Jesus and the writer of Hebrews quoted from the Deuterocanonical Jewish books, as well as many early church fathers. How do we know the canonical books are inspired and those not in the canon are not?
Question:
I’ve been reading a good amount on the Old Testament canon. Jesus quoted some of the Deuterocanonical texts. The writer of the book of Hebrews did so as well. This books mention events that happened in the Deuterocanon as well. Not to mention that many early church fathers quote the Deuterocanonical books as well. There also isn’t any evidence for an agreed upon cannon among the Jews for the OT (except the Torah). Whose responsibility is it to address the proper canon of the Old Testament? How do we know for sure what is inspired in the OT? My main issue is with the Deuterocanonical books and how do we know for certain they aren’t inspired? Finally, what is the standard for something to be considered OT scripture? Many of the books in the OT that Protestants accept would also be removed if the same standard to deny the deuterocanonical books was used for every book in the OT, such as the language certain books were written in. Not every book in the OT were all written in Hebrew, some were also written in Aramaic. your response?
Answer:
I believe you (or the person you are quoting) are overstating the evidence for the use of so-called deuterocanonical books by New Testament authors. Jesus did not quote directly from any of the apocryphal books. Not one book, and not even once time. Neither did the writer of Hebrews. Some may claim there are allusions to these books, but there are no authoritative quotes at all in either the gospels, in Acts, in the letters of Paul or in Hebrews. The only New Testament quote, not from the Apocrypha, but from 1 Enoch, is in the Book of Jude. Even there, it is being mentioned as an example–as a story the Jews were familiar with. It is not at all clear that it is being quoted as Scripture. So, I believe you have read a greatly exaggerated description of the non-canonical material in the New Testament. Not slightly overstated, but greatly exaggerated!
On the other hand, your second statement is certainly true. The early church fathers–especially from the third century onward, often quote from the Apocrypha, and use these books as if they are authoritative. There is a LOT of evidence to support this statement.
On the Jewish evidence, whoever told you that the Jews never published an official, authoritative canon has given you some rather blatant misinformation. First of all, Jesus quoted from nearly every book in the Hebrew 37-book canon, and not once from the Apocrypha or other works of the so-called deuterocanon (which is a misnomer in my opinion). Second, the Jews discussed their canon in the late first century, and not for the first time. They reached full consensus on the list, and that list was exactly the same they use today. Whoever told you that there is no evidence for an agreed canon of Scripture among the Jews is either deceiving or egregiously misinformed. At the Council of Jamnia in about AD 80, the canon was discussed and agreed upon, but they made no novel decisions. They merely confirmed what was already well-known. (note that there is some debate about the date of this meeting and about the precise conclusions, but this is the general picture of what happened at Jamnia).
Today there is essentially no doubt or serious question whatsoever, among either Jewish or Christian groups about the Hebrew canon. Statements to the contrary are disingenuous and simply cause confusion for believers. Of course, there is the question of why the church fathers used the non-canonical books in the early centuries, and even Protestant groups used them up until the seventeenth century. This is a legitimate area for discussion, but what is clear is that God used the Jews to establish the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, and that there is no important debate about the content of that canon today. Am I oversimplifying? I think not. It is those who are trying to sow confusion who are overcomplicating.
How do we know the list of authoritative/inspired books? The answer is this: Ask the Jews! How do we know that other books are definitively NOT inspired? The answer is that we do not know this definitively. Perhaps 1 Maccabees is inspired. Certainly Tobit, Judith and 2 Maccabees are not. Just read them for yourself, but we cannot absolutely rule out that other books are inspired. What we can say for certain is that these books, which are probably not inspired, but just might be, are not included in the canon. All we really need to know is what is in the canon and why we can be confident that they are inspired.
As for the qualifications–whether it be having an original in Hebrew or not–God used the Jews to create his canon. Exactly how God caused this inspired result, I cannot say for sure, but I am quite confident that God is sufficiently powerful so as to have arranged that only inspired works entered the Old Testament. Let me admit up-front that I believe this, in part, because of the awesome evidence of inspiration, but also because of my own personal faith in the power of God. I cannot prove every single chapter of every book is inspired, so there is a level of faith involved, or course. You will need to decide for yourself, but that is my view.
I strongly disagree with your contention that “many of the books in the Old Testament” would be rejected if the criterion used to reject the non-canonical books were applied to those in the Old Testament. I politely ask you (or the person you are quoting) to defend that statement with any examples. What book was rejected for what reason, and what specific canonical book does not reach this qualification? I am highly doubtful that you or anyone else can come up with a strong example of this. But perhaps you can prove me wrong! The existence of some Aramaic (but not Greek) material in Ezra and Daniel was not used as a criterion to reject any non-canonical book. Again, I might be wrong, but I do not think so. Please let me know. This statement that many canonical books would be rejected is simply false.
John Oakes
