Looks like we are looking at different things. For me, the 14 books of the Apocrypha are not considered Canonical because of the unanswerable questions about their divine inspiration, 2 Timothy 3:16. This primarily is the reason they are excluded from the mainstream Protestant Bible.
Forgive me, I am not following you.
On a doctrinal level, I see no reason for Protestants to object to the majority of the Deuterocanonical books, which is why I, a Congregationalist minister, do not object to them.
By the way, the Deuterocanonical Books were included in the KJV, and among the early Protestants, the use of these books for moral instruction along the lines of Article VI of the Anglican Articles of Religion predominated, being rejected only by the Puritans who objected to the KJV and continued using the Geneva Bible, and later, after the Puritan movement subsided and was replaced by Congregationalism, the Baptists. As it happened, however, all Bibles were printed with the Deuterocanonical books until the 1790s, when an American Bible publisher decided to omit them as a cost-saving measure.
Prior to that point, the only noticeable difference between the English language Roman Catholic Bible, the Douai Rheims, and the majority of Protestant Bibles including the Great Bible, the Bishops’ Bible and the Authorized Version (the KJV) is that the Psalter in the Douai Rheims was that of the LXX (Septuagint) rather than the Masoretic text, which in my opinion is generally a better Psalter; the versification makes more sense, and the readings are usually superior, for example, the Psalm
Cantate Domino (Psalms 96 in the MT, 95 in the LXX) vs. 5 reads “The gods of the gentiles are demons” rather than the “The gods of the gentiles are idols.”
In all other respects, up until the 1790s in America, there was no noticeable distinction between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. On the other hand, the Orthodox generally use the Septuagint, with the exception of the 19th century Russian Orthodox vernacular language Bible.
Perhaps, I erred in my first write-up by unintentionally narrowing their scope to the era between the end of the OT and the NT only.
No, you erred chiefly by accusing me of suggesting that God is a liar, which I found deeply hurtful. I have seen and indeed participated in some heated exchanges on CF.com, in many cases with members who I actually get along very well with, despite disagreeing with them on most matters of theology (it may surprise you to learn that BobRyan and I are personal friends, and I have also had some impassioned debates with my friend Paidiske and several other members, over this very issue in fact, the role of the Deuterocanonical books, and no one has accused anyone of saying God is a liar). I of course forgive you, but I would ask you to please, in the interests of congenial discussion, refrain from that level of polemic. We may disagree on various issues, but I would never accuse you of saying God is a liar, or call into question your piety, and I believe we can have a more edifying discussion if we both follow that approach.
Secondarily, you also erred in your dating of certain scriptures and in your overall thesis that there is some objective historical fact that discredits the Deuterocanon, a fact which apparently eluded even the most iconoclastic of the magisterial reformers, John Calvin, who as I have stated previously, considered Baruch to be protocanon.
As you pointed out, many of these books date back hundreds of years before the end of the OT.
No, what I pointed out was that Esther, Ezra and Daniel were all written within 400 years of the birth of our Lord, according to the most widely accepted scholarship.
I was thinking about Maccabees 1 and 2 as a book that chronicled Israel's life post captivity. But there's no doubt that God was silent for 400 years from the end of the OT to the NT.
There is plenty of doubt since the Book of Daniel, as I stated previously was written in the second century BC, which puts it within 100-200 years of the birth of our Lord. This also makes Daniel contemporaneous with most of the Deuterocanon, which makes sense, given that it is one of two canonical examples of Jewish apocalyptic literature, the other being Revelation.
Likewise Ezra, by virtue of being written in the same dialect of Aramaic, can be presumed to date from the same period. And since the Book of Esther has been dated to the fourth century BC, that means that it is less than 400 years removed from the birth of our Lord.
Everybody can see how ludicrous it is to claim the prophesied silence in Amos 8:11-12 was only for 3 days - the time-lapse from the crucifixion to resurrection!
Apparently not, since I can find neither a major Protestant theologian, a Protestant Reformer or an Early Church Father who interprets it the way you do. Indeed after some Googling the only content I found which shared your view of Amos 8 is a blog post written by an American in 2022 entitled “Reasons why I am not a Catholic, Part II.”
