But @Johann sir if you could answer this small question it would be helpful for me, because right now, ik things seem uncertain, we have the core-issue in front of our eyes, although i dont lean toward canon-Deuterocanon topics as its highly debated and controversial, i wanted to ask this one question which has all the problem in a single question and its:
Edit:
I saw the links later, thanks for it
Oh, @Johann sir, the links are again controversial
Also i wanted to ask
You know, it would really help me to wipe off unecessary doubts and would give me a clear picture, because uk this is a hard topic right, Johann sir
If you’ve never read the apocryphal material I would advise you not to waste your time. But the Apocrypha is important to Catholic doctrine because in one of the books, II Maccabees 12:38-46, Jews are exhorted to pray for the souls of fallen soldiers who had worn idolatrous amulets under their tunics. Catholics cite this passage as support for the doctrine of purgatory and praying for the dead. But how could that be? These soldiers were blatant idolaters. In Catholic dogma, idolatry is a “mortal sin,” so these fallen soldiers with their idolatrous good luck charms would have been in hell, not in a spurious purgatory.
Denz then immediately commented that the King James Version is not a translation approved by the Catholic church. The church used to forbid its members from reading the KJV or any other Protestant Bible upon pain of “mortal” sin, although the “unchangeable” church seems to have taken a less-militant stand in recent years (see the comments section). Denz also mentioned that Catholic Bibles contain seven Old Testament books that Protestant Bibles do not, as well as four additions to other OT books. This debated material is called the Apocrypha, which was all written in the 400-year period after the last OT book, Malachi, and before the time of Christ. Denz went on to blame Martin Luther for removing the Apocrypha from the Bible but the Jews in 1st-century Judea didn’t consider this material to be Scriptural. Ancient historians, Philo and Josephus, rejected the Apocrypha. The rabbinical writers of the Talmud from 200 AD to 500 AD excluded the Apocrypha. Jesus and the apostles never quoted the Apocrypha. Even Jerome, the translator of the Septuagint, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Oh brilliant, just brilliant. So now we’re dragging hypothetical manuscripts into the mix, as if one Pharisaic sect’s opinion suddenly trumps what Christ Himself affirmed? Look, if you’re going to play “What if we found…” games, at least admit you’re not doing dokimazō (careful testing for what is genuine), you’re doing ekpeirazō, poking and prodding the Word, testing its limits like the devil did in the wilderness.
And let’s be clear, this isn’t some deep mystical pursuit for hidden truths, it’s plain old-fashioned doubt-casting. You’re not revering the God-breathed Scriptures we actually have, you’re throwing shadows on them by elevating books Jesus never touched, never quoted, never called “Scripture.” You want a canon based on what feels ancient and interesting, not what the Son of God affirmed. That’s not reverence, that’s revision.
So no, don’t pull from our private discussions to create public confusion. And don’t dress it up as discovery, it’s just destabilizing what’s already been established.
Thanks @Johann sir, I will have to think about this again…
Really, ur teaching me more than anyone
I have read the apocryphal books, as they’re in my bible.
2 Maccabees 12:38-46, claiming its support for praying for the dead as a basis for purgatory, is invalid because the soldiers were blatant idolaters wearing idolatrous amulets, committing mortal sin, which would place them in hell.
If we look at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46 describes a Jewish Soldiers under Judas Maccabeus who died wearing pagan amulets. Verse 42-45, we see the text doesn’t label them as idolaters but implies their sin was forgiven, as Judas’ prayer assumes their potential salvation through atonement and resurrection hope we see in 2 Maccabees 7:9. We can ask if 2 Maccabees is invalid for depicting forgivable sin, why accept Jonah, where Nineveh’s idolaters are spared?
2. Denz: Did Denz distort history?
If he is a catholic, he needs to get the facts right..
KJV: Denz is partly correct here, that the catholic church historically discouraged reading Protestant Bibles like K JV, which excludes deuterocanon, although I’m not a catholic, I’m an Orthodox. However, the Orthodox church doesn’t endorse KJV, preferring translations based on LXX, like the one I have at home. This is irrelevant to Deutercanon’s canonicity.
