Protestant reasons for rejecting OT "Apocrypha"

[Ignatius21]

Or "deuterocanon." I know the EO make no such distinctions, but these are the common terms.

A recent article in the magazine "Modern Reformation" discusses why Protestants do not include these books in the OT. It's not very detailed and is intended as an overview, but here's a relevant part:

The book of Tobit--as well as the other apocryphal books--contains similar stories, namely, that of suffering and deliverance. We should also note that the book titled "The Wisdom of Solomon" is much like our book of Proverbs. Despite all the similarities, there are several things in which we must take note. Many of the apocryphal books, for example, were written between the second and first century B.C. Does that alarm you? If not, or even if it does, consider the words of the prophet Malachi:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction. (Mal. 4:5-6, ESV)

These were his closing words, as we know it, in the final book of the Old Testament in our English Bibles. Then what happened? The next thing we read concerns a man who was baptizing in the wilderness named John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-5). So the question we should consider is, What happened between the time of Malachi's final utterances and the entrance of John the Baptist in the wilderness? Edward Unmack notes,

[T]he Jewish legend that the tongue of prophecy was silent after the days of Malachi, and that thenceforth revelation was no longer vouchsafed to the people of Israel, practically represents the results of comparison between the Books of the Hebrew Canon and the Books of the Apocrypha. (3)

If, in fact, the Israelites did not receive further prophecy from God between the time of Malachi's ministry and John the Baptist's entrance in the wilderness, how were these apocryphal books given by inspiration of God to prophetically proclaim his word to the Jewish people? In short, they were not.

This, however, is not the only problem. There are several inaccuracies in the apocryphal books. In 1 Maccabees 4:26-35, Lysias--the king's regent and cousin, who was also in charge of the government--went to battle against the Jews. This battle took place before the death of Timothy, the captain of the Ammonite army. In 2 Maccabees 10:37-11:12, however, Lysias's defeat came after the death of Timothy. Further inaccuracies are displayed in the chronology and geography of certain apocryphal books, not to mention theological mistakes. Sirach 3:3 says, "Whoever honors his father atones for sins" (RSV). Later in this book, we are told, "For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, and against your sins it will be credited to you; in the day of your affliction it will be remembered in your favor; as frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away" (Sir. 3:14-15, RSV 1957 edition). Truly, the only way in which anyone can have his sins atoned is through the precious blood of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, even in the Old Testament era.
Is this enough, however, to reject these books in the Protestant canon? Surely it is, but these are not the only reasons. In or around A.D. 400, Jerome strongly maintained that the apocryphal books should not be included in the canon. Other scholars in the first century, such as Josephus and Philo, also rejected these books; and we must not forget Origen, who believed these books had no place being accepted as inspired Scripture.

In summary--they were written during a period of time when God supposedly ceased to give revelation, they contain historical errors, and they contain theological errors about our works, etc. atoning for our sins. And Jerome (Protestants sure like him a lot) listed them as being somehow in a secondary class (hence "deutero" canon, right)?

So is this particular Protestant mistaken in saying there are historical errors in these books? Is he misinterpreting the lines about atoning for our own sins? Pulling Jerome and Origen out of context, or at least cherry-picking?

I find it compelling that the NT and early church quoted from the LXX that included these books, and the earliest writings (Clement, Ignatius) either quote these "apocryphal" books or else are heavily influenced by them--and that the church largely accepted them from the beginning. But that doesn't answer the charges of whether they contain errors.

I hope we can have a good discussion because this is something of great interest and concern for me!

