that besides the canonical Scripture nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scripture. The Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deutronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (Regnorum) [i.e. 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings], Paralipomena two books [i.e. 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles], Job, the Davidic Psalter, the five books of Solomon [i.e. Proverbs, Songs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, and Sirach], the twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Ezra two books [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah], Maccabees two books."
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: In the Bible, whenever Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Old Testament, they quote from an early Greek translation known by scholars as "the LXX." Over 85% of the Old Testament citations found in the New Testament come from this source, showing that the Apostles approved of this translation. But, the Deuteros were not included in this early collection of Scriptures.
=============================================
Answer:
You are correct about the authority of the LXX, but you are wrong to say that the Deuteros weren't included; because they were. There are three ways to prove this: (1) the Greek translation of Sirach -- a Deuterocanonical Book -- contains a translator's preface which claims that the translation of Sirach was made as part of the LXX translation process, which suggests that at least Sirach was in the LXX; (2) the earliest copies of the LXX that we have contain the Deuteros; and (3) when early Christians quoted from the LXX, they quoted from both the Deuteros and the other Books.
#1 can be proven by a casual reading of the very short "preface" to the Book of Sirach; the preface is included in most translations of the Book of Sirach, though in reality it was written by an ancient translator of the Book who was also the grandson of the author. In his preface to this Book, which he translated into Greek, he mentions that a translation of the Jewish Scriptures from Hebrew to Greek was recently undertaken (these translations became the LXX); and he says that he decided to translate his grandfather's Book of Sirach and publish it alongside the rest of the newly-translated Greek Scriptures:
...many great teachings have been given to us through the law and the prophets and the others that followed them, on account of which we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom; ...my grandfather...was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom...
...despite our diligent labor in translating [his work], we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.
When I came to Egypt...[i]t seemed highly necessary that I should myself devote some pains and labor to the translation of the following book, using in that period of time great watchfulness and skill in order to complete and publish the book for those living abroad who wished to gain learning.
So it appears that the Book of Sirach at least was a part of the LXX translation, for it was published alongside it, as a contribution to the efforts of the translators of the other Books of Scripture.
#2. When I last debated a Protestant regarding the Deuteros, he claimed that it had not been proven that the LXX contained the Deuteros, and furthermore, he said that that idea may even be improbable. His reason for saying that was this: none of the earliest copies the LXX that are in our posession precisely match the Catholic Bible. I responded by explaining to him that the most ancient known copies of the LXX all contain examples of the Deuterocanon: the earliest copy, the Vaticanus codex from the 4th century, contains all of the Deuteros except the Maccabees, and all of the rest of the Old Testament too. The 4th century Sinaiticus codex lacks Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, Baruch, Ezekiel, and Daniel, but includes the rest. The 5th century Alexandrinus codex lacks 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, but contains all the Deuterocanon, along with some other books. The 5th century Ephraemi Rescriptus has only Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, Wisdom, and Sirach. And finally, the 8th century Codex Basilano-Vaticanus-Venetus lacks only Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, and the last chapter of Baruch -- but it also adds 3 and 4 Maccabees.
I said to him that it is obvious from these LXX codices that the Deuterocanon are treated no differently from the rest of the Scriptures in the LXX. But my opponent protested that,
1) because Vaticanus lacks 1-2 Maccabees and Sinaiticus lacks Baruch, and
2) because Sinaiticus has 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus has 1 Esdras and 3-4 Maccabees,
that my position still remains unproven.
So I said: "I must remind you that the mere fact that Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus included other books, has nothing to do with whether the Deuterocanon are inspired. There are Eastern Orthodox Christians who believe in the inspiration of those Books: they would probably contend that their inclusion in these Codices is evidence for their inspiration. But if you want to debate about that, you are in the wrong debate, because we aren't talking about those Books, but about the Deuterocanon. ... Secondly, the mere fact that Sinaiticus lacks Baruch does nothing for you, because it also lacks Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Thus you cannot base your case on what it excludes: only on what it includes."
To summarize the evidence: There are 5 major LXX Codices in our possession.
5 of them contain Wisdom;
5 of them contain Sirach;
4 of them contain Judith; the one that lacks it lacks most of the Old Testament;
4 of them contain Tobit; the one that lacks it lacks most of the Old Testament;
3 of them contain Baruch; those that lack it lack much or most of the Old Testament;
3 of them contain 1 Maccabees; one of those that lacks it lacks most of the Old Testament;
2 of them contain 2 Maccabees; two of those that lack it lack much or most of the Old Testament.