Given that controversy surrounding the Deuterocanonical books is not a new thing, one would expect to find such an opinion stated by someone like St. Jerome, or Martin Luther (who wanted to delete Esther from the canon, in addition to James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation), or the editors of the KJV Study Bible, who are outspoken in their opposition to the Deuterocanon.
Indeed, the KJV Study Bible interprets Amos 8:1-14 as “The vision of the summer fruit shows that Israel is ripe for judgment, which will come very soon.”
Flavius Josephus and other venerable
Piety compels me to interrupt this statement. The word “Venerable” literally means worthy of veneration, and Flavius Josephus, as a one who rejected Christ as the Messiah*, is not worthy of veneration, and therefore not Venerable.
Authors of his time diligently chronicled the sufferings and joy of Israel (Judea) after their return from captivity. This was an era when the Levitical Priesthood has ceased to exist. This was the era that parts of Daniel 7, 8 and 11 played out. The era that the Seleucid and Ptolemy kingdoms took turns subjugating Judea.
I don’t know why you think the Levitical Priesthood ceased to exist, considering that there are still Levites and Kohanim among both the Jews and Samaritans, to this day. Indeed, the Kohanim still have one liturgical function in Rabinnical Judaism (and presumably Karaite Judaism), which is to give the Priestly Blessing during synagogue services, if any Kohanim are present. In fact, the famous Vulcan Salute from Star Trek is based on the hand gesture that Kohanim form. Among the Samaritans and the Beta Israel (literally House of Israel, the Ethiopian Jews), the Kohanim continue to perform animal sacrifices aided by the Levites, and when the Samaritans celebrate Passover, the ceremony is presided over by the Samaritan Kohen Gadol, which interestingly is the oldest continually held office in the world** (since there has not been a Jewish High Priest since the first century AD, but according to Josephus, there has been a Samaritan High Priest since at least the time of Alexander the Great and are a branch of the Zadokite lineage).
At the height of their suffering against Antiochus IV Epiphanes Hellenization policy, Judea, (as they were referred to at this time) revolted. After their victory over A4E, Judea enjoyed a relative 102 years of independence under the Hasmonean dynasty until their capitulation to Pompey's siege in 63 BC. From this period Rome assumed the position of overlord over Judea until the first advent of Christ. I'm sure you know the history, so I won't go off on a tangent.
Yes indeed, I am well aware of the history of that epoch.
Despite the piety and faithfulness of the Maccabees, God never spoke to anyone in Israel during this period that scholars generally agree to be about 400 years.
What scholars? I can’t find any. On the contrary, scholars generally date Esther, Daniel and Ezra to within a period of time less than 400 years from the appearance of St. Gabriel to Zecharias.
And furthermore how would scholars know whether or not God spoke to anyone in Israel? The question as to whether or not the Deuterocanon is inspired is one of faith, a religious opinion. My primary criticism of your position is that you are attempting to claim there are objective reasons why the Deuterocanon cannot be accepted, when in fact no such reasons exist, and the rationale you are providing for rejecting the Deuterocanon is logically invalid, since it would render Esther, Ezra and Daniel uncanonical.
God broke his silence when he sent Gabriel to Zacharias to inform him his wife will have a son to be called John the Baptist. The problem some people have with understanding where to place Amos 8:11-12 is that they rarely study Israel post captivity or the timescale before Baby Messiah showed up in Bethlehem.
This is a subjective opinion, and it frustrates me that you are trying to pass it off as fact. I don’t care if you reject the Deuterocanonical books, because I believe in religious freedom, but in my opinion, you ought to simply state that you do not believe they are inspired, without seeking to piece together an untenable historical argument in a pointless attempt to discredit them. If the books are as uninspired as you claim, that fact should be evident.
* That Josephus rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah is attested to by both Origen and Eusebius of Alexandria. This is just one of the many reasons why historians reject the authenticity of the
Testamentum Flavium.
** Josephus was generally biased against the Samaritans, so the fact he admits a Zadokite lineage for their priests is particularly noteworthy. According to the Samaritans themselves, since 1624 when the last descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar, who their high priests were descended from, reposed without a male heir, the lineage passed to the descendants of Aaron’s other son Ithamar, from whom the current high priest Abdel IV is descended.