 

[Lukaris]

I do not have the knowledge to maintain a prolonged discussion on this but I can make a few observations:

The article mentions Josephus as not acknowledging these writings but if you read his Antiquities, he has an account of the Maccabean struggle straight out of those books in continuation from his account of history from the Torah. He also does not refer to the Psalms, Proverbs, & hardly any of the prophets in his writings. To say he rejected the "apocrypha" seems sketchy to me. The establishment of Hannuka is accounted for in Maccabees & fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ in John 10 as He tells us the He and the Father are one & He is the good shepard. What about the martyred mother, her 7 sons, & the priest in 2 Mabbabees 7? Is she not a predecessor to the Theotokos? The near veneration applied to her in the homily of 4th Maccabees is close to the description of the woman of the apocalypse in Revelation 12.

As far as the problems mentioned with Sirach re salvation, I do not even understand what is being discussed. King prophetically mentions salvation often in the Psalms but could not have had a full understanding since he was also a cypher of revelation & Sirach seems a lesser but still valid cypher too.

Tobit I beleive is to be read like a story with divine truth & is part of teh discussion the Lord had with the Sadducees re the widow of 7 husbands & the resurrection (much truth from this).

On a practical side, the book of Sirach has revelation of God giving approval the profession of the doctor, medicine, & instruction to pray to God & for the physician in regards to healing. There are people who believe that practical medicine should be discarded & sadly, in error petition the Lord when a family member suffers in this context. My 2 cents.

 

[Etsi]

This is the usual. However, interestingly enough, the Protestants did not initially "do away" with these books. In fact, in earlier volumes of Scripture, you DO find them, including in the original version of the Geneva (1560, which is one of my preferences). In the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Heidelberg (cannot remember which offhand, but will look at my copies later) Reformed Protestants are admonished that reading them is acceptable, if not encouraged, in so far as they line up with the rest of Scripture (in other words, anything that is mentioned in those books, but is not mentioned in any other is not to be viewed as binding or even acceptable practice...but things otherwise, the books may be viewed as any other book you find, buy, and read on faith in a Christian bookstore, just not on par with Scripture itself).

In various ways, Protestants contradict themselves (and I say this as a convert that has only read a couple of the Deutero-canonical books). Esther and Job were considered at one point for elimination based on similar issues as these. If we keep Esther, but eliminate Maccabees, both historical events/stories recognised by the Jews, then we have a problem with our logic (and logic is held in extremely high regard by the Reformed...think Spock turned into Borg However, Orthodoxy is causing many to reconnect with their human side).

I can't speak on all of the issues as I haven't wholly studied them...I can only give you the mindset. And much like Hilter stated, repeat something over and over and over again to them, particularly if you have control of them the first 6yrs (I think that part was Stalin?), then they will believe it. Well, this is what Protestants are taught over and over and over...they grow up hearing it, they accept it because Protestants have accepted those statements for years or because so and so said it or because it seemed logical, but because they dismissed it so easily, the issue is rarely ever truly studied by the majority (case in point, myself...I still cannot say that I honestly have looked at them as Scripture as I am working through it and need to actually sit down to read them, hopefully reading them without prejudice from the past...yes, those books are on my list and I look forward to reading them; maybe they will help my understanding).

 

[E.C.]

From what I remember we have the Deuterocannon because it, as far as we're concerned, has always been and shall always be a part of Scripture since we get the Old Testament from the LXX.

I also recall hearing that the Jews sometime after Christianity spread suffered a bout of nationalism and wished to do away with some Hellenizations such as using the LXX. The sad part is that as a part of this, what is called the Deuterocannon was either not written in Hebrew or not a part of the collection of texts in Hebrew. Fast forward to the time of Martin Luther and he decided to use the Hebrew texts as opposed to the LXX.

 

[Etsi]

From my understanding, Luther didn't actually "choose" much. He used what was available to him. Remember, he was scribing and translating while in hiding initially.

 

[Lukaris]

^Yes, I know these books were originally in the King James Bible (KJV) & designated in a separate section; in fact, my my mother's family KJV (about 160 yrs old) has these books. The original Anglican book of Common Prayer (BCP) has them in the lectionary & does distinguish them apart from scripture; I have the 1928 ed. of the 1798 American version of the BCP.