Thus if Protestants really want their Bibles to match the LXX, they should go with the majority, and that would entail accepting all of the Deuterocanonical Books except perhaps 2 Maccabees, about which the copies of the LXX that we have are simply not very clear, since they are so incomplete.
#3 can be proven from Bible passages like 2 Timothy 2:19, which cites two passages from the Old Testament: Nahum 16:5 and Sirach 17:26. But Paul's version of Nahum 16:5 does not reflect the Hebrew version; only the LXX version. Therefore he was quoting from the LXX in this passage. The thing is, he doesn't only quote from Nahum 16:5; he also quoted Sirach 17:26, which suggests that Sirach was included in the LXX too. In the Early Church Fathers, such examples are multiplied:
St. Clement of Rome, who wrote in the time of the apostles, used Wisdom 2:24 to interpret various stories in Scripture involving envy -- he mixes this usage with quotes from Genesis and Exodus, treating them no differently. (See 1 Clement 3-4.) Then (in 1 Clement 17:5-7) he quotes Wisdom 11:21 and 12:12 along with Psalms 91:1-3, making no distinction. And further on, he names Judith and Esther as examples for Christians to emulate. (1 Clement 55:2-6) In all these things, he treats the quotes the same. Who will say that he meant one thing by his quote in one sentence, and another thing in the next?
St. Barnabas (in Barnabas 6:7) parses a quote from Wisdom 2:12 (which he uses as a prophecy of Christ's sufferings) in among citations of Isaiah 3:9, Exodus 33:1, and Leviticus 20:24. He treats the Book of Wisdom no differently from the rest of the Scriptures: this suggests that Wisdom was in his Scriptures with the rest of the Books.
This usage did not stop throughout the early Church Fathers; this fact has been thoroughly documented by Catholic apologist Gary Michuta in his brilliant book, "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger." He also has a large document available for download on his website where he has compiled the writings of all the early Christians that he was legally allowed to, and shows that they all -- pretty much unanimously -- used the Deuterocanonical Books as inspired Scripture. (I have converted that document to a .pdf file and uploaded it to my website because it is such a stupendous resource; that .pdf file is available here: Patristic Index - from Gary Michuta) This frequent, even constant usage -- a usage which does not differ from the other Scriptures -- confirms that they inherited these Scriptures from the Apostles, and they were in the LXX which they used.
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: Between the Old Testament Book of Malachi and the New Testament Book of Matthew, there were about 400 years. During this period, the Books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Sirach and Wisdom were written. But it has been proven that God stopped the stream of public revelation during this period, and therefore those Books cannot be the Word of God.
Protestants say: The proof of the 400 silent years is in history and in the Deuteros themselves: (1) The early Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote his histories during the first century A.D., said (in Against Apion 1:8) that there had been no prophets since the time of Artaxerxes: "From Artexerxes to our own time...the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." (2) 1 Maccabees 4:46, 9:27, and 14:41 testify that God had stopped sending prophets to Israel, which suggests that He had stopped the stream of public revelation.
=============================================
Answer:
Answer:
#1. Josephus never said that prophecy had ceased after the days of Artexerxes; he simply said that the succession of prophets became inexact and punctuated. In other parts of his books, Josephus himself refers to several figures who lived after the days of Artexerxes, whom he calls prophets (see Michuta, page 53).
#2. 1 Maccabees does not say that God had stopped sending prophets altogether; only that there were no prophets available at the time: "[they] stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them." (1 Maccabees 4:46) Protestant scholars actually draw from this the idea that the prophetic office had ceased altogether! But that is not what it says; on the contrary, they would not store them in a "convenient" place unless they believed that a prophet would appear in the near future!
A very similar problem is echoed in Ezra 2:63: "the governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food, until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim." These Jews clearly expected a priest to arrive soon, so no one would claim that they thought the priesthood had been taken away; it is prejudicial to reach such a conclusion regarding the prophetic office in Maccabees, when the passage is so similar.
So the "400 silent years" is an unbiblical theory. It offers us an inelegant picture of God's revelation: for did He really stop the stream of public revelation only to re-start it with John the Baptist? Or on the contrary, did He speak to humanity all along? The Bible teaches the latter; for there were in fact inspired prophets during the supposedly "silent" 400 years: the New Testament mentions Anna the prophetess specifically (Luke 2:36-37), who was very old and had lived during 80 of the "400 silent years" -- and moreover Jesus said that God had continued to send prophets all the way up until John the Baptist (Matthew 11:13), and He mentioned no lengthy closure.
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: (1) Baruch 6:2 falsely teaches that the Babylonian captivity would last for 7 generations, whereas Jeremiah 25:11-12 says that it would only last 70 years. (2) Wisdom 8:19-20 falsely teaches that the soul pre-exists the body. (3) Tobit 12:8-9 (also Sirach 3:30) falsely teaches salvation by works. (4) Throughout the Book of Judith, the Deuteros glorify lying by telling the story of a woman who lied in order to save Israel.
=============================================
Answer:
Answer:
#1. The Book of Daniel 9:3, 21-27 teaches about the "seventy years" prophesied in Jeremiah: "in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. ...the man Gabriel...came and he said to me, 'O Daniel...consider the word and understand the vision. Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place." Therefore Jeremiah didn't prophesy the specific amount of time that the Babylonian captivity would last but the amount of time until the arrival of the Messiah; but Baruch 6:2 was correct to prophesy that the Babylonian Captivity would last for seven generations. There is no contradiction.
#2. Wisdom 8:19-20 says, "As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body." That's the Revised Standard Version's translation, and it does seem to teach that the soul pre-exists the body; but notice first that we Catholics believe this Book is inspired, and we DON'T believe in pre-existence.
In consideration of this, the Catholic New American Bible translates this as, "I attained an unsullied body" instead of "I entered..." This translation does not carry the same implication -- it could be paraphrased, "Because of the goodness of my soul, my body was made good," or, "Because I was good in my soul, I became good in my body," neither of which teach the pre-existence of the soul. Is this the correct understanding? Very probably, for only one chapter before this passage, the author of Wisdom DENIES pre-existence:
"I also am mortal, like all men...in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh... For no king has had a different beginning of existence; there is for all mankind one entrance into life, and a common departure." (Wisdom 7:1-6) Here he calls conception "the beginning of existence," "[the] entrance into life." If he believed in the pre-existence of the soul, and was to teach it in the very next chapter, he would never say this. Therefore the interpretation given above must be a better understanding of his words.
Bonus: this verse has parallels in other Old Testament Books, where pre-existence seems to be taught but really isn't; Hebrews 9:5-7 quotes the Greek Psalms 40:6-8: "when Christ came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me.' "
Here, the Book of Psalms appears to teach that someone pre-existed his body; the New Testament explains this by referring it to Jesus, because He did pre-exist His Body. Why do you think Protestants theologians don't think of saying the same thing of the Book of Wisdom? Only because they treat it prejudicially, and they decide how to interpret it on the presupposition that it isn't inspired -- and I think you will agree, that that is an inadequate reason.
#3. Tobit 12:8-9 and Sirach 3:30 say that almsgiving "delivers from death," "atones for sin," and is able to "purge away every sin." Actually, the idea that we can atone for our sins is a common theme in the Bible: "By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for." (Proverbs 16:6) "love covers a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 1:8) "whoever brings back a sinner...will cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:20) Jesus Himself says that almsgiving can cleanse our soul: "inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. ...give for alms those things which are within." (Luke 11:39-41) These passages do not teach that we can earn forgiveness by our works; in Catholic theology, expiating or atoning for our sins equals receiving pardon for the consequences of sins, and that can happen only after the sins have already been forgiven. So these passages do not teach that you can earn forgiveness, because in order to expiate a sin in the first place, that sin must already be forgiven. So it teaches expiation of sin, yes -- for that is no false doctrine -- but it does not teach salvation by works.
#4. The Book of Judith does not teach that lying is okay -- the Book is simply about the fact that Judith lied, and about how God brought something good out of it anyway. That is simply a prerogative of God: He can bring about something good from something evil, as Genesis 50:20 states.
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: The Deuteros do not claim to be inspired.
=============================================
Answer:
Answer:
Many of the Books in the Bible do not claim to be inspired. The Book of Esther is a good example; Protestant editions of that book do not even mention God, let alone claim to be inspired. Books like 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, etc., simply record history; they do not make any claims to inspiration. The books that do claim to be inspired, in the Old Testament, are the Books that come from Prophets: Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the "minor prophets," for example, all say "Thus says the Lord" repeatedly in their writings. But the Deuteros follow this example, by calling themselves prophetic, or by claiming to be divine instructions. You can see this in their very words:
Sirach - "...the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob...makes instruction shine forth like light, like the Gihon at the time of vintage. ... I will again make instruction shine forth like the dawn, and I will make it shine afar; I will again pour out teaching like prophecy, and leave it to all future generations. Observe that I have not labored for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction." (Sirach 24:23-34)
In addition, near the end of his book, the author says that those who follow his teaching are led by the light of the Lord (Sirach 50:27-29).
