Why the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha isn't Scripture - KingdomCraft

[mmtoss]

A Protestant saying Protestant things, now that's controversial.

[ChristianDinosaur]

I am sure this comment section will be calm and have no uncharitable comments at all

[ermin]

As a Martin Luther himself I can confirm that I'm a bit unstable

[oregonisnotresisting]

Jesus references deuterocanonical books in the new testament.

Sirach 28:2: “Forgive your neighbor’s injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven.”

Matthew 6:14-15: “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.”

Tobit 4:16 (15): “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another” (Douay).

Matthew 7:12: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.”

Wisdom 7:26: “For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.”

Hebrews 1:3: “[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.”

Wisdom 9:13: “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?”

Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?”

[anemone]

If anyone's interested in the Catholic perspective, the Shameless Popery podcast has a very informative video called "Did Catholics add 7 books to the Bible? Or did Protestants remove them?"

The host, Joe Herschmeyer, delves into the New Testament references to the Deuterocanonical books, as well as other arguments, like the 1400s Council of Florence. I really recommend checking it out whether you're Catholic or not, if you're interested in hearing out the opposing side to Zoomer's view.

[harrygarris]

The Deutorocanon is a product of the second temple Jewish period, which is the version of Judaism that Jesus and his apostles practiced themselves. The gospels record Jesus going to Jerusalem to celebrate Hanukkah which is the feast of the Maccabean revolt.

If the Church is the proper continuation of this second temple Jewish religion and the restored Israel as the apostle Paul attests to then the Deutorocanon is part of our tradition as well. That would be my argument for keeping it.

[Kenny-muxb]

As a Catholic, I will always feel bad for my Protestant brothers because they can’t read chapter 2 of Wisdom of Solomon as Scripture.

[Gloria_In_Excelsis_Deo]

St Athanasius didn’t reject all of the Deuterocanonical he included Baruch and he rejected Esther so no he didn’t agree with the current Protestant canon

[prackertracker]

Basically you're chain of arguments goes like this:

1. We infallibly know that the protestant canon of the OT is correct because we look at which OT texts the NT refers to (btw. even if this were true, as you correctly pointed out, the Deuterocanon is mentioned in the NT.)
2. But how do we infallibly know the NT canon is correct? Your answer at 4:11 basically is because the early church assembled the NT canon and Protestants never had a problem with relying on the early church to assemble the NT canon.
3. But how do we know the early church had the authority to assemble the NT canon, yet not consider the church infallible? Well because Jesus relied on the OT canon of the Israelites and they weren't considered infallible either, hence we can assume that god has not established an infallible authority aka a church for this in the New Covenant either.

After that, you basically just quoted a few things from the Church Fathers, which doesn't really matter because they essentially disagreed a bit on every theological issue until the Church infallibly settled them.

For me the problem with this chain of arguments is that your entire reasoning relies on the argument that the OT was canonized before the coming of the Lord, for which there is simply not enough evidence.
Looking at Scripture, History, statements from Church Fathers, as well as Tradition it is in my opinion massively more reasonable to believe that during the time of the old covenant, god delivered progressive revelation to mankind to finally sent his son, who established a church that, guided by the holy spirit, infallibly rule on these issues.

[e.walker.]

I wrote a 34-page paper on this issue one time. It only had to be 10-12 pages, but I had too much research to keep it short

EDIT: Hey y'all! The browser I use YouTube on doesn't send me notifications, so I had no idea so many people wanted to read my paper! Thank you for your patience. I don't know how or where to post it, but given time I will do so!

Here's a SUPER abbreviated version (what I remember off the top of my head):
1. The Jewish canon was decided hundreds of years before Jesus' birth. Even discounting the Great Assembly (for which there is debate around), the decided canon can be found in the Talmud (look up "Bava Batra 14b-15a"). While the Essenes (a third religious sect, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, not mentioned in the New Testament) had a significantly larger Scriptural canon and held even more writings in high regard without accepting them as divinely inspired, they weren't mentioned for a reason - they were a fringe group viewed as radical (although not as much as the Zealots) for their wider acceptance - or lower standards, as any saw it - of writings .
2. There are irreconcilable theological and historical errors within every book of the deuterocanon (except for one, which I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll correct this when I find my paper). From an angel commanding witchcraft to the same guy dying in 3 different times, places, and manners, these writings cannot be inspired by a flawless God.
3. They are never quoted or recognized as authoritative by the New Testament authors or - most significantly - Jesus. The closest indisputable reference is in Hebrews 11:35-37. This refers to a historical event recorded in 2 Maccabees 7, giving this passage historical credit but no theological credit. Being quoted doesn't mean being accepted, however, as Paul quotes Aratus' poem Phainomena in Acts 17:28, but that doesn't make Phainomena Scripture.

I hope, although fairly surface-level and non-exhaustive, that this is satisfactory until I dig that paper up and find somewhere to post it!

[JMRolf]

Oh boy, im going to disagree with this one... will hear you out though.