One more observation (rambling?): If one reads the beginning of the 3rd chapter of Baruch it always seemed to me a prayer of the living & departed. A note in the Orthodox Study Bible indicates it is probably a prayer of intercession of departed saints. This always seemed to be a better indication of prayer for & of the departed than the often cited passages from 2nd Maccabees. (Of course, Psalm 99:3 (western #) has Moses, Aaron, & Samuel calling upon the name of the Lord in the present tense after their earthly departure too).

 

[Barky]

Or "deuterocanon." I know the EO make no such distinctions, but these are the common terms.

A recent article in the magazine "Modern Reformation" discusses why Protestants do not include these books in the OT. It's not very detailed and is intended as an overview, but here's a relevant part:



In summary--they were written during a period of time when God supposedly ceased to give revelation, they contain historical errors, and they contain theological errors about our works, etc. atoning for our sins. And Jerome (Protestants sure like him a lot) listed them as being somehow in a secondary class (hence "deutero" canon, right)?

So is this particular Protestant mistaken in saying there are historical errors in these books? Is he misinterpreting the lines about atoning for our own sins? Pulling Jerome and Origen out of context, or at least cherry-picking?

I find it compelling that the NT and early church quoted from the LXX that included these books, and the earliest writings (Clement, Ignatius) either quote these "apocryphal" books or else are heavily influenced by them--and that the church largely accepted them from the beginning. But that doesn't answer the charges of whether they contain errors.

I hope we can have a good discussion because this is something of great interest and concern for me!

I have not understood your criteria of acceptance of anything theologically since day 1, wturri. The proofs you demand are so strange, your ties to protestant Christianity (which you yourself admit to little historical grounding) are so deep. I can't figure this out for the life of me, what do you want from Orthodoxy? A series of proofs? You won't find them, you won't find them anywhere.

Sorry, had to fit that thought in somewhere. Forgive me.

 

[Dostoevsky]

Alright, I'll try and tackle a few of these. First of all, if you want to read the Bible as a history book, you're going to run into a million problems (just consider Daniel vs. the historical facts). As one priest I know put it, the Bible is there to proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ--nothing more, nothing less. That is why we don't have much of an issue with historical facts that don't match up. God put them in the books for a reason, and perhaps it's not for us to know why.

As far as atoning for our sins, for the life of me, I can't understand what his problem with it is. A quick search of "atone" in the Bible reveals plenty of things we are commanded to do to atone for sins (mostly in Leviticus). Maybe I'm misunderstanding him...do you want to elaborate?

Concerning Origen, most of his stuff is considered heretical anyway, so he doesn't really concern us. I don't know really anything about Jerome, so someone else can deal with him.

As far as when they were written...it's very uncertain. Not that I can see any objection to them being written in the first or second century BC. Once again, I can't understand his argument. Oh well.

Finally, even though I have systematically responded to your posts here, I would also like to stress what the poster above me wrote: If you're looking for systematic proofs and stuff, you simply won't find them. Of course, we can have fun debating stuff, but in the end you won't find any definitive answers...and that doesn't really matter, because that's not really what Orthodoxy is about.

 

[Christos Anesti]

"For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, and against your sins it will be credited to you; in the day of your affliction it will be remembered in your favor; as frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away" (Sir. 3:14-15, RSV 1957 edition). Truly, the only way in which anyone can have his sins atoned is through the precious blood of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, even in the Old Testament era.

That our sins can only be forgiven through Christ doesn't contridict that. It's only by the grace of Christ that we can show kindness to our parents. If we do good then that is Christ in us. This is even the case with non-Christians as well. Man can not do good without the grace of God. In fact man can not even exist in the first place without Christ! In that way "kindness to a father" is directly related to Christ.

 

[Christos Anesti]

and we must not forget Origin, who believed these books had no place being accepted as inspired Scripture.

Origen quoted the "duetrocanon" all the time.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?, [185-253/254 A.D]

Origen and the Deuterocanon.