But Denz went completely wrong here:
Denz’s claim that Luther removed the deuterocanon is misleading. Luther included the deuterocanon in his 1543 German Bible as Apocrypha, useful for reading but not a dogmatic authority. The Orthodox reject this truncation, preserving the LXX’s fuller corpus
Again, Denz went completely wrong here
Philo: Philo cites the LXX but doesn’t define canon. Focusing on the Pentateuch, his silence on deuterocanon proves nothing; he also omits Ezekiel and Daniel, as far as I can remember.
Josephus: Yes, I thought abt it as well. he mentions 22 books, but his list is ambiguous, and some scholars suggest it includes 1 Maccabees, and also his silence on Wisdom or Sirach reflects post-70 AD trends.
Talmud: Again discussed in the previous post why I reject this completely, it’s all about rabbinic Judaism’s post-Christian consolidation, reacting against the Christian LXX use, as I have given an example of Aquila’s translation, which was commissioned by Rabbis for this very purpose; this is also irrelevant.
Jesus and Aposles: I have given the parallels before, like Wisdom 2:12-20 with Matthew 27:43, but again, Jesus didn’t quote Esther, it doesn’t mean that Esther became a Deuterocanon now, right @Johann sir
About the question, @Johann sir
The answer I would give is:
This manuscript would compel acceptance of the Book of Wisdom as canonical scripture equal to Deuteronomy or Psalms for several reasons. This is the core issue which im talking about Historical Plausibility: The manuscript aligns with Second Temple textual diversity as seen in Qumran’s Hebrew/Aramaic Tobit and Sirach. A Hebrew Wisdom in Judea predating its Greek form suggests a broader Jewish Scriptural tradition, undermining your claim of a Pharisaic-only Hebrew canon. This was the first point I wanted to bring forth Pharisaic Content:
The sect’s Pharisaic leanings, which u claim Jesus endorsed in Luke 24:44, place Wisdom within His synagogue milieu. Its designation as Scripture fits the fluid tripartite canon where Psalms in Luke 24:44 could include deuterocanonical texts like the LXX’s organisation. This was the second point I wanted to say from this question Messianic Link:
The commentary linking Wisdom 2:12-20 to a messianic figures predates Christian exegesis, mirroring Jesus’ passion (Matt 27:43) and early Christian use like Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.14, which I just found out during my research, refutes the claim that Jesus’ silence excludes Wisdom, as it was messianically relevant in His Jewish context. Apostolic LXX preference
The NT’s 80% reliance on the LXX, like Hebrews 1:6 quoting Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX and allusions to deuterocanon in Hebrews 11:35- compare with 2 Maccabees 7 shows the apostles’ broader canon, including Wisdom. This was the fourth point I wanted to put forward
If you reject it, I’m not saying u did, but if, then we have the following points to explain Pharisaic Contradictions
You claim Jesus affirmed Pharisaic norms like Luke 24:44, yet dismiss a Pharisaic sect’s scriptural designation of Wisdom, I mean, Why does their authority, aligned with Jesus’ context, lack weight? Jesus’ Silence
The manuscript’s messanic commentary places Wisdom 2 in Jesus’ milieu, suggesting His silence reflects acceptance; we can view it in that way, not rejection, especially given its resonance with His passion. LXX tension
Avoiding the apostles’ LXX preference and the Orthodox canon, which includes Wisdom. Without post-70 AD rabbinic or reformation arguments, one cannot justify it. What’s the canon criteria?
Jesus doesn’t quote Esther or Ecclesiastes, yet we accept it
Peace to @Johann sir
Sam
2 Maccabees 12: Praying for Idolatrous Dead ≠ Purgatory
You rightly note that Judas prays for fallen soldiers (2 Macc 12:38–46), but the passage itself exposes the problem. These men died wearing idolatrous charms (v. 40)-the very violation of Deut 7:25–26 and Exodus 20. Judas offers a sin offering (v. 43) “so that the sin might be blotted out.” But this is a historical act of hope, not a doctrinal affirmation of purgatory. The inspired canon never teaches atonement after death. Hebrews 9:27 is final: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment.” This passage cannot override Jesus’ clear teaching on eternal destinies (Luke 16:26). Asserting purgatory from this text is unsound theology resting on a non-canonical foundation.
