Seven reasions Pagina I de Alexander McClure's seven reasons or not accepting the "Apocrypha" as Scripture Even today These are still the Seven moat common seasons Proleslanis give for not scvepting the “Apocrypha” as Seriptare arc listed in the book "Franslotor's Revthed?", writen in 195% by Alexander MeC! A 20 miata a ae oem |Not one of them is n the Hebrew langusge like the rest of the OW Testament books In the above statement, hope that our Alexander MeClure was acling in good faith and out of ianorenco, and that he tuly did not know the truth about the books in question. Mr. McClure is easily proven to be wrong. As St Francis de Sales said in his famous book “The Catholic Controversy’ ‘the books of Solomon. Since then, you reject these hooks written in Hebrew or Chaldaie equally others which are not writen in one of these languages, yu will have to fied another pretext than ‘hat which you have alleged for striking out these books from the-canon ”(3) ‘This point has been born out in the inthe eaves of Qumran in 1947 [the “Dead see serolls" findings] were foun book of Feelesiasicus (The Wisdom of ben Sir} in the Hebrew. Another cxamp! famous manuseript ofthe collection housed si CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, Eaten Ht was the Kent iestion of this ligament ws part of the lost Hebrew origins! of the bos lcsistious, It was was found in Genizah {Eeypt] in 1896, Solomon Schechter, Reader in Talmud at Cambridge (and later president ofthe Jewish Theological Seminary in New York) identified the Ecclesisticus text based on the existing Greek teansation and argued thal these manuscripts represented pers of the fost Hchrew original. Another copy of cclesiasticus, in Hebrew, was later discovered by Yigacl Yadin in the ruins of Masada in the 19608. nya ofthe “apocryphia” le would be the manuscript "Or 1102" perhaps the most Soo I say to Alexander MeClure. You wall have o find another pretest for used does not justify the removal of several of the doutero-cenonieal books these books out of the Canon, for the one which You have “Furthermore [ would iky to ask Mr. MeClure upon what does he base his assumption that any books ofthe Old Testament that ere not ‘written in Hebrew are not canonical? IT e presumes to hase bis assumption upon « Bible verse. thea T must ask him fo provide this verse verses there he more than one, that sass hat ai’ book ofthe GA! Testament which was not wrillen in Hebrew is not canonics! IFMr. MeCluse cannot support his postion with a verse fiom the Sacred Seriptues, then he bas violsted Protestant belief system of "Sola Senptura” and is lying upon an authority outside the Bible. If he ean support his postion with a verse from the Sacted Scripture. We must sk him fo provide us with proof (extr-brbhically) that the book wich he ees is Sacred Sop, 2NNot one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration Ist neccesary forthe author as hook ts lay’ a clan to inspiration i onder forthe book to be is ‘prove this pote throygl the Sacred Seriptures ~ which be elaims & hold es hs sole wariten doctrinal authority. Furthermore, alam of ‘ngpration is not proof of anything for er sgainst the book. For even the Koran elains to be inspired ~ and I don'tknaw of any Christian ‘who would wast fo lie hat inthe Bible on that claim: Lastly, I would like fe ask Mr. McClure to show us where the authors of the hooks ofthe Old Testament all claimed inspiration in all the hooks: Chapters and verses will he appreviated 23.These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish chureh, and therefore were never sanctioned by cur Lord, raneis de Sales ani ‘As to your saving that these books which you call apocryphal are nol received by the Jew: you say nothing newor important S. Augustine loudly exclaims: "I isthe Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machatbees ss Candnical, but not the Jews." Thank God, we are not Kews, we are Cathoties, Shove me fiom http://www. catholicapotogetics.net/seven_reasions htm 21/12/2001Seven reasions Pagina 2 de 5 Scripture thatthe Christian Church has not as much power to wive authority to the sacred books asthe -Mosnie may have hd. Taore se not in this ether Seripare or reason to show for (4) So do again say (o Mr. McClure. The Jews also reject the entire New Testament, and yet Mr. MoClure does not reject the New Testament fon these grounds. Mr. McClure seems fo use the opinions of the Jews only where they agiee with his opinions - elsewhere he rejects them, Sccenly, I would also like to point out that Mir Mes ‘canonical books - which he pretends are spaoryphal - were aoospis! by qi a few Zews. (3) In accepted by the Jews in Ethiopia today. As the Eneyclopedia Judaica says: vva by his above statement The deutero> fact, the Deatero-Cananical books ae sill The prop of Jews whack wet ol Java became th: doeninant romp fr lates Swick tory, and today ‘most Jews aecept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those om Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical tothe Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven Deulero Canonical books "@ Hence itis completely ridiculous far the anonymous author oft church rejected the Deulero-Canonical hooks - foe 1} there fs no ae Canonieal books. ich we are responding to to make the ‘the “wish 5m that the “Jewish 1s do accept the Dewtero- “Thirdly. the Devtero-Canosicat books were insluded in the version of the Scriptures used by Christ and the authors of the New Testament. as the following citation [oom the Eneyclopedi Judaiea shows "There are approximately 350 quotations in the Neve Testament of the Old Testament. Of these 350 _quotatious 300 come from the Greek Septuagint It was the Old Testament Bible of the first exatury (Christians. Jesus quoted from it, The Septuagint inchided the Detero Canonical books which Protestants call the “Apacryala.” The Jews in Ethiopia to this day sll follow the sume identical anon which i found in the Catholic Old Testement whieh includes these seven Deuteto Canonical books " (7) The above citation liom the Encyclopedia Tudsicx shows 1) the Septuagint included the Deuteso-Canonical books. 2) the New Testament used the Septuagint st lest 30 imes whon citing the Old Testament, 3) Christ quoted from the Septuagint Those facts are wasly ortoboraied by numerous other works/authors, As the Rev, Dr. Milo Oates, on-time vicar ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church of the Intercession. it sid in 128 "nthe second place, no one ean rally understand the New Testament without knowledge of these books. ‘There are more than 11] quolations and allusions to the Apocrypha in the New Testament "In the third place, some ofthe most blessod dost find developing in these books” (8) nes ofthe Church come fiom these books, and others we ‘That the Deutero-Canonical books were ineluded in the Septuagint - and thatthe Septuagint was used by the authors of the New Testament ‘sn be corroborated through numerous sourees, too many to list here in theirentiety. (9) [But if Mr MeClure were to dase to sesist this claim that the Sepiuagiat was the version of the Bible used by the New Testament authors and is used today by many Christians ‘exception ofthe Dentero.Canonical hooks), then let him anewer these questions put forth by the iamous Catholic epologist David Goldstein ‘the Septuagint version is invalid, then lL is up to Protestants to explain why they give Greck Septuagint mes instead of Hebrew name, or thei Engfish equivalent names tothe books of Moses: Why cal those ‘books the Pentateuch instead atthe Torah or its Enalish designation, nsiruetion? Why Genesis, Evodus, Levitieus, Numbers (translation of the Greek Arithinoi) and Deuteronomy? Instead ofthe Palestina, Hebrew names, Besesbith, Shemoth, Vayiksa, Bemidbar, and Debazim? Or their English equivalents, The Beginning. Names, And He Called, In the Wilderness, and Words? Why call the Book "The Bible.” which is the Grock (Anglicized) namo the Catholic Church gave the Septuagint in union with the New Testament? a Tis interesting to nate that Chamalah, the Fesst of Lights, which the Jews celehests for ciaht euccessive deys cach year, centers am the story fof the Maccabees that appears in the last to books of the Septuagint version, which the Catholic Chureh preserved and declared to have been writen under the inspirtion ofthe Holy Spirit. This feast was instituted hy Judas Maceabews as 8 memorial of the rededication ofthe sanctuary hich was defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. The hnlling iy ofthe Maccabees, glrious mats for hcit religion, is tead and ckalted every veer by the Jews. a8 isthe Book of Fsther during dhe Feast of Purim. Surely the books ofthe Maesbees are higher in religious quality, representa more honomble service and sacrifice for the honor and glory of God, then Goes the Book of Esther, which the Jews of 1933 in Jerustlem tried fo have excluded from their eanon of Holy Seriptare. Considering that Chanukah, the Feast of Lights, ranks higher than docs the Feet of Purim, no reason save oslity towards Christianity during the Talmud-writing days can account for rejecting the two [Books of the Macerbees as uncenonieal and placing the seven of the Book of Fathor that has not God in it nto the Jewish canon. Rabbi Leon Bemstsin declare that i it vere not "for these two apocryphal books,” this glorious story of the Maccabeca might have been unknown. to the would ("Flavius Josephus His Times and Critics." 