 

[Ignatius21]

This is the usual. However, interestingly enough, the Protestants did not initially "do away" with these books. In fact, in earlier volumes of Scripture, you DO find them, including in the original version of the Geneva (1560, which is one of my preferences). In the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Heidelberg (cannot remember which offhand, but will look at my copies later) Reformed Protestants are admonished that reading them is acceptable, if not encouraged, in so far as they line up with the rest of Scripture (in other words, anything that is mentioned in those books, but is not mentioned in any other is not to be viewed as binding or even acceptable practice...but things otherwise, the books may be viewed as any other book you find, buy, and read on faith in a Christian bookstore, just not on par with Scripture itself).

Very true. In fact this very point is addressed later in the article I quoted above. The author seems to attribute the lingering of the deuterocanon in Protestant Bibles to them just not getting away from Catholicism quickly enough. It's a very subjective view, wherein this particular Protestant is essentially standing in judgment of the earlier protestants.

In various ways, Protestants contradict themselves (and I say this as a convert that has only read a couple of the Deutero-canonical books). Esther and Job were considered at one point for elimination based on similar issues as these. If we keep Esther, but eliminate Maccabees, both historical events/stories recognised by the Jews, then we have a problem with our logic (and logic is held in extremely high regard by the Reformed...think Spock turned into Borg However, Orthodoxy is causing many to reconnect with their human side).

In fairness, not all Reformed are Spocks and Borgs But the approach to theology is certainly very scholastic, linear and almost mathematical in some ways. The point you raise about Job and Esther is well taken. Even if we find some early or later fathers who rejected, or seemed to devalue, certain deuterocanon books, we can't be quick to say "Aha, they agreed with us!" because they also may have rejected other OT Hebrew books like these--or perhaps Revelation and 2 Peter from the NT. Consistency is a real problem, with this I agree.

Generally Protestants do not deny that these books can be useful for gaining historical context or perspective about the beliefs of Hellenistic Jews in that time period, but they are not used as interpretive context and certainly not as a basis for doctrine.

 

[Ignatius21]

I have not understood your criteria of acceptance of anything theologically since day 1, wturri. The proofs you demand are so strange, your ties to protestant Christianity (which you yourself admit to little historical grounding) are so deep. I can't figure this out for the life of me, what do you want from Orthodoxy? A series of proofs? You won't find them, you won't find them anywhere.

Sorry, had to fit that thought in somewhere. Forgive me.

I am still trying to discern this for myself--what are my criteria of acceptance? Self-examination is not an easy thing. Is it strange to you that I would continue to evaluate new points of view (new to me, anyway) from the standpoint of what I've already accepted, however I arrived at it? Would you expect me to simply abandon any point of reference and start fresh? That's not only impossible, but absurd. You may not realize that Orthodoxy is as strange to me, as I am to it. My criteria may seem to you to be very academic, almost like I'm asking for you to solve equations. Your criteria often seem to be simply "We've always believed it so we won't stop now." Forgive me if I cause offense. As I do not start from the perspective that infallibility belongs to the church (yes, I know, I can't say for certain why I deny this) that point of view seems much like traditionalism to me. I can't help but hear Tevye belting out "Tradition!!!" from the back of his wagon. I'm sure I'm wrong, but it often seems that way from my perspective.

YouTube - Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles )

I'm not expecting bulletproof evidence, but if someone makes the allegation that a certain book that you include among inspired scripture is filled with theological and historical errors, I suppose it's not unusual to think there would be a way to refute that.

 

[Ignatius21]

Alright, I'll try and tackle a few of these. First of all, if you want to read the Bible as a history book, you're going to run into a million problems (just consider Daniel vs. the historical facts). As one priest I know put it, the Bible is there to proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ--nothing more, nothing less. That is why we don't have much of an issue with historical facts that don't match up. God put them in the books for a reason, and perhaps it's not for us to know why.