Nineveh and Jonah ≠ A Parallel
Nineveh’s forgiveness (Jonah 3) occurred before death-after repentance. 2 Maccabees involves postmortem intercession. The former aligns with God’s mercy in the canon; the latter is never modeled or authorized in inspired Scripture. You’re comparing repentance to superstitious hope in a book never once cited by Jesus or the apostles.
Luther, KJV, and Deuterocanon
Yes, Luther included the Apocrypha in his 1545 Bible, as non-canonical. He followed Jerome, who excluded them from the Hebrew canon. The Orthodox retention of these books is based on liturgical tradition, not apostolic usage. You say this is “irrelevant” to Deuterocanon’s status, actually, it is crucial. The fact that these books were debated, omitted by Jewish custodians of Scripture, and never cited as Scripture by Christ shows they lack divine authority.
Philo and Josephus Do Matter
Philo wrote from Alexandria and used the LXX-but never cited the Deuterocanon as Scripture, not even once. Josephus (Against Apion 1.8) explicitly limits Scripture to 22 books and denies any new authoritative writings after Artaxerxes, well before the Deuterocanon. His silence on Wisdom and Sirach is not “post-70 AD reaction”, it’s pre-Christian witness confirming the Hebrew canon.
Jesus and the Deuterocanon: Silence Speaks
Your strongest claim is that Jesus didn’t quote Esther either. But here’s the distinction: Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Daniel were part of the Hebrew Writings (Ketuvim). Jesus affirms this category in Luke 24:44. That’s canon recognition. The Deuterocanon was never part of that recognized Jewish Scripture, neither by Christ nor by His apostles.
Manuscript Hypothetical = Canonical Overreach
Even if a pre-Qumran manuscript surfaced labeling Wisdom as “Scripture,” it doesn’t override what Christ ratified. Qumran revered 1 Enoch and Jubilees, yet neither was affirmed by Jesus. Reverence is not inspiration. Christ defined canon by use, not by archeological luck. Luke 24:44 remains definitive. He cited Law, Prophets, and Psalms, not Wisdom, Tobit, or Sirach.
Messianic Themes Are Not Canon Tests
Yes, Wisdom 2:12–20 sounds like Matthew 27:43. But so do verses from Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53, which Jesus and the apostles do cite as fulfilled prophecy. Allusions do not canonize a text. Paul quoted pagan poets. Jude cited 1 Enoch. You yourself admit those aren’t canon. Then why elevate Deuterocanon based on parallels?
LXX Usage: Canon Is Not Quantity of Quotations
It’s true the NT often reflects the LXX, but only where the LXX reflects the Hebrew canon. When the LXX adds books, the apostles never quote them as Scripture. Hebrews 11:35 alludes to a resurrection hope, but stops short of citing 2 Maccabees 7. No “It is written.” No “Scripture says.” Silence = exclusion.
Orthodox Tradition ≠ Apostolic Canon
The Orthodox Church includes the Deuterocanon based on ecclesial tradition, not apostolic command. If canon is defined by liturgical use or post-apostolic reverence, then we’ve abandoned sola Scriptura and embraced ecclesiastical revisionism.
2 Maccabees 12 depicts pious superstition, not doctrine.
Christ affirmed the Hebrew canon, never quoted the Deuterocanon.
Parallel ideas are not canon criteria, Jude and Paul prove that.
Philo and Josephus reflect the Jewish canon Jesus upheld.
No manuscript can override the canon that Christ and the apostles established.
Canon is revealed, not voted, discovered, or reconstructed.
The line is drawn by the Word Himself. Jesus never cited these books. His apostles didn’t. The Hebrew custodians of Scripture rejected them. We must follow Christ’s voice, not later traditions or imaginative hypotheticals.