Wisdom - "To you then, O monarchs, my words are directed, that you may learn wisdom and not transgress. For they will be made holy who observe holy things in holiness, and those who have been taught them will find a defense. Therefore set your desire on my words; long for them, and you will be instructed. ...
May God grant that I speak with judgment and have thought worthy of what I have received, for he is the guide even of wisdom ... [and] wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." (Wisdom 6:9-11, 7:15, 22)
If these are not claims to inspiration, then I don't know what are!
Read the closing words of the archangel of God in the Book of Tobit:
"I will not conceal anything from you. I have said, 'It is good to guard the secret of a king, but gloriously to reveal the works of God.' ... Write in a book everything that has happened." (Tobit 12:11, 20)
Tobit claims that he was instructed to write this Book with the assurance that it is good to reveal the things of God; this seems to be a claim to inspiration.
See in the Book of Baruch:
"And you shall read this book which we are sending you, to make your confession in the house of the Lord on the days of the feasts and at appointed seasons." (Baruch 1:14)
"Thus says the Lord:" (Baruch 2:21)
"Hear the commandments of life, O Israel; / give ear, and learn wisdom!" (Baruch 3:9)
This definitely appropriates to itself prerogatives of the Word of God. Would it not be blasphemy, to claim to be the commandments of life, if God had not declared it?
And finally the Book of Judith seems to be self-referential when it makes the people sing to Judith:
"Your hope will never depart from the hearts of men, as they remember the power of God. May God grant this to be a perpetual honor to you..." (Judith 13:19-20)
Thus it seems to say that it will be read of her forever -- which would be more appropriate if it was inspired than if it was not.
In fact, then, it is only the two Books of Maccabees that do not claim to be inspired. And this is to be expected -- they are simply records of historical events. So if you say that the Deuteros do not claim to be inspired, you have probably never read the Deuteros; for that is the only reason someone could make such an egregious blunder.
In addition, near the end of his book, the author says that those who follow his teaching are led by the light of the Lord (Sirach 50:27-29).
Wisdom - "To you then, O monarchs, my words are directed, that you may learn wisdom and not transgress. For they will be made holy who observe holy things in holiness, and those who have been taught them will find a defense. Therefore set your desire on my words; long for them, and you will be instructed. ...
May God grant that I speak with judgment and have thought worthy of what I have received, for he is the guide even of wisdom ... [and] wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." (Wisdom 6:9-11, 7:15, 22)
If these are not claims to inspiration, then I don't know what are!
Read the closing words of the archangel of God in the Book of Tobit:
"I will not conceal anything from you. I have said, 'It is good to guard the secret of a king, but gloriously to reveal the works of God.' ... Write in a book everything that has happened." (Tobit 12:11, 20)
Tobit claims that he was instructed to write this Book with the assurance that it is good to reveal the things of God; this seems to be a claim to inspiration.
See in the Book of Baruch:
"And you shall read this book which we are sending you, to make your confession in the house of the Lord on the days of the feasts and at appointed seasons." (Baruch 1:14)
"Thus says the Lord:" (Baruch 2:21)
"Hear the commandments of life, O Israel; / give ear, and learn wisdom!" (Baruch 3:9)
This definitely appropriates to itself prerogatives of the Word of God. Would it not be blasphemy, to claim to be the commandments of life, if God had not declared it?
And finally the Book of Judith seems to be self-referential when it makes the people sing to Judith:
"Your hope will never depart from the hearts of men, as they remember the power of God. May God grant this to be a perpetual honor to you..." (Judith 13:19-20)
Thus it seems to say that it will be read of her forever -- which would be more appropriate if it was inspired than if it was not.
In fact, then, it is only the two Books of Maccabees that do not claim to be inspired. And this is to be expected -- they are simply records of historical events. So if you say that the Deuteros do not claim to be inspired, you have probably never read the Deuteros; for that is the only reason someone could make such an egregious blunder.
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: The author of 2 Maccabees wrote the following:
I...will here end my story. If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do. For just as it is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment, so also the style of the story delights the ears of those who read the work. And here will be the end. (2 Maccabees 13:37-39)
An inspired book cannot be a poor or mediocre record of history, for if God spoke it, then it would have no errors. So the author is stating that his book could be in error, and therefore it cannot be inspired.