This argument is not without merit, but it's true that this line of thought in liberal circles has led to the Bible being almost useless. It's there to proclaim spiritual truths, but all that other stuff? Eh, why keep it, it's ancient and wrong anyway? Paul's arguments about homosexuality? Jesus' statements about marriage and divorce? They aren't tied to the resurrection per se, so they're just outdated opinions of guys who didn't "get it" way back when. Then proceed to the German liberal approach of the 1800's that sought to remove the "supernatural husk" from Scripture to reveal the "kernel of spiritual truth" and the resurrection itself is gone, too. I don't think it's unreasonable to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt in its trustworthiness. For years people alleged that Jericho never existed, but I believe in the last 100 years much evidence has been found to the contrary. I don't know which "errors" you're referring to in Daniel.

As far as atoning for our sins, for the life of me, I can't understand what his problem with it is. A quick search of "atone" in the Bible reveals plenty of things we are commanded to do to atone for sins (mostly in Leviticus). Maybe I'm misunderstanding him...do you want to elaborate?

The verse about showing honor to your parents, and this being "credited to you against your sins" seems to speak of our ability to "undo" our sins by doing good works. Catholic theology will see verses like these as supporting its view of meritorious works--do sins, you lose merit--do good works, you gain merit--kind of like balance scales. I realize this is not your theology, but it does explain why Protestants would reject it so strongly. The OT allusions to atoning for sin through sacrifice don't imply that you "gain points" by sacrificing more animals or anything of the sort. This verse, as the Protestant author sees it, does imply such a thing. It seems to imply there's something we can do to cancel out our sins beyond what Christ has done to atone for us. Granted, this is only one verse. There are many verses in the NT that seem to "conflict" with other verses on a variety of topics, but these aren't rejected--rather we attempt to harmonize them as far as we can. Why? Because we a priori accept that they ARE scripture. So if someone (like the EO) begin with the a priori acceptance of the deuterocanon as scripture, then they will likewise not see a conflict.

This is why I'm realizing after many years, that rejecting a book from the canon on the basis of it disagreeing with someone's interpretation of the other books is tenuous, because it presupposes the very thing it's trying to prove. It begs the question. Luther wanted to boot James for this very reason.

As far as when they were written...it's very uncertain. Not that I can see any objection to them being written in the first or second century BC. Once again, I can't understand his argument. Oh well.

He interprets Malachi to say that there will be no further revelation until John the Baptist returns, basically. Therefore anything written between 400 B.C. and the 1st century A.D. cannot be inspired. Usually it's also assumed that it cannot be Jewish scripture if it's written in Greek. I think that breaks down because frankly, the N.T. is also Jewish scripture.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I have never fully understood the claim of historical inaccuracyor questionable historicity, because the Gospels themselves contain a difficulty if read literally - there is no record of a Roman census at all around the time of Christ's birth (even give or take a few years). If Protestants find the things you mentioned to be problematic, why do they not find that to be problematic as well?

 

[Knee V]

"Now there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharoah, before all his servants, and in all his land, and by all those great wonders and the mighty hand which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel."

Those are the closing words of Deuteronomy. Previously in that book, it was foretold that a prophet like unto Moses would rise up in Israel. It closes with the anticipation of His arrival.

Skip forward a few thousand years, and there's Christ proclaimed in the Gospels, who is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Do we then discount everything else in between? Do we throw out the Psalms, Daniel, 2 Samuel, Obediah, etc? Certainly not! So since Malachi prophesied about John the Baptist in his closing remarks, do we by default throw out anything that may have been written after that point? Why would we? That would make as much sense as rejecting all the OT after Deuteronomy.

 

[Macarius]

"Now there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharoah, before all his servants, and in all his land, and by all those great wonders and the mighty hand which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel."

Those are the closing words of Deuteronomy. Previously in that book, it was foretold that a prophet like unto Moses would rise up in Israel. It closes with the anticipation of His arrival.