[kiroshakir]

4:16 actually no
There was no closed canon among all Jewish sects at the time of Jesus
The Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch

Evidence jesus when he was proving the resurrection to the Sadducees
He didn't use the obvious unequivocal statements found in daniel but a more vague passage in Exodus

Luke 20:37-38
New International Version
37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

4:37 that shouldn't be interpreted as
"The jews have the right old testament Canon"
Because not all of them had the same Canon
6:48 no not only where there some sects that had a canon smaller than the protestant canon
There were also sects which accepted more books
Like the Essenes

[Michael-cigp]

Paul used the Septuagint, that’s enough for me

(Also Augustine)

[aaronmueller]

I like some of Redeemed Zoomer's videos, but man, was this one disappointing. Just going through the main arguments he proposes:

1. The New Testament quotes the books of the Old Testament, but it never quotes the deuterocanonical books.

He basically refuted this claim himself, pointing out that there are lots of books in the protocanon that the New Testament doesn't quote. His justification is that, since he already assumes that Esther, judges, etc. is part of the canon, then it doesn't matter that they aren't quoted. But since books from the deuterocanon aren't part of the canon, then the fact that they aren't quoted shows they aren't part of the canon. This is just begging the question.

2. Some deuterocanonical books have historical errors.

This is no different than atheist saying the bible contains errors. I find it hilarious that Zoomer hand waives away allegorical reading of Judith, when he has made videos begging Christians to read Genesis allegorically. Just another double standard protestants hold toward the deuterocanon.

3. Protestants are following Athanasius' canon.

This just isn't true. Athanasius does not include Esther in his canon, and he includes Baruch.

4. Augustine only believed in the apocrypha out of ignorance. He said that the Hebrew canon was correct.

This is also just not true, and I'm really wondering if Zoomer has even read Augustine. I'll just Let Augustine speak for himself:

**Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the Catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal. (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, ch. 12)**


Augustine is not basing his canon on his incorrect understanding of the Jews, he is basing it on what the actual Christians all over the world, and especially in the Apostolic Churches, believe. Also, Augustine is famous for believing that the Greek septuagint is inspired. I really don't know where Zoomer is getting his information about Augustine.



That's basically all the arguments he presents in the video, then at the very end he gets to the core justification of the title of the video


5. The (contemporary) Old Testament canon held by the jews at the time of Jesus is the protestant canon, and the new testament teaches that canon is correct.

To make this point he has to show that the Jewish OT canon at the timewas 1. unified, 2. the same as the protestant Canon, and 3. Affirmedby the new testament. For justification for (1), he appeals to Paul saying that the Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God. It's a big assumption to suppose that this means that there was one, unified, correct Jewish canon. We know that different sects of Jews at the time of Jesus debated the books of scripture. Reading Paul to suggest a unified Jewish canon, as opposed to simply meaning that the Jews were given divine revelation, is a theologically motivated eisegesis. As for (2), he again just assumes it. And for 3, he falls back on the question begging of his first argument.



I also have to point out that his view of the church is very strange. He thinks that the Church has been entrusted to preserve the New Testament canon, but not the Old. Given his other comments, it seems strange that he thinks the post-christian Jews got something right that the vast majority of the Church got wrong until the reformation (and still gets wrong today, since the protestant canon is still the minority among Christians).

There are a lot of other problems, like his belief in a binary Hebrew/Greek canon.

[Soxykamati]

doing 0 push-ups for every like this comment gets

[o.o.]

The Jewish canon? The Greek Septuagint was established by Jewish Scribes. Scribes remember worked for the Rab’s, Rabbi’s and Rabban’s. This was the 49 OT books (not 39).

St Augustine correctly believed; therefore, the Jewish canon was what Jesus and the apostles used that existed before the temple was burned (along with its’ books, that is the Greek Septuagint.

The dead sea scrolls (OT books included the 7 deuterocanonical books) of the Essene Jews (which some theorize Jesus more closely associated with) to confirm this.

Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage x2 (367, 392, 397, and 416 AD, respectively) ESTABLISHED the 73 books of bible (not 66) WELL BEFORE Council of Trent in 1500’s. The Council of Trent only reaffirmed the canon to remind and refute the heretical protestant reformation.

[JMRolf]

Finally finished this on my lunch break. As I expected, I disagree with your conclusion, but I think youve done a commendable job articulating the Protestant position for those of us without deep theological training. Thanks and God Bless you RZ, ☦️

[willth]

1) The Masoretic texts are SIGNIFICANTLY younger than the Septuagint, the Septuagint was compiled 3-1 cent BC while the Masoretic texts were compiled 7-10 cent AD, a millennia difference. While the Masoretic texts are directly sourced from the original Hebrew, giving them translational authority, the original Hebrew canon from the second temple period was lost, so the Septuagint is most likely closer to the original canon than the post temple Masoretic texts.

2) The council of Trent affirmed that what is and isn't scripture isn't limited to what's officially canon, allowing the ECCs to retain their own canons, which isn't a problem for Catholics because we don't have an autistic obsession with scripture.

3) The New Testament isn't as set in stone as you think, there are Miaphysite Orthodox churches that don't include Revelations and a hand full of epistles as canon.

4) There were plenty of "gospels", mostly the Gnostic texts such as the "gospel" of Thomas, that didn't make it into canon. The 4 gospels + epistles weren't included together until the 3-4 cent, and weren't canonized as scripture until the council of Hippo in 393. It took centuries of combing through various texts until the early church fathers could decide on which texts could be considered the definitive word of God. What is authoritatively scripture is only as strong as what is authoritatively tradition.

[kiroshakir]

3:06 Jesus didn't quote all of the protocanon
Should we remove the ones he didn't quote?
Also paul quotes pagan poets
Should we accept them ?

[SonsOfTitans]

If we’re basing the canon of the Old Testament, fundamentally, off of explicit references in the New Testament, doesn’t that mean we should also remove 10 more OT books that are never directly referenced? That is:
Judges
Ruth
Ezra
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Lamentations
Obadiah
Jonah
Zephaniah