Your donation helps provide answers and spread the gospel. GIVE NOW! Matching gift doubles your donation.

Supposed errors of the "deuterocanon" Books


#1

I read great responses to the supposed errors of Tobit and Judith. However, Protestants also say that 1 and 2 Macabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch contains errors (historical and/or geographical and contradictions to other Scriptures).
Is there any site that will respond to Protestants who say this? Thanks

These Protestant sites “supposedly” demonstrates these errors:
justforcatholics.org/a109.htm
biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm
johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html

For example it “justforCatholics”: “Sirach 12:4-7 advices, “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly; hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him… give unto the good, and help not the sinner.” This sound more like pagan philosophy rather than the teaching of God, “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you… Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back” (Luke 6:27,30). “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink;” (Romans 12:20, Proverbs 25:21).”

And again, “Tobit 12:9 states that ‘alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.’ But the Bible states that ‘the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin’ (1 John 1:7). Being assured by the Word of God that Christ’s blood really cleanses from all sin, we cannot accept that alms-giving is an a different way of purging sin. In fact the Bible makes it clear that ‘without the shedding of blood there is no remission’ (Hebrews 9:14). Tobit proposes an alternative way for purging sin apart from the shedding of blood” (the link above “JustforCatholics”)

How can refute this and the other “supposed contradictions (and historical errors)”?


#2

This is a very good page with many arguments against the Protestant errors on the deuterocanonical books.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter2.html


#3

Thanks


#4

There ARE errors in the Deuterocanon–but also in other books shared with Protestants.

Why all this time trying defend them? Just point out the historical errors in Joshua, or Esther, or Daniel, or Jonah, or something like that. They’ll try their best to defend these books, but ask how these errors are different from those in the Deuterocanon. I mean, Judith begins with a statement equivalent to, “When George Bush was King of Spain…” It’s not a history book, nor a science book. It’s a book of inspired religious truth which many times uses stories and parables not congruent with history to educate people about the loving nature of their God.

Just tell your Protestant friends who resort to this: “If you keep focusing on the superficialities of the biblical stories, you’ll miss the message entirely.”


#5

I don’t know about many supposed errors, especially when they have to do with historical accuracy. However, the passage from Tobit that you quoted is easily explained. Tobit was written in a time period when people were saved by adhering to the Law. Jesus hadn’t died yet. Giving alms to the poor would be adhering to part of the Law and so coming to salvation.

And if the try to counter-argue this in some way, you can point out that there are similar passages in the canonical books.

[quote=James 1:27]Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
[/quote]

That passage doesn’t mention Christ’s death and resurrection, even though it’s the New Testament. Instead, it concentrates on works. That doesn’t mean it denies the necessity of Christ’s death and resurrection- it is simply looking at another side of the picture. Sirach can do the same. But again, his writing is Old Testament, so it’s more easily explained than James’s omission.


#6

Another article concerning the Deutercanonical Books.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html


#7

This is rather silly of them. Quoting anything from the Sermon on the Mount/Plain is very counter-productive, because Jesus is directly opposing texts from the Torah. He first quotes from the Torah, “It was written,” and then he gives an opposing law, “But I say to you.” If those demonstrate contradictions with the deuterocanonical books, how much more so with the Torah.

-Rob


#8

The one thing I can’t understand is this: When a Protestant finds a “apparent” historical (or other error) in their OT Canon, they tried there best to explain the “apparent” contradictions, but when a Protestant reads the Deuterocanon books and see a contradiction they yell “You see this can’t be God’s Word because there is error here”. They don’t even try to find a explanation for the “apparent” contradictions in these books. They don’t give the same respect they give to other OT books.

This is sad…


#9

It might be good to ask Protestants if they’ve read every book of the old Testament and decided for themselves if each one was inspired by God or not.

That’s really what Sola Scriptura requires. Each individual believer should figure out which books are inspired. If they find an “error” then they have to get rid of that book out of the Bible.

Otherwise, they’re taking the “word of man” for which books are inspired. Supposedly, each Protestant has all the authority needed to figure out which books are truly inspired by God and which aren’t.

But hardly any of them actually go through and figure it out for themselves (because they don’t have the divine authority to do so anyway).


#10

You are absolutely right, and that is precisely why:tiphat: Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist reads the Deuterocanon as being fully as much inspired Scripture as the rest of the Bible.
There is just no way around the fact, that rejecting the Deuterocanon requires all too much tap-dancing around the history of the canon, the history of Christianity, and the content of the texts themsleves.
I am:dts: not about to be someone who is:bigyikes: guilty of rejecting part of God’s Book, simply because it might be popular in some quarters. (Like for example, my:whistle: family reunions…:ouch: )


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.