Skip forward a few thousand years, and there's Christ proclaimed in the Gospels, who is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Do we then discount everything else in between? Do we throw out the Psalms, Daniel, 2 Samuel, Obediah, etc? Certainly not! So since Malachi prophesied about John the Baptist in his closing remarks, do we by default throw out anything that may have been written after that point? Why would we? That would make as much sense as rejecting all the OT after Deuteronomy.

You could take that a step further. In Genesis, the Son of the woman's seed is prophesied as stepping on the head of the serpent. Then comes Christ - the fulfillment! We should stop after the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

In essence, ALL of the OT is prophetic of Christ -every word. The words of the deuterocanon are among the BEST and CLEAREST prophecies of Christ. The Jewish idea of God not revealing Himself through prophecy after Malachi wasn't invented until after Christianity (or at least didn't gain broad acceptance until after Christianity). The Jews didn't begin to exclude the deuterocanon from Scripture until 90 AD. Why should we follow decisions made by a council of Pharisees (as they were Pharisees) AFTER Christ has come? That makes no sense.

The Jews themselves translated the OT into the Greek Septuagint, and this included the deuterocanon. Its all over the early church fathers (the Septuagint and the deuterocanon) and though canonical issues weren't settled until centuries later (meaning some did, in fact, doubt the scriptural nature of these books) other books we accept without question were also in doubt (i.e. Revelations). The mere fact that a few fathers questioned them (didn't toss them out, but questioned them) is not grounds to reject them.

As for historicity, the only book to which this seriously applies is the Maccabees (1, 2, and 3). Its essential plot-arch is considered historically true (there was a Jewish state, free of Seleucid control, in the 2nd century BC), and its story is still celebrated in Judaism today every December. It was the last hurrah for the idea of a political messiah - like the judges and kings of before they fall short thus causing us to look beyond mere political concerns for the TRUE Christ who will liberate us from our REAL oppressors - not a politician against the Seleucids, but God against sin and death.

That's the point of Maccabees. The EXACT SAME minimalistic and modernist techniques that Protestants fight against vehemently in defending the historicity of the books of Kings are here being used to "debunk" the deuterocanon, and the only reason Protestants accept these arguments is because they've already decided to reject the deuterocanon. Again, their criteria is being used inconcistent. If mild contradictions or questionable numbers were grounds for rejecting a book, then Protestants would all be liberal modernists, as you point out. We must remember that God acted in history, and that the OT records history (we aren't modernists), but that this history is recorded in a way different from the expectations of modern historians cannot be denied. If we're comfortable with that tension in other OT books, and in the Gospels, then it shouldn't be grounds for rejecting it here.

In short, these books were used by Jews at the time of Christ (and rejected much later - by those who very much denied Christ); they proclaim Christ (and are therefore true), often more obviously and clearly that even the other OT books; their historicity is not an issue.

There is no good reason to reject them other than adherence to Protestant traditionalism (i.e. "we've rejected these since the 1500's") or a questionible adherence to the conciliar decrees of Pharisees in the post-Christ (AD) era.

Hope that helps...

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

Further inaccuracies are displayed in the chronology and geography of certain apocryphal books, not to mention theological mistakes. Sirach 3:3 says, "Whoever honors his father atones for sins" (RSV). Later in this book, we are told, "For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, and against your sins it will be credited to you; in the day of your affliction it will be remembered in your favor; as frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away" (Sir. 3:14-15, RSV 1957 edition). Truly, the only way in which anyone can have his sins atoned is through the precious blood of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, even in the Old Testament era.

I wanted to deal with this passage in particular, as it deals with theological (rather than historical) "errors." The error here is in the author's understanding, not the book itself.

Sirach is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that the one who honors His Father will atone for sins. And who honors His Father? Jesus Christ alone. He alone is free of sin. This is a prophecy of Christ. It ought to be in our Bibles.

And kindness to a father will not be forgotten - it WILL be credited against our sins. Don't forget that Matthew 25 tells us essentially the same thing. As does Romans 2 (those who by patient continuence... etc). We NEED Christ to be saved (for how can we even come to a point of honoring our true Father in heaven without Christ's Incarnation, example, teaching, death, and resurrection?), absolutely, but once again (as in prayers for the departed, which is one reason Protestants reject Maccabees) there is a book (in this case Sirach) that challenges an Protestant theology (sola-fide) and so the book is rejected in the name of the theology. If you preach sola-scriptura, but then construct the Bible so that it suits the preconcieved nature of your theology, then is isn't really sola-scriptura. Sola-scriptura has become just a rationalization for one's own private theology.

Rather, at the time of Luther AND in the early church these WERE considered Scripture. The fact that they challenge some of what Luther said should give us cause to reject Luther, not reject these books.

 

[Ignatius21]

I wanted to deal with this passage in particular, as it deals with theological (rather than historical) "errors." The error here is in the author's understanding, not the book itself.

Sirach is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that the one who honors His Father will atone for sins. And who honors His Father? Jesus Christ alone. He alone is free of sin. This is a prophecy of Christ. It ought to be in our Bibles.

And kindness to a father will not be forgotten - it WILL be credited against our sins. Don't forget that Matthew 25 tells us essentially the same thing. As does Romans 2 (those who by patient continuence... etc). We NEED Christ to be saved (for how can we even come to a point of honoring our true Father in heaven without Christ's Incarnation, example, teaching, death, and resurrection?), absolutely, but once again (as in prayers for the departed, which is one reason Protestants reject Maccabees) there is a book (in this case Sirach) that challenges an Protestant theology (sola-fide) and so the book is rejected in the name of the theology. If you preach sola-scriptura, but then construct the Bible so that it suits the preconcieved nature of your theology, then is isn't really sola-scriptura. Sola-scriptura has become just a rationalization for one's own private theology.

Rather, at the time of Luther AND in the early church these WERE considered Scripture. The fact that they challenge some of what Luther said should give us cause to reject Luther, not reject these books.

I hadn't considered that interpretation. Apparently neither had the author, although it rings true to me. There are plenty of statements in the OT similar to this, that Christians (including Protestants) interpret as being fulfilled in Christ. I would assume the only reason one would not make the effort to interpret this passage as you've said (and therefore harmonize it with the larger Christian understanding) is that one has already rejected the book. He seems to be taking these statements in a literalistic, wooden fashion (which is almost never done with wisdom books anyway). Perhaps looking for reasons to reject it, you could say.

I have read volumes (some good, some a stretch) that attempt to harmonize all the seeming discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles, for example, or among the Gospels themselves (exactly what were the names of all the disciples...and exactly on what day did Jesus die?) Again the authors will go to great lengths to harmonize what they already accept as Scripture, where liberal and atheistic critics make almost comical dismissals of the details without ever considering an alternative way to look at the evidence. So your point is well made--this author seems to apply almost the same liberal/modernist grid to the deuterocanon that Richard Dawkins would apply to the Gospels.

I know I've read that the books written after 400 B.C. (most of the deuterocanon) contain the most explicit presentations of the ideas of resurrection, something that seems largely absent from the Hebrew canon (not entirely of course). And that the early church saw these books as building toward a "fever pitch" that finally broke with the New Testament, as the understanding of resurrection moved from minimal, to prophetic, to realistic, to past-tense and the foundation of the entire faith of God's people. If that's true, there's less of a seemingly suddent disconnect between the OT and NT, from little talk of resurrection to WHAM! All resurrection.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Ecclesiaticus says: "Restrain not your grace from the dead." meaning to pray for the souls of the Dead. The Reformers threw out the Deuterocanon, as it conflicted with their interpretation of Scripture. If there is no final purification of the dead, why do we need to pray for them?----Ah, But there is.