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. (8) And of them five belong to Moses: which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind, till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years. But as to the time from the death of Moses, till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God; and precepts for the conduct of human life. ’Tis true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly; but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers; because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets since that time. And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do. For during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them. But it is become natural to all Jews, immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines; and to persist in them: and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. For ’tis no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure wracks, and deaths of all kinds, upon the theatres; that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them. Whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account: no nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed. For they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them. And they have justly the same opinion of the elder writers: since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present; nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them. Examples of which may be had in this late war of ours: where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned; or having been near them when the actions were done: but these men put a few things together, by hearsay; and insolently abuse the world; and call these writings by the name of Histories.
Again controversial, @Johann sir 2 Maccabees 12: Do all sins lead to damnation? 1 John 5:16-17, im not a catholic
Exegesis: The soldiers’ amulets suggest syncretism, not deliberate idolatry as Judas’ sin offering (v.43) and prayer “that the sin might be blotted out” assume their salvation is possible, tied to resurrection hope (v.44). THis aligns with Second Temple beliefs in postmortem intercession seen in 1 Enoch 22 and later synagogue practices. THe text doesnt teach purgatory but a jewish hope in God’s mercy consistent with Orthodox prayers.
Orthodox: Orthodox soteriology rejects rigid catholic categories. 2 Maccabees 12 supports and resonates with 1 Cor 15:29 (baptism for the dead) and Hebrews 11:35 (alluding to 2 Maccabees 7’s resurrection theology).
Hebrews 9:27 and Luke 16:26:
Hebrews 9:27 states death precedes judgement, not that judgement is instantaneous or excludes intercession. Luke 16:26 illustrates eternal desires and doesnt negate intercession prayer, which is not a rewriting of divine decrees, and which seeks grace, Jonah vs 2 Maccabees
Both texts showcase God’s mercy- Nineveh’s idolaters repent and are spared, while Judas prays for the soldiers’ atonement expecting resurrection (2 Maccabees 12:44). Both reflect divine compassion, a biblical onstant. Second Temple texts like 1 Enoch 22 and Qumram’s eschatological writings supports postmortem intercession.
The question is You accept Esther, which lacks explicit divine reference or apostolic citation as Ketuvim, yet reject 2 Maccabees despire its apostolic allusion and Jewish provenance?
If 2 Maccabees’ intercession is unauthorized, why accept Daniel 12’s resurrection theology, debated by rabbis shall we see Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1/ Philo and Josephus
Philo’s silence
*Cites LXX but focuses on Pentateuch and even omits Ezekiel, Daniel, and deutero-canonical. I dont think u want him. His silence doesnt define a canon, as he wasnt addressing its boundaries. His alexandrian boundaries where Wisdom and Sirach were revered undermines ur claim
Josephys: Josephus’ Against Apion 1.8 mentions 22 maooks, ending with Artaxeres, but his list is unclear, some scholars suugest 1 Maccabees inclusion. WIth post-70AD (no doubt) Josephus reflects a narrowing canon amid anti-Christian tensions like can you look into Aquila’s translation commissioned by rabbis and see what they did, are we supporting this, is the question?
Luke 24:44: Pslams is a synecdoche for the Writings, but the ketuvim’s contents were fluid per-70AD like Qumran’s broader texts, rabbinic debates on Esther, Mishnah Yadayim 3:5. The LXX grouped deutercanonical books like Wisdom and the Writings so Luke 24:44 deosnt exlude them. Jesus’ focus is messanic fulfillment, not canon delimitation.