1938), htip:/www.catholicapologetics net/seven_reasions htm 21/12/2001Seven reasions Pagina 3 de 5 ‘After resting the above, ur sure the reader will agive with me that this- my apponent's third “reason” fr rejecting the Deutero-Canonicals = is insufficient, andl cannot be his eal reason for 30 doing, A They were not allowed apace among th hve ered books, during the first four centuries ofthe Christan ‘This statement is utterly and completely idiculous! The fret that they were “allowed a place among the sscred bool” is aufiiently shown 1 the following csatons from tho Couns of Rome, Carthage, and Hipp (Couneil of Rome [A.D. 382])"Now indovd we must teat of the divine Scriptures. what the universal ‘Catholic Church accepts and shal she ought fo shun, The order ofthe O14 Testament hegins here: Genesis ‘one book; Exodus, one hooks; Leviticus, one book: Numbers, one book; Deuletonomy. one book: Joshua {Son of] Nave. one book: Judges, one book: Ruth, one book: Kings, four books [that is, | and 2 S {and 2 Xing}. Palins Chronic, wo books, Pn one bok, Sloman rasta, on one book: Canticle of Canticles, one book: likewise Wisdom, one book oolematious, ane book... Likewise the onder a the hisloreal [books fob, one hook: Tab ome Book: Eads 4 {Ezra and Nehcmiah]; Ksther, one book, Judith, oue book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Dumasus) (Counsil of Hippo [A.D. 393)" [lt has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in chuch under the name of divine Seripture. But the Canonical Seriptures areas follows. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Feshun the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings. four books, the ‘Chronicles, wo books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, to books, Maccabees, to books...” (non 36), (Council of Carthnge HHL {A.D. 397) "Itt has heon desided} that nothing excopt the canonical Scriptures shonld he read in he Church under the name of The dine Soripines Eu the Carman! Serpe ara Genesis, Fxadus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jasin, Judges, Ruth, Four books of Kings, Parslipomenon, Avo books Job, the Palter of David five books of Solomon [Proverbs ¥eelesastes, Son ‘of Songs, Wisdor, Sirach), twelve hooks ofthe Prophets, lash, Jeremish, Daniel, Ezckiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Eras, two books of the Macesbees "(canon 47). All the above Councils occurred before the end of the fourth century. Aflerone reads the abave decrees. the ridiculousness ofthe fourth ‘season given by my opponent lor the reson of the Deulero-Canonieal books is simply end utlerly sdculousness, Now ite up to ms ‘opponent to show thatthe aboxe Councils did not have authority equal fo that ofthe Jews when it comes to the qusstiom as to which books ‘rea part ofthe Canon of the Bible SL. Clement of Aleyendria inthe year 202 A.D, cites the book of "Siac" (21-6) 8 "Seripture” (11), as well asthe book of Tobit (12). While ‘ippolylus cites tie book of Banich as Sexipture (13). Origen defended the eanosicity of Susanna {Dasiel 13], Bel and the Dragon [Daniel 14]-the prayers of Azaras [Pani 3] and the hymn of prise ofthe three youths in th fiery furnace [Daniel 3] in his Epistle to Julius Afficanus around the year 254, While inthe year 248 A DD., Origen cited the book of Sirach 21:28 ws Scripture, (14) The following citaion from Origen citing the Book of Muceabees as Seripture shows that it was accepted at that time 230 A.D} ‘But that we may helieve on the authority of holy Seriptare that suc isthe case, hear how in the book of ‘Macoabces, where the sith af even martyrs exhorts her on te endure torure. this truth ie confirmed: For she says," ask of thee, my son, to look st the heaven ted the earth, and ata things which are in them, and ‘beholding these to Lnow that God made all these things when they did not exist [2 Maccabees 728", (15) St. Cyprian in 252-258 A D.,cites the books of Tobit (16), iach (17), and the story ofthe thee vouths jn Daniel 3:37-43 (18), as Scripture several times in his writings, I could easily double or even tiple this list of Early Chuistians who considered the Deutero-Canonical books to be Seripturs ‘his, the fourth reason given by the anonymous author of the article in question for rejecting the Deutero- Canonical books is sifiient!y refuel by the information given above ~and cannot bes scl season for teeing them. ence we ate ‘elisve one of two things, ether 1)ho's completely ignorant of the subjont at hand. 2} he is attompiing to dccive tho readers ot his S.They contain fabulous statements, and statements whieh contrat not only the canonical Sexiphures, but ‘emselves. For example, inthe Books of Maceabees alone, Antiochas Epiphsnes dies three times in tee places! [Eve checked both books, and have only been able to Jocate onetime that Antiochus Epiphanes died . Hit, as itis, there were several Kings in the Macostecs with he file of "Antiochus" Epiphanes ‘ae the fourth ane to ke the name of Anivochiss Tense. we sos another nis interpretation of Sacred Seripture 611 nculeates doctsines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers forthe dead and sinless perfection, ‘Ouce agin Alsuandes McClure is resorting to scolar logic in his "arguments." He says, basically. ia onder fora book t9 be Canonical and Biblical, athe doctrines that i teaches must be reconcilable with what is aught elsewhere in the Bible... but