So many falsehoods, so little time. No matter how often they are disproven, they keep being posted again and again!
1. Nearly a third of OT books are not quoted in the NT, but three of the seven dueterocanonicals are.
2. The deuterocanonicals aren’t placed after Zecharaiah, until Jerome who did so because he was translating from Hebrew to Latin, and did not have Hebrew versions of the deuterocanonicals. No way Jesus couldn’ve meant not to include them between.
3. The Jews rejected the deuterocanonicals at the Council of Jamnia, AFTER the Resurrection. At the time of Christ, there’s no evidence of any canon that includes the other books of the Khetuvim, but not the deuterocanonicals.
4. It is well known that the Jews placed the highest priority on the Law. Following that, some Jews believed in the centrality of the Prophets (the Pharisees), but the others did not (such as the Sadducees). Neither group regarded the Khetuvim (the scrolls) as highly. Yet the bible includes the other books of the Khetuvim.
6. In the sense that the Catholic Church only established the Deuterocanonicals as part of the canon in 1546, the Catholic Church had no canon at all until 1546. Which is, of course, ridiculous. The Catholic canon consisted of books which were used in the Catholic mass. The deuterocanonicals were used in mass, just like the rest. When Luther stated that all doctrine had to be based on the bible, and thus removed the portions of the bible which had doctrine he recognized as directly refuting his lies, the Catholic Church affirmed the notion that doctrine had to be biblical, and published a canon of the books which were to be included in the list of books which establish doctrine. (Curiously, the Catholic Church detected no doctrine — or any other unique teaching — in the book of Esdras III (”Greek Ezra”), since it’s a shorter redaction of two other books, Ezra and Nehemiah. So there emerged a slight difference between Catholic and some Orthodox bibles.)
7. Jerome calls anyone who claimed he rejected the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, “a fool and a slanderer.” The diabolical practice of referring to the Deuterocanonicals as “apocrypha” (a word otherwise used to represent “hidden books” which were not canonical at all) has led some uneducated or deceitful Protestants to proclaim that various founding fathers rejected the Deuterocanonicals, where they were actually rejecting books such as “The apocalypse of Moses,” and “the Book of Enoch.”
Origen never rejected the deuterocanonicals. The notion he did not was based, again, on the Hexalpa, a comparison of Hebrew to other, then-common languages. Like Jerome, Origen did not have a Hebrew version of the Deuterocanonicals.
8. The most significant time, prior to the Reformation, that the dueterocanonicals were placed in a separate section was by Jerome, who did so solely because he was translating Hebrew into Latin, and didn’t have a Hebrew version of them to work with. In a few other instances, various Church leaders debated the value of using the deuterocanonicals to debate with Jews, since the Jews of their day did not regard the deuterocanonicals to be inspired or even truthful.
9. It’s well known that Protestants reject participatory atonement; denying the authenticity of the deuterocanonicals on that basis, then, constitutes circular logic: Luther: “This can’t be true because it’s not in the bible...” Catholic Church: “Yes it is. Right there.” Luther: “Oh. Well that can’t be part of the bible, then.” Yes, that much abridged conversation did take place.
As for the “magic” of Tobit. Does the image of bronze serpent cure disease? Does a paste of mud and water cure blindness? Does eating a baked turd give prophetic powers? Does washing oneself in the spring tubs of Judaea cure paralysis? Yet these are all commanded of people to receive miracles. None are magic; they are signs of obedience.
How true! I have not the time nor the inclination to address each of your "proofs" individually. Rather, I will respond to one which is striking in it's dishonesty and guilty of twiting context beyond recognition.
7. Jerome calls anyone who claimed he rejected the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, “a fool and a slanderer.” The diabolical practice of referring to the Deuterocanonicals as “apocrypha” (a word otherwise used to represent “hidden books” which were not canonical at all) has led some uneducated or deceitful Protestants to proclaim that various founding fathers rejected the Deuterocanonicals, where they were actually rejecting books such as “The apocalypse of Moses,” and “the Book of Enoch.”
Unless I am mistaken (I welcome a correction) the "a fool and a slanderer" quote was from a reply AGAINST RUFINUS and had nothing to do with the entirety of the Deuterocanonicals. Rather, it concerned a single book - Daniel.
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. (Against Rufinus, II:33.
........................................................
In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? (Against Rufinus, II:33.
JEROME "A FOOL AND A SLANDERER" - IN CONTEXT
I would certainly hope the remainder of your arguments are more able to withstand scrutiny than this one.
That is incorrect, there was a canon at the time of Nehemiah
Jesus spoke of the the 3-part division of Hebrew scripture in Luke 24:44, referring to the, “Law of Moses.. the prophets …the Psalms”. This is the current division of the Protestant bible and confirms the Apocrypha was not a part of the Jewish canon
The hebrew canon is in the Babylonian Talmud, the books in the Hebrew “Canon” are the identical 39 books in the Protestant bible.
Are you suggesting that the Septuagint was faulty and incomplete scripture?
Could you point me in the direction of the place in scripture where God took the authority on the canon of the books written for and by the jews?