Jesus’ teachings echo Wisdom 2:12-29, Sirach 28:2 and 2 Maccabees via Hanukkah. His participation in Hanukkah endorses its theological weight, how can we explain this
Your demand for “It is written” quotes is a protestant anachronism, i didn;t get a good reply for this either, why do we have Esther or Ecclesiastes even though Jesus doesnt quote them If Jesus could rebuke the oral Traditions in Matt 15:3-6 why did Jesus affirm the Ketuvim, yet during His time, if he reffered to the broader LXX, why not rebuke Wisdom’s synagogue use
Wisdom’s Messianic force:
The manuscipt’s pre-Christian commentary on Wisdom 2:12-20 as messianic mirrors Jesus’ passion suggesting Jewish use in His context. Early Christians like Clement of Alexandria in Stromata 5.14 saw it as prophetic
Hebrews 11:35- 2 Maccabees 7
James 1:19- Sirach 5:11
Romans 1:20-32 with Wisdom 13-14
You accept Psalm 22’s messianc role depsite no explicit “It is written” in Matt 27:46, why demand strict criteria for Wisdom ,especially with manuscripts’ pharisaic endorsement?
The main problems @Johann sir is
You affirm Jesus’ Pharisaic norms in Luke 24:44 but reject a Pharisaic sect’s scriptural designation of Wisdom. Why does their pre- 70AD witness, tied to Jesus’ milieu lack authority.
The manuscript’s messianic Wisdom 2 places it in Jesus’ context suggesting His silence reflects acceptance, not rejection, especially given its apostolic echos.
Unlike 1 Enoch, Wisdom’s manuscipt has Pharisaic and Messianic weight aligning with LXX’s apostolic use, Why accept Esther, despite no apostolic citation, why reject Wisdom with stronger evidence The problem will be solved, @Johann sir
Without post-70AD rabbinic works like Josephus and Talmud or Reformation principles like Luther’s sola scriptura, you can’t exclude Wisdom, is this true..
@Johann
Against Apion I
Josephus claims of a 22 book canon- five of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, four of hymns and precepts, as proof for a fixed Jewish Scripture, excluding deuterocanon, authoritative in Jesus’ pre-70 AD context.
I would like to point out Ambiguity
Josephus’ list is vague, lacking specific titles. Scholars like Steve Mason in Josephus and NT suggest it may include 1 Maccabees as it covers post-Artaxeres history, the Hasmonean Revolt. His silence on Wisdom, Sirach or Tobit doesnt exclude them, his focus was on Jewish unity, not exhaustive canon definition.
The dead sea scrolls, Qumran, 3rd Century BC- 1st Century AD included deuterocanonical texts like Tobit and Sirach with 1 Enoch thus shows no fixed canon existed Post 70-AD
Written in 90AD against apion, reflects a post-Temple rabbinic leaning effort to standardize Jewish identity against Christianity and Hellenistic influences. The destruction of the Temple at 70AD spurred canon consolidation as seen in latter rabbinic debates like Mishnah Yadayim 3:5 on Esther. Pre 70AD, the LXX including the deuterocanon was used by the Jews in Judea and the Diaspora as in case of Philo, Synagogue readings in Acts 6:9. Josephus’ claim of a closed canon post-Artaxeres alings with anti-Christian polemics like Aquila’s translations of 130AD, to reject LXX messianic readings like Isa 7:14’s “virgin”
**Im afraid, are we supporting these anti-Christian rabbis, these same rabbis commissioned for Aquila’s translation to counter Christians who claim the messianic meaning of passages, how are we relying on this…really, we are using Josephus for this, a post 70AD trend guy, rabbis wanted to remove deuterocanon..WHY? because Christians were using it to prove Jesus is the messiah..but sorry..im with the Truth. Jewish Reverence
Josephus emphasizes Jewish fidelity to their Scriptures, contrasting them with Greek writings’ variability. This highlights cultural esteem, not a closed canon. Jews died for Torah and broader traditions like Maccabean martyrs in 2 Maccabees 7, not a 22 book list.
@2Samuel_23, your post is eloquent, but blurred in categories, selective in appeals, and built on the fallacy that Second Temple diversity equals divine endorsement. Let’s confront that with Scripture, history, and doctrinal steel.