how does he know that the btipil/wwrw.catholicapologetics.net/seven_reasions htm 21/12/2001Pagina 4 de 5 ‘books he is referring fo are canonical? How does he Inems that any of the Books in the Bible are esnonice!? Fspecially iPhe uses his above- siven “reason” asa determining factor. “The danger of eiscular logic. is that its not founded on the pil ‘of evidence or tuth, The same arguments are fo be made against the other books of the E the other books ofthe Bible are no! true besa they du not match what Maccabees says.” The points, where is the starting point? There is no pillar of truth to ston. The same argument ean be used agains the other books of the ible. For example. in Joshua 24-6 the woman lied in order to save the lives of onne scouts which Joshua sent eu to find out the “lay of the land." And when Tosint’s army took over the city. all the houses of everyone but the woman were burned. The woman Wes rewarded for her ations! Whereas “ae ace in Execs 20:16 that lying is forbidden’ Does that mean that we should discard Exodus? Or Joshua? According fo the eiscular logic of The anonymous author, we mast discard one or the other. Which onc iit o be? “he point is, when an ignorant person (with no exterior souree of thie apps! to) aflempls fo build up his ow eligion through reading a ‘book, thee are bound #o be misunderstandings. For eximple, in the dbove-given case concerning the book of Joshua. At fics glance. they took eontradietory. But upon farther shoughireading, if hecames apparent that the woman was net being rewarded for ving, but for saving the life of the we scouts. Period. Hence it wasn’ Leontredicting the book of Exodus at all. The same applies to the book of Maccabees. The anouymous authors” alleged "contradictions are nothing more than the products af - already blatant (19) - ignorance and cizeulat logic. Furthermore, [ask the raider to note thet the anonymous author is rejoting the Deutero-Canorical books on his own private interpretation of ia his opinion te Dootero-Canonical books contradict the rest ofthe Bible, In his opinion. the Deutero- (Canonical books are apocryphal. and non-cenonical. Zw his opinion, whal they tach is false. What we have here, isnot fac..it is merely fallible humen opinion. Which one is ot abligntod to aecopt ars abide by ~ despite the opinion ofthe anonymous nuthoc to the contrary and which are not guaranteed tobe without crror. 7. teaches immoral practices, ssh s lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation, ‘1 Samuel, chapter 28, Sauls recourse toa vitch for help. Does that mean thatthe book was teaching “immoral pracioss” such as ‘magical incantation? Or how about where Saul killed kimselF with his own sword in | Samuel, chapter 31? The point i, that throughout the (Old Testament, immotsl pesctone are to he found, They aren't to be found inthe Devtere-Canoniesl books slone. Bt of course, this does not mean thnt simply beeause they are in the Bible the books are promoting such practices as suicide, recourse fo witches, adultery, and so fon, Footnotes: 1.No, private “inspirations” of the "spi are not consider evivence Fort attempt to do the opposite would be to fall back upon cireular lose, 3. The Cutholie Controversy, p. 97, 4. The Catholic Controversy. p. 99, 5. Though I would like to point cut that tis practically impossible to speak of ay "Jewish chucch’ as whole because itis split up iio various denominations ~ as protestantisa is. 6, Encyclopedia Judaica. vol. 6p. 147 7 Eneyelopedia Judaic, vol. 6, p.1147 8, Now York Times, Dee. 10, 1928 9, Cf Imperial Eneyetopedia and Dictionary. Vol. 34, The Pocket Bible Dictionary, 1996. The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, 1964 A Dictionary ofthe Bible. 1954 p.799. 10, What Say You? p. 256-257, 11, The Instructor, 8 12, The Stroma, 6-12 1. Against the Noetus,2 htip://www.catholicapotogetics net/seven_reasions him 21/12/2001Seven reasions Pagina 5 de 1d, Against Claus 7:12 15. Fundamental Principles 22 16, Lreat Treatise 7.9 18, Testimonies. 20, See also Treatise 4.8. 19. Asit is, I betieve sireuar logic. ‘say epponcnt on the subject xt hand, nol to mention his ow « Thaye alrendy proven the ignnranse 20. Unlike my anonymous opponent. who has subtracted seven books froin the Oli Testament om the basis of seven reasons ‘that he doesnt even realy believe himselt 21- My opponent has committed 2 serious ertor here... he shows 1) his lack of research, 2) his dishonesty, 3) though itis Usual for an author to read his own article before publishing it onthe net, i€ would sesm that our opponent tekes oy at being very “unusual” in his ariles 22. Task the reader to note that this the very vel same renbon that he claims we have for defending the Deutero-Canonical ‘ook. 23. Ag was stated earlier, our emphasis should be on facts and evidenee, and on the Truth, rather than on our own personal fallible human opinien. http:/awww.catholicapologetics.net/seven_reasions him 21/12/2001