Similarly, the preface to the Book of Sirach says: "...despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language."
=============================================
Answer:
The preface to the book of Sirach was written by an ancient translator of the Book, and he was explaining that his translation might be imperfect. But that does not imply that the original work was incorrect. Besides -- in the very sentence after that, he says that the other Scriptures may also be translated imperfectly: "Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed." Yet no one would claim he thought that the rest of the Scriptures were incorrect! It is only prejudice that would make you draw this conclusion for the Book of Sirach, and neglect to apply it to the other Scriptures.
And the author of 2 Maccabees states plainly that he was only talking about the "style" of his Book -- he does not say that he erred in his record of history, only (perhaps) in his style of presentation; for in 2 Macc. 2:24-28, he explains that he was not aiming for a detailed presentation of all the historical data, but only for a summary for "easy-reading": "considering the flood of numbers involved and the difficulty there is for those who wish to enter upon the narratives of history because of the mass of material, we have aimed to please those who wish to read, to make it easy for those who are inclined to memorize, and to profit all readers. ... [We] have undertaken the toil of abbreviating...leaving the responsibility for exact details to the compiler, while devoting our effort to arriving at the outlines of the condensation."
He would never say that he intended people to profit from and even memorize his work if he thought that it was erroneous; he was simply saying that he may have done a poor job in rendering the massive history into an "easy-reading" format, because the material he was working from was so thick. It is the style of this Book that may be poor, but not the content, which is as flawless as the rest of the Word of God.
=============================================
=============================================
These are the most common objections to the Deuteros!
=============================================
Protestants say: The Deuteros do not give evidence of inspiration, e.g. by prophecy.
=============================================
Answer:
First, most Books in the Bible are not prophetic. The Book of Esther or the Book of Canticles are good examples of non-prophetic Books. To demand prophecies from the Deuterocanonical Books, but not from the rest of the Scriptures, is prejudicial treatment.
Second, at least three of Deuteros do prophesy about Jesus Christ:
Wisdom 1-2:
1:16 But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death; ...
2:1 For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, ...
12 "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.
13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.
14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.
16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.
17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
18 for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,
22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls.
This passage from the Book of Wisdom prophesies very specifically about the condemnation of Jesus Christ.
Baruch 3:
27 God did not choose them, nor give them the way to knowledge;
28 so they perished because they had no wisdom, they perished through their folly.
29 Who has gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? ...
35 This is our God; no other can be compared to him!
36 He found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to Jacob his servant and to Israel whom he loved.
37 Afterward she appeared upon earth and lived among men.
Sirach 24:
1 Wisdom will praise herself, and will glory in the midst of her people.
2 In the assembly of the Most High she will open her mouth, and in the presence of his host she will glory:
3 "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist.
4 I dwelt in high places, / and my throne was in a pillar of cloud. ...
8 "Then the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, and the one who created me assigned a place for my tent. And he said, 'Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.'
9 From eternity, in the beginning, he created me, and for eternity I shall not cease to exist.
10 In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion.
11 In the beloved city likewise he gave me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my dominion.
12 So I took root in an honored people, in the portion of the Lord, who is their inheritance.
27 God did not choose them, nor give them the way to knowledge;
28 so they perished because they had no wisdom, they perished through their folly.
29 Who has gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? ...
35 This is our God; no other can be compared to him!
36 He found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to Jacob his servant and to Israel whom he loved.
37 Afterward she appeared upon earth and lived among men.
Sirach 24:
1 Wisdom will praise herself, and will glory in the midst of her people.
2 In the assembly of the Most High she will open her mouth, and in the presence of his host she will glory:
3 "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist.
4 I dwelt in high places, / and my throne was in a pillar of cloud. ...
8 "Then the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, and the one who created me assigned a place for my tent. And he said, 'Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.'
9 From eternity, in the beginning, he created me, and for eternity I shall not cease to exist.
10 In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion.
11 In the beloved city likewise he gave me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my dominion.
12 So I took root in an honored people, in the portion of the Lord, who is their inheritance.
These passages from Baruch and Sirach both prophesy about the coming of Christ; the character of Wisdom, i.e. the will of God personified, is identical to St. John the Apostle's "The Word of God" in John 1 (except that in the Old Testament, "Wisdom" was personified as a female).
=============================================
=============================================