2 Maccabees 12- A Narrative, Not a Norm
You argue Judas’ prayer for fallen soldiers endorses postmortem intercession. It doesn’t. The passage describes, not prescribes. The Greek ἱκέτευσε (v.42, “he implored”) shows Judas’ hope, not Yahweh’s command. No divine voice accepts the offering. The men died in idolatrous sin, and Judas’ act was an emotional, desperate gesture, no theological framework is laid here. It’s historical narration, not inspired instruction.
Syncretism and Resurrection, Desperation, Not Doctrine
Wearing pagan amulets (v.40) violated Deut 7:25–26. Judas’ prayer is not cleansing but confession that they died in sin. You cite 1 Enoch 22 and Qumran scrolls to suggest postmortem hope, but neither are Scripture. Jesus and the apostles never quote them. You can’t pull theology from what the Holy Spirit never breathed out.
1 Cor 15:29 and Hebrews 11:35- Irrelevant
1 Cor 15:29 is cryptic and even Paul distances himself=“what will they do…?” He doesn’t affirm it. Hebrews 11:35 refers to martyrdom, not postmortem prayers. The resurrection hope is in life, not after death, and it’s God’s reward for faithful suffering, not human intercession.
Hebrews 9:27 and Luke 16:26, Finality, Not Flexibility
You claim Heb 9:27 doesn’t exclude intercession. But the Greek ἀπόκειται (appointed) frames an unbendable sequence: death, then judgment. Luke 16:26 shows a chasm fixed by God, not crossed by saints’ prayers. Abraham’s message: it’s too late. You’re not describing mercy, you’re rewriting eschatology.
You contrast Esther’s silence on God with Wisdom’s literary theology. But Esther was canonized among Jews before Christ and affirmed by Purim (Esther 9:28). Jesus accepted the threefold division, Law, Prophets, and Writings (Luke 24:44). “Psalms” as a synecdoche doesn’t open the door to everything Qumran housed. The Writings had recognized limits, even if not yet formalized. Jesus’ quoting habits reflect that canon, not synagogue popularity.
Josephus and Philo- Partial Witnesses, Not Canon Curators
You downplay Josephus (Apion 1.8) because he stops with Artaxerxes. But his 22-book list mirrors our Old Testament, Law (5), Prophets (8), Writings (9). No Maccabees. You dismiss Philo’s silence, yet he lived in Alexandria, cited the LXX, and never once cited Wisdom or Sirach as Scripture. That silence is deafening.
Hanukkah, Jesus, and Silence Isn’t Consent
Jesus celebrated Hanukkah (John 10:22)-a historical commemoration, not an endorsement of Maccabees. He attended weddings too-does that canonize Song of Songs? Jesus rebuked tradition (Matt 15:3–6) and used “It is written” (Matt 4:4,7,10) to cite Scripture. You call this a Protestant anachronism, but it was Christ’s own standard.
Wisdom 2: Prophetic Echo or Canonical Authority?
You say Wisdom 2:12–20 echoes Christ’s passion. Agreed-it’s eerie. But parallels don’t equal prophecy. The New Testament quotes Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Zechariah 12:10, directly and authoritatively. Wisdom is never quoted. Clement of Alexandria loved it, he also quoted Greek myths. Use isn’t canon. The Holy Spirit quotes Himself, and He never quotes Wisdom as Scripture.
Apostolic Use Is the Divider
The apostles quoted from the Law, Prophets, and Writings extensively. Every Old Testament book in the Protestant canon is either quoted or clearly alluded to by the apostles. But Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, and Maccabees? Never. Not once. Apostolic silence is not benign, it’s decisive.
False Binary: Sola Scriptura vs Pre-70 Pharisees
You argue: if we reject Reformation principles, we must follow pre-70 Pharisaic inclusions. False. We follow Christ. He affirmed the Scriptures that were written, quoted, and fulfilled, and He didn’t cite Wisdom, Sirach, or Maccabees. Luke 24:44 shows Jesus holding to a known structure. The Reformation didn’t invent the canon, it recovered what Jesus affirmed and apostles preached.
In summary:
2 Maccabees 12 describes a man’s fear-driven gesture-not God’s doctrinal decree.
Resurrection hope in Hebrews and Maccabees isn’t about postmortem prayer, it’s about martyrdom and covenantal faith.
Canon is defined by prophetic voice, Christ’s affirmation, and apostolic citation, not literary beauty or synagogue familiarity.
The Word of God is not fluid, optional, or shaped by cultural consensus. It is breathed, authoritative, and already given (Jude 3). Jesus didn’t need to quote every book to affirm the canon, He had already received it as sufficient, complete, and God-ordained.
@2Samuel_23, let’s cut through the claims about Josephus and the canon. Your argument sounds weighty, but it leans on speculation, false binaries, and silence masquerading as inclusion.
Josephus’ 22-Book Canon: Clear, Not Vague
In Against Apion 1.8, Josephus explicitly says Jews have “twenty-two books” believed to be divine. He divides them: five of Moses, thirteen of the Prophets, four of hymns and precepts. This mirrors the Jewish canon—Law (5), Prophets (8), Writings (9), where Ruth-Judges and Lamentations-Jeremiah are counted together. That’s not an ambiguous list—it reflects the very canon Jesus affirmed in Luke 24:44, and what the apostles cited repeatedly.
You cite Steve Mason’s suggestion that 1 Maccabees might be included. But Josephus never says so. “Ending with Artaxerxes” refers to Ezra-Nehemiah, not the Hasmoneans. Maccabees chronicles the post-prophetic era, and Josephus says no Scripture came after the prophets ceased. That excludes Tobit, Sirach, Maccabees, Wisdom, and more.
Silence Isn’t Acceptance
Josephus’ “silence” on Wisdom or Tobit means nothing when he’s listing what is divinely authoritative. If he believed those books were Scripture, he would have said so. Instead, he writes that from Artaxerxes onward, nothing was added, and the books written then are “not esteemed like the former ones.” That’s a clear rejection of the Deuterocanon.
Qumran’s Scrolls: Library ≠ Canon
Yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls include Tobit, Sirach, and 1 Enoch—but they also include sectarian apocalypses. Qumran housed a library, not a canon. The presence of a text in a cave doesn’t mean it was Scripture. Compare this to how Torah scrolls were copied, stored, and revered—entirely different treatment. Use does not equal inspiration.
Josephus Pre- or Post-70AD? The Point Still Stands
You say Josephus reflects a post-70AD canon-shaping agenda. But Josephus wrote as a Pharisee, claiming these 22 books were already accepted by all Jews. He appeals to a fixed tradition, not innovation. His words are about what Jews always believed, not what was invented to oppose Christians. If he were shaping canon merely to avoid Christian claims, why include Daniel—which Christians heavily used for Messianic prophecy?
You invoke Aquila’s 130AD translation to say later rabbis altered Scripture to undercut Christians. Sure—but Josephus wrote before that. Don’t project Aquila’s motives onto Josephus. He wasn’t battling the Church—he was defending Jewish consistency to a Greek audience.
Hanukkah & Martyrs: Reverence ≠ Revelation
You appeal to 2 Maccabees 7 and say Jews died for those books. But people die for all sorts of beliefs—zeal isn’t inspiration. Jesus didn’t cite 2 Maccabees when defending resurrection; He cited Exodus 3:6 (Matt 22:32). That’s canon authority. Not cultural reverence.
Philo, LXX, and Acts 6:9 — Still No Canon Claim
Philo used the LXX, yet never cited the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture—not once. That silence is loud. He quoted Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Isaiah, but never Tobit, Wisdom, or Maccabees. Acts 6:9 speaks of synagogue opposition—not of which books were read. You’re reading in a canon that’s not there.
Jesus and the Apostles — The Final Word
Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He cited Torah, Prophets, and Psalms—never Maccabees, Tobit, or Sirach. The apostles never quoted them either. Every book in the Hebrew canon is cited or alluded to in the New Testament. The Deuterocanon? Utter silence. That’s not oversight—it’s divine exclusion.
So where do your claims come from?
Steve Mason’s speculation, not citation.
Dead Sea Scrolls with no canon lists.
Post-70 rabbinic reaction, misapplied to a pre-70 Josephus.
Aquila’s anti-Christian motives, wrongly back-applied to Josephus.
Emotional appeals to martyr stories, which don’t canonize books.
Philo’s LXX use, while ignoring the fact that he never cited the books you’re trying to elevate.
Meanwhile, Scripture speaks. Jesus affirmed the Law, Prophets, and Writings (Luke 24:44), never once treating the Deuterocanon as inspired. Paul says the Jews were entrusted with “the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2)—and no Deuterocanonical books were among those oracles. If they were, we’d see it in how Christ and His apostles taught. But we don’t.
Conclusion:
Josephus wasn’t vague. He preserved what Jews believed before the Temple fell, and what Jesus Himself affirmed. You want to trust Philo’s library, Qumran’s variety, and martyr stories? I’ll trust Christ’s canon. The Deuterocanon wasn’t cited, wasn’t affirmed, wasn’t preached by apostles, and wasn’t counted among the Scriptures Jesus called unbreakable.
That’s not just silence. That’s sovereign exclusion.
I think we both have put forward very strong arguments..i like it, u were amazing..peace to you
But let Christ define the canon, Josephus, Jewish council, congregation are not the ones i rely on to define canon, never Josephus…I rely on Holy Spirit, He is with us, Am i right @Johann sir
I give this problem into His hands
Verdict: No definitive conclusion reached @Johann, u were amazing, u taught me a lot here, but i cannot digest Josephus, a jewish scholar..im not letting him decide canon, i let the Church decide, guided by the Holy Spirit, Are we questioning the Holy Spirit, God Forbid that never happens, Holy Spirit will guide us, He will guide the Church, and the Church He guided have solved the problem..Praise be to God
For Jesus is with us, He will guide us, yet we may or may not recognise what He says
Peace
Sam
@2Samuel_23, my brother, your heart is sincere, and I respect the peace you extend. You’ve argued boldly and thoughtfully. But allow me to say this plainly, in love:
This isn’t just an intellectual duel over dusty manuscripts. It’s about whether Christ gets to define the voice of God-or whether we hand that authority over to rabbis post-Calvary or councils post-Pentecost.
You said the Holy Spirit will guide the Church. Yes, but He already has. Through the prophets, through the apostles, and most of all, through the Son, Hebrews 1:1–2. We don’t wait for the Spirit to speak in 1546 AD at Trent, we look to what He breathed out in the first century, when the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
You say Josephus is not your authority, I agree. But neither is the later Church. Christ is the canon’s cornerstone, and the Spirit bears witness to Him, not beyond Him. If the books do not testify of Christ (John 5:39), they have no claim. The gospel transforms not by council decree but by Spirit-born conviction, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Rom 10:17).
Let me be real with you, brother, my life was changed not by 2 Maccabees or the Deuterocanon, but by the piercing clarity of the cross, the empty tomb, and the Spirit’s voice through the Scriptures Jesus Himself endorsed.
The canon isn’t just a list. It’s the voice of our Shepherd. “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27)-so if Jesus didn’t quote it, didn’t teach it, didn’t build His church on it, why are we defending it?
Peace to you, Sam. But peace isn’t passivity. Peace is found when the storm listens to the voice of the true Canon, Christ. So let’s anchor in Him.
Not Josephus.
Not Trent.
Not a council.
Not even a strong argument.
Hi everyone,
Please bring the discussion back to the original topic: How tall was Jesus—and does it matter what He looked like? This thread has drifted significantly into unrelated areas.
If you’d like to continue conversations about topics such as extra-biblical visions, tone in forum replies, or forum conduct, you’re welcome to start a new thread in the appropriate category.
Further off-topic replies in this thread may be removed.
As always, please do not respond to this warning in the thread. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to message me directly or email: community@salemwebnetwork.com.
Thank you for helping keep the conversation focused and respectful.
—Fritz
Community Admin
Crosswalk Forums
