BY JOHN MARTIGNONI
Question: I was chatting with a friend today about the seven books that Protestants exclude from the bible - and was asked a question I could not answer. I took your advice and did not "wing it". He asked where those books were quoted by writers of the New Testament. How should I respond?
Answer: The correct response to that question is: "What does it matter if those books are quoted by writers of the New Testament or not? Is being quoted in the New Testament the criteria for determining whether or not an Old Testament book should be considered part of the inspired canon?"
If he answers, "Yes," then all you have to do is say, "Well, let me ask you this: Do you consider Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1st Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Nahum to be part of the Old Testament?" He will, of course, answer that he does. Then you simply say, "Well, none of them are quoted in the New Testament, so, by your criteria they cannot be considered part of the O.T. canon."
Then, ask him by what authority Martin Luther threw out those 7 books of the Old Testament that all Christians, everywhere, had considered as part of the Bible since the Bible was put together in the early centuries of Christianity? He had no authority to do such a thing, other than that which he rendered unto himself.
After all of that, you can tell him that there are a number of places in the New Testament that refer directly or indirectly to passages from these seven O.T. books (Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 & 2 Maccabees). For example:
Heb 11:35 – speaks of women receiving their dead by resurrection and that some refused to give in to their torturers that they might rise to a better life. Just so happens, that is referring to an incident in 2 Maccabees 7:24-29.
One of the main themes of the Our Father - forgive others so that you may be forgiven - as found in Matthew 6:14, is clearly derived from Sirach 28:2.
The words of Matthew 27:39-43, relating an incident that occurred when Jesus was hanging on the Cross, make the words of Wisdom 2:16-20 seem to be very prophetic indeed.
In Romans 1:20, Paul clearly has the words from Wisdom 13:1 in mind, regarding men being able to know of the existence of God by the observance of nature. In fact, the whole passage of Romans 1:20-32 seems to be pulled from chapters 13 and 14 of Wisdom. Also, we see that James 1:19, about being quick to hear and slow to speak, comes straight from Sirach 5:11-13.
So, right there we have examples of three of the books that Protestants refer to as being “apocryphal,” being quoted directly or indirectly, in the New Testament. There are other examples that I could have used as well, but those suffice to make the case.
Which means that if someone wants to justify eliminating the seven books that Catholic Bibles have that Protestant Bibles do not have, by claiming they are not quoted in the New Testament, then they have a bit of a problem. Because, as I’ve shown, there are Old Testament books accepted as canonical by the Protestants that are not quoted in the New Testament, and there are Old Testament books not accepted as canonical by the Protestants, that are quoted in the New Testament.
Question: I was chatting with a friend today about the seven books that Protestants exclude from the bible - and was asked a question I could not answer. I took your advice and did not "wing it". He asked where those books were quoted by writers of the New Testament. How should I respond?
Answer: The correct response to that question is: "What does it matter if those books are quoted by writers of the New Testament or not? Is being quoted in the New Testament the criteria for determining whether or not an Old Testament book should be considered part of the inspired canon?"
If he answers, "Yes," then all you have to do is say, "Well, let me ask you this: Do you consider Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1st Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Nahum to be part of the Old Testament?" He will, of course, answer that he does. Then you simply say, "Well, none of them are quoted in the New Testament, so, by your criteria they cannot be considered part of the O.T. canon."
Then, ask him by what authority Martin Luther threw out those 7 books of the Old Testament that all Christians, everywhere, had considered as part of the Bible since the Bible was put together in the early centuries of Christianity? He had no authority to do such a thing, other than that which he rendered unto himself.
After all of that, you can tell him that there are a number of places in the New Testament that refer directly or indirectly to passages from these seven O.T. books (Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 & 2 Maccabees). For example:
Heb 11:35 – speaks of women receiving their dead by resurrection and that some refused to give in to their torturers that they might rise to a better life. Just so happens, that is referring to an incident in 2 Maccabees 7:24-29.
One of the main themes of the Our Father - forgive others so that you may be forgiven - as found in Matthew 6:14, is clearly derived from Sirach 28:2.
The words of Matthew 27:39-43, relating an incident that occurred when Jesus was hanging on the Cross, make the words of Wisdom 2:16-20 seem to be very prophetic indeed.
In Romans 1:20, Paul clearly has the words from Wisdom 13:1 in mind, regarding men being able to know of the existence of God by the observance of nature. In fact, the whole passage of Romans 1:20-32 seems to be pulled from chapters 13 and 14 of Wisdom. Also, we see that James 1:19, about being quick to hear and slow to speak, comes straight from Sirach 5:11-13.
So, right there we have examples of three of the books that Protestants refer to as being “apocryphal,” being quoted directly or indirectly, in the New Testament. There are other examples that I could have used as well, but those suffice to make the case.
Which means that if someone wants to justify eliminating the seven books that Catholic Bibles have that Protestant Bibles do not have, by claiming they are not quoted in the New Testament, then they have a bit of a problem. Because, as I’ve shown, there are Old Testament books accepted as canonical by the Protestants that are not quoted in the New Testament, and there are Old Testament books not accepted as canonical by the Protestants, that are quoted in the New Testament.
 | About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice. If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org. And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment