For Those Who Teach Sola Scriptura…

bible bane.jpg

Using the Bible Alone, can you determine which books belong in the Bible? Where is the Bible’s canon explained?

Using the Bible Alone, can you tell who wrote each book of the Bible?

How did the Early Church manage to evangelize the pagan Roman Empire without a set Bible Canon?

Who has the authority to arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

If all the authority a Christian needs is in the Bible, why are there thousands of denominations, with their own pastors or elders leading them?

Using the Bible Alone, can you show where the Bible teaches that it itself is sufficient?

Using the Bible Alone, can you explain the concept of the Trinity, and how the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son?



Who Is Your Teacher? Scripture Alone?


To anyone who adheres to Sola Scriptura, they have gotten it right…The Bible is the sole authority when it comes to Christian doctrine…

The above phrase was taken from the article: Who Is Your Teacher? — by Modconspiracy (Link at bottom).

Is the Bible really the sole authority? Does the Bible teach that it is the sole authority? Was this always believed by Christianity? Is Scripture the only infallible teacher?

Well first, how did the Bible come together?

The Bible is a collection of writings considered to be inspired by God, written by man. The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. A canon distinguishes what is revealed and divine from what is not revealed and human. The Council of Laodicea, 360 AD, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon. Around 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a canon of books he thought were divinely inspired. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon, the same canon listed by Athanasius. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree. Later Councils of Hippo, 393 AD, and Carthage, 397 AD, ratified this canon listed by Pope Damasus. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming the canon, which contained 73 books.

This is roughly how the Bible came to be. The Catholic Church was the one, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, determined what books belonged in the canon, and which did not.

The New Testament is a collection of letters written by the first Christians, primarily the Apostles, to the churches in their care, or their students in the Faith. The Gospels are a written account of what occurred in Christ’s life. These events were previously taught orally, before they were written. We are both lucky and thankful that Christ’s Apostles decided to write down His teachings, as Christ never commanded them to write any of it on paper.

Catholics believe that the Bible is the written form of God’s Word, and it is inerrant. Along with Sacred Tradition, it is a source of Revelation to man. Tradition is all the Christian teachings that are not found in the Bible, but are still doctrinal truths. These two sources of Revelation are interpreted and taught infallibly by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the Pope.

This is where the Protestant churches disagree. They believe that the Bible alone is the sole authority of Christian doctrine, and it alone is the infallible teacher. This doctrine is commonly referred to by its Latin name of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone.

Is Sola Scriptura true? Does it have any biblical or historical roots? For Sola Scriptura to work, it would have to be found in the Bible. The most commonly cited verse by Protestants when attempting to prove Sola Scriptura is:

“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

This verse does not say that Scripture is sufficient; it says that Scripture is profitable. It does not say that we are to go by the Bible alone. Also, read in context with the preceding verses, St. Paul is talking to Timothy about the scriptures that he has known from his infancy (2 Timothy 3:15). The only scriptures at that time was the Old Testament. Paul’s epistles were not regarded as Scripture at the time of its writing. If this is proof of Sola Scriptura, then in reality it is Sola Old Testament! The real message of this passage is that all scripture is profitable, but not sufficient.

The Greek word pasa, which is usually translated as “all”, means “every”, in the sense of referring to each and every individual piece of the class denoted. That is to say that the Greek literally reads that each and every individual scripture is profitable. Profitable, not sufficient. If profitable is to be taken as sufficient, then that means that every individual book of Scripture is sufficient to teach all Christian doctrine, and that is utter nonsense.

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and the Church. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). And to use an analogy,  examine a similar passage:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11-15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then Ephesians 4 would also prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. The pastors, teachers, etc. are able to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, building Christ’s Church, and unity in knowledge of the Faith. Using the Protestant mindset for 2 Timothy 3:16, it appears that the leaders of the Church are sufficient, since this passage doesn’t even mention Scripture. So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. Another passage that could be mentioned such as James 1:4.

“And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.” (James 1:4)

It appears that, using the Protestant mentality applied to 2 Timothy 3:16, patience is enough to perfect a man, and only patience. James makes no mention of Scripture being sufficient.

Or perhaps 2 Corinthians 12:9 which states:

“And He has said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness‘ Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” (2 Corinthians 12:9)

Maybe even Matthew 19:21.

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Matthew 19:21)

Nowhere does the Bible claim to be the sole teacher of Christian doctrine, implicitly or explicitly. Why should one believe Sola Scriptura if the Bible itself does not teach it?

One cannot argue that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of the Early Church either–they didn’t have a Bible for several centuries. The early Christians relied on oral Tradition to learn about God and Christian doctrine. Tradition, like the Bible, is the Word of God.

“Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, in Jeremiah:

“For twenty-three years…the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again…’But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord…Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words…’ ” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8).

This was the Word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thess. 2:13)

The Scriptures are not the only form of the Word of God. The word of God is oral Tradition also, as shown above. Before Paul wrote down the Word of God, it was oral–but it was still the Word of God.

Many Protestants quote verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:8-13; Col. 2:8). They seem to think that since Jesus condemned man-made traditions that nullify the Word of God, then all tradition is to be regarded as bad. The Bible says otherwise.

Let us remember that Jesus Christ commissioned the Apostles to “preach the Gospel to every creature”(Mark 16:15), not to “write down everything that I have taught you in one big book.” The Apostles oral teaching was to be believed, as it was binding (Luke 10:16). The prophet Isaiah prophesied of how the Word of the Lord would not depart from his people’s mouths; and would remain with them forever (Is. 59:21) This shows how important Tradition really is; not only the Bible holds the authoritative Christian teaching. This oral teaching will last forever, says Simon Peter.

“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:25)

Be aware of the word preached–it was oral. This was guaranteed to last. Just because the Word was not written down does not mean that it wasn’t the Word of God. How did the Bible come to be?? Did several typewritten papers fall from Heaven one day? No. God inspired men to preach and later write down His Word. The oral Word holds the same authority as that which is written.

“And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Acts 2:42)

The first Christians persevered in the doctrine of the apostles, not solely on the Bible. Why did these Christians not persevere in Scripture alone? Because, they acknowledged the Apostles as their teachers, and also because the only part of the Bible in existence was the Old Testament. The New Testament was not written at this particular time, so this does not help the Protestant argument.

“Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2)

These “ordinances” that Paul has delivered to the Corinthians is tradition; something that is to be upheld, according to the Apostle. Why should the Christians have kept Paul’s ordinances? Should they have said that they didn’t see his ordinances in the Bible? Oh right, there was no Bible at that time.

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thes. 2:14)

St. Paul commands the holding of oral and written Tradition–not Scripture alone. He says to observe the tradition that has been learned by word, oral tradition, or written, scripture.

“What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” (2 Tim.1:13-14)

Paul tells Timothy to keep the sound teaching he has heard from him–oral Tradition.

“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.”(2 Timothy 2:2, emphasis added)

Paul tells Timothy to entrust to “reliable people” the teaching he has heard him say. This teaching that Timothy has heard is oral teaching–Tradition. Tradition is taught to be held as binding by the Church’s believer’s; not only Scripture. St. Paul approves of Apostolic Tradition, apart from the harmful traditions of men.

Tradition is of the same authority as the Bible. Why? Because it too, along with the Bible is God’s Word. They are just two different sources of Revelation in different forms. Before the Gospels were put on paper, they were oral Tradition. In reality, the New Testament is Tradition on paper. Why argue that Scripture alone is authoritative when Scripture says otherwise?

Did Paul not teach Christians to follow the Tradition given them? The Tradition he gave was authoritative. It would be very foolish to ignore the importance of Tradition. St. Paul knew that what he was teaching was infallible, or else he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thes. 3:14)

“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17)

Why should someone adhere to Sola Scriptura when Scripture does not teach that it alone is authoritative? The Bible clearly says that both Tradition and itself are rules of authority. Protestants defending Sola Scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, as we witness Christ’s showdown with Satan in the beginning of Luke 4, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament.

In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement.

“As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

Why should these references be believed by those that were being spoken to, if they were not written in Scripture? In 1 Corinthians 10, shouldn’t the Christians have rebuked Paul for going beyond Scripture and teach them from Tradition? No, because they were never taught to go by Scripture alone. None of the first Christians or Jews followed the rule of Sola Scriptura. The Jews listened to the prophets and other teachers God set before them, instead of going by Scripture Alone.

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chr. 17:8-9).

Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (Ezra 7:26).

So the people did indeed understand the law (Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without teaching assistance. The Old Testament teaches the need for authoritative interpreters, just like the New Testament.

The Bible, like any book, cannot interpret itself. There must be a truthful, teaching authority. There are people who do not understand the Scriptures and twist them to their own destruction. St. Peter mentions this in his second epistle, when speaking of St. Paul’s writings.

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

Someone with reasonable biblical knowledge must teach the meaning of the scriptures to others. Someone must show others the meaning of the sacred writings, so they may understand. Who better to do this than the Catholic Church, the institution that put the Bible together?

“And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaiah the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.” (Acts 8:28-31)

People must be shown the meaning of the Scriptures that they may know their meaning, and that they may not twist them to their own destruction. How can a person of no religious training be able to correctly decide the true meanings of Scripture passages? There are many seemingly contradictory passages in the Scriptures.

 Matthew 23:9: “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.”

Romans 4:12: “And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”

So did Paul sin by calling a man on earth his father?

John 13:34: “A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”

Luke 14:26: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

We have to hate our parents to follow Christ? Or are we to love one another? Which one?

With so many passages that are difficult to understand, there must be a teacher. Even the Twelve Apostles did not understand some of Christ’s parables, and needed them explained (Mark 4:33-34). The prophesies in Scripture are not to be privately interpreted (2 Pet. 1:20), lest people twist their meanings (2 Peter 3:16).

Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. St. Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.

Who can correctly teach the Bible’s meaning?

The Bible itself refers to the Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The truth of the faith has been revealed primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who with Jesus Christ, are the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, which keeps it’s teaching from corruption forever (John 14:16).

It is evident from the above passages that the teaching Church should be infallible, or else it would not be the pillar and ground of truth. If the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, then it is unable to teach erroneously on Christian doctrine.  The only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called it the “pillar and ground of truth”.

Beginning with Peter, the Apostles received authority from Jesus Christ Himself.

“Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

“If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17)

It is clear that God gave authority to his Apostles. The judicial power of binding and loosing is not just an everyday accomplishment! With their authority evident, why would one teach that Scripture alone is the sole authority? If the Church is the pillar of truth, how can the Bible be the only infallible authority? The notion of Sola Scriptura diminishes the authority of the Church, and leaves the ground of truth inferior to the Bible.

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28-29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

Why did the Apostles make a decision on something not clearly taught in Scripture? Why did the Early Christians not object to this? Because the Apostles were appointed as teaching authorities by Christ. They did not adhere to, and were not bound by Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura underemphasizes the fact that the Bible came from the Church, the Church did not come from the Bible. The Church got along quite nicely in the world without having a Bible for a few hundred years. If Sola Scriptura was true, how did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture? They didn’t go by Scripture Alone. There was no Bible for quite some time. The canon of Scripture was not settled till the 4th century. Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? And if there was a final authority before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established? The whole position is utterly illogical. The notion of Sola Scriptura, like the ancient Jews, was alien. They held Tradition and Scripture in the same regard as the Catholic Church. Epiphanius of Salamis summarizes the Catholic position quite neatly:

It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition.” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375])

The Bible itself would not be in existence if not for the Catholic Church. How else would it have come together? The Catholic Church determined what books belonged in the Bible canon. The Bible did not drop out of Heaven with an inspired table of contents. How would one determine, from Scripture alone, what books belong in the Scriptures? How would one determine, from Scripture alone, who wrote what books of the Bible? The manuscripts did not begin titled “The Gospel according to Luke”, or Paul’s Epistle to the Romans”. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church, using Sacred Tradition, determined the canon of Scripture, and knew who wrote the books. Those conclusions could not be gotten from solely the Bible, especially if no one knew what was inspired Scripture.

Essential to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Holy Spirit will enlighten each believer as to the correct interpretation for a given Bible passage. This idea presupposes that each believer possesses a Bible or at least has access to a Bible. The difficulty with such a presumption is that the Bible was not able to be mass-produced and readily available to individual believers until the advent of the printing press in the 15th century. Even then, it would have taken quite some time for large numbers of Bibles to be printed and disseminated to the general population. How could Christians possibly have access to  an authoritative source prior to this time? Did Christ leave His people in the dark about Christian doctrine after he ascended to Heaven? How would they know?

Christians did not need a Bible to know God’s Word, as they had His Word in the oral form of Tradition, and were taught by His Church, the Pillar of Truth. Really, if Jesus intended for Christianity to strictly be a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?

And, if Sola Scriptura were true, wouldn’t all Christians who adhere to the doctrine be in agreement on Christian teaching? There are thousands of “Christian” denominations, all teaching different doctrines. Are they all correct? Some denominations teach that once you are “saved” you can never lose your salvation, while others believe it is possible for a true Christian to sin gravely and cease being “saved.” Some teach the need for infant baptism, others condemn it. Who’s right? Shouldn’t they be on the same page since the rely solely on Scripture?

If every person gives his own private interpretation on a passage, how does he know if he is correct or not? Are any individual Protestant interpreters infallible? Many will answer no. In that case, you really don’t know what is the truth, do you? What a sad position.

With all the above problems stated, it is evident that Sola Scriptura is just another unbiblical (how ironic), man-made tradition. The only God-given institution that is infallible and error-free is the Catholic Church, as founded by Christ Himself. Christ’s Church teaches that Sola Scriptura is a heretical, man-made tradition that leads one away from the Truth, not closer to it.

The Catholic Church, using her Magisterium, infallibly teaches Christian doctrine, using the sources of Revelation; the written form of God’s Word, the Bible, and the oral form, passed down from generation to generation, Sacred Tradition. This alone is how Christ intended his flock to be taught. Only by accepting the Catholic Church as possessing the complete rule of faith can one be certain that they possess the whole truth Christ taught. Delving into the traditions and religions of men will not bring you truth; it will lead you astray.

— Patrick E. Devens


via Who Is Your Teacher? — MODCONSPIRACY

A Case for the Deuterocanonical: Response to excatholic4christ


If you take a trip to your local (c)hristian book store, you’ll of course see plenty of Bibles on the shelves. There will be many different Protestant Bibles (including a few very dubious translations) side-by-side with Catholic Bibles. Have you ever wondered what the differences are between Protestant and Catholic Bibles?

Today, I was listening to the 05/19/17 podcast of the Calling All Catholics talk radio show (The Station of the Cross, WLOF, 101.7 FM, Buffalo, NY) featuring moderator, Mike Denz, and priest-host, Dave Baker, taking questions from the listening audience.

Towards the end of the show, Denz took a question regarding the Bible:

Mike Denz: We’re going to go to Athena, who emailed us this question: “I am currently converting (to Catholicism) and I just received my Catholic Bible in the mail. I’m wondering if you have advice on how I should approach reading it? I grew up reading the King James Bible and just by skimming through the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible, I notice some pretty major differences already. Should I start by reading straight through first or should I just jump between chapters with focus on certain chapters?”

Denz then immediately commented that the King James Version is not a translation approved by the Catholic church. The church used to be 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 Palestine 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.

However, Denz claimed the apocryphal books “were quoted in the New Testament,” followed by priest Baker chiming in, “…by Jesus Himself!” I had never before come across a claim from a Catholic source that Jesus or the apostles had ever quoted from the Apocrypha. I did a little digging and found that objective Catholic sources admit that direct quotes of the Apocrypha cannot be found in the New Testament “and that the (religious) themes (alluded to in the NT as quotes from the Apocrypha by overzealous Catholics like Denz and Baker) are so prevalent in Judaism that our Lord may not have intended these works (i.e., the Apocrypha) specifically.” See here. Thanks for your objectivity, priest John Echert.

Tom published this post a little while back, and I’d like to comment on it citing a few articles I previously published.

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants. (1)

Here are quotes of the Early Christians citing the Deuterocanonicals. It appears that they believed they belonged in the canon.

The Didache

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be b.asphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is b.asphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).


“Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaancatholicmemes_com-4 and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]” (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

“Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]” (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).


“What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah” (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

Cyprian of Carthage

“In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, “Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . .”’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]” (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

“So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]” (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

If the first Christians recognized the Deuterocanonicals, why do the Protestants not? They know better than the immediate followers of Christ?

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books.

Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today.

Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. (2)

There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Council of Rome

“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Even though the present canon was excepted by Christians from the first few centuries after Christ, Protestants still deny the use of the Catholic Canon. Why?

It is popular in some Protestant circles to claim that the Jews had a closed canon of Scripture in the first century A.D. and that the early Christians accepted this final Jewish collection of inspired writings as final and binding upon the Church. Generally, the Council of Jabneh (usually referred to in Catholic literature as Jamnia) is assumed as the “proof” for this assertion. At the “Council of Jabneh,” you see, the Jewish rabbis supposedly got together—something like an ecumenical council in the Catholic Church—to lay down specific criteria for inspired Scripture and to finally define and close the Old Testament canon…

…Most non-Christian Jews of the first century A.D. considered the Church to be a heretical and misinformed Jewish cult, probably similar to the way Christians look at the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses of today. In the first century, several decades after the life of Christ, the majority of early Christians were Gentiles, and they used the Greek Septuagint as their Old Testament, following the example of the Greek-speaking Jews, including Jesus and the apostles…

…When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it. Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included…

…The so-called “Council of Jabneh” was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin. Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint…

…Isn’t it interesting that the Jews did not have a “closed canon” of Scripture during the time of Christ, before 100, or even after Jabneh? Even during the time of Christ there were competing opinions on what books actually belonged in the Jewish Bible. There were various collections in existence. Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, the first five books, whereas the Pharisees accepted a fuller canon including Psalms and the prophets. The Masoretic text did not contain the deuterocanonicals, whereas the widely used Greek Septuagint did…

…This uncertainty continued well into the second century. The discussion over the books of the canon of the Old Testament continued among the Jews long after Jabneh, which demonstrates that the canon was still under discussion in the third century—well beyond the apostolic period. The challenges to canonicity at Jabneh involved only Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, but the debate over the canon continued past Jabneh, even into the second and third centuries. Even the Hebrew canon accepted by Protestants today was disputed by the Jews for two hundred years after Christ…

…Some cautionary points should be noted here:

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.

2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.

3. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.

4. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522)… (3)

To view the full extent of the excerpt, check footnote 3.

With the above four points in mind, it is really unclear what went down in Jamnia. They could have played shuffleboard for all we know. The point is that despite the uncertainties surrounded the supposed Jewish canon, Protestants have adhered to it, and claim it is correct.

There is still another thought that should trouble Protestants. Since when did the Jews have any authority from God to decide on a Canon? They killed the God-man sent to them, and killed many of His followers. We are to trust them for the OT canon? Jesus Christ gave authority to His own Church, not the Jews after they crucified Him (Luke 10:16, 1 Timothy 3:15, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 2:20, Mathew 18:17-18, Acts 15:28-29). Why would Tom reference to the authority of the Jews? That’s like asserting authority to the Mormons.

The key issue, as cited by Tom, is the question: Did Jesus quote the Deuterocanonicals?

There are no direct quotes, but there are many similarities and allusions to the Deuterocanonicals in the NT. For a full list see here:

Even if the New Testament does not directly quote the Deuterocanonicals, does that make them invalid to be included in the Canon? Of course not. The book of Judges is never quoted in the New Testament, and yet it is included.

However, Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books”. The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times. (4)

If the Apostles and Christ accepted the Greek Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonicals, did they not recognize the Deuterocanonical books as valid? What would be the use of quoting from the Septuagint if it erred in its canon?

The bottom line is that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted long ago by the Church, who has authority given by God. The Jews had no authority to choose what books belonged in the canon and what did not. Christ’s Church had that authority. Who deserves our trust? God’s Church, the pillar of truth, or the Jews who killed Christ?

— Patrick E. Devens






via Did Jesus or the apostles ever quote the Apocrypha? — excatholic4christ

The Canon of the Bible

All Christians realize that if God has revealed Himself by communicating His will to man, man must be able to know with assurance where that revelation lies. Hence the need for a list (i.e. canon) of books of the Bible. In other words, man needs to know without error (i.e. infallibly) what the books of the Bible are. There must be an authority which will make that decision.

The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. A canon distinguishes what is revealed and divine from what is not revealed and human. “Canon” (Greek kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. Because God did not explicitly reveal what books are the inspired books of the Bible, title by title, to anyone, we must look to His guidance in discovering the canon of the Bible.

Jesus has told us that he has not revealed all truths to us.

Jn 16:12-13
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.

Jesus then told us how he was planning to assist us in knowing other truths.

Jn 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.

The New Testament writers sensed how they handled truth-bearing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.

1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received …
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (parathou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul’s time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.

Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.

Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.

Canonical books are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books the Church considers to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. Some criteria used to determine canonicity were

    • special relation to God, i.e., inspiration;
    • apostolic origin;
    • used in Church services, i.e., used by the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit.

Other terms for canonical books should be distinguished: the protocanonical books, deuterocanonical books, and the apocryphal books.

The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)

The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).

The apocryphal (from the Greek apokryphos meaning hidden) books have multiple meanings:

    • complimentary meaning – that the sacred books were too exalted for the general public;
    • pejorative meaning – that the orthodoxy of the books were questioned;
    • heretical meaning – that the books were forbidden to be read; and lastly
    • neutral meaning – simply noncanonical books, the meaning the word has today.

Another word, pseudepigrapha (from the Greek meaning false writing) is used for works clearly considered to be false.



By Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics, © Copyright 1985-2004, Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture texts are taken from the New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Email comments to

Last Updated: July 17, 2004


Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

( Original link: )

By James Akin

I get a lot of requests for a list of the references the New Testament makes to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, giving a list is not such a simple affair since it is not always obvious whether something is a genuine reference.

Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7, but many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book (and this may not be obvious in the translation, but only the original languages).

This is the same with New Testament references to the protocanonical books of the Old Testament. How many New Testament references there are to the Old Testament depends in large measure on what you are going to count as a reference.

As a result, many scholarly works simply give an enormous catalogue of all proposed references and leave it to the individual interpreter to decide whether a given reference is actual or not.

I will follow the same procedure until I have time to sit down with the following references, sort through them, and decide which I can prove to be references are to deutercanonical books. If you find any you think are indisputable, email me, as it will help with the project of producing a shorter list of indisputable references.

The following (huge) list is taken from pp. 800-804 of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th edition (Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine, published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).

New Testament Order

Deuterocanonical Order

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Hebrews
  • James
  • 1 Peter
  • 2 Peter
  • 1 John
  • Jude
  • Revelation
  • Daniel
  • Baruch
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • Sirach
  • Wisdom
  • 1 Maccabees
  • 2 Maccabees

References in New Testament Order


Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26
Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15
Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1
Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8
Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12
Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24
Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14
Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4
Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60
Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2
Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1
Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s
Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10
Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11
Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15
Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15
Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6
Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37
Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3
Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19
Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17
Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17
Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10
Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17
Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17
Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1
Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19
Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s
Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3
Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15
Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s
Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13
Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21
Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22
Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10
Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15
Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15
Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2
Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4
Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54
Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17
Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28
Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17
Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35
Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2
Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20




Mark 1:15 Tobit 14:5
Mark 4:5 Sirach 40:15
Mark 4:11 Wisdom 2:22
Mark 5:34 Judith 8:35
Mark 6:49 Wisdom 17:15
Mark 8:37 Sirach 26:14
Mark 9:31 Sirach 2:18
Mark 9:48 Judith 16:17
Mark 10:18 Sirach 4:1
Mark 14:34 Sirach 37:2
Mark 15:29 Wisdom 2:17s



Luke 1:17 Sirach 48:10
Luke 1:19 Tobit 12:15
Luke 1:42 Judith 13:18
Luke 1:52 Sirach 10:14
Luke 2:29 Tobit 11:9
Luke 2:37 Judith 8:6
Luke 6:35 Wisdom 15:1
Luke 7:22 Sirach 48:5
Luke 9:8 Sirach 48:10
Luke 10:17 Tobit 7:17
Luke 10:19 Sirach 11:19
Luke 10:21 Sirach 51:1
Luke 12:19 Tobit 7:10
Luke 12:20 Wisdom 15:8
Luke 13:25 Tobit 14:4
Luke 13:27 1 Maccabees 3:6
Luke 13:29 Baruch 4:37
Luke 14:13 Tobit 2:2
Luke 15:12 1 Maccabees 10:29 [30]
Luke 15:12 Tobit 3:17
Luke 18:7 Sirach 35:22
Luke 19:44 Wisdom 3:7
Luke 21:24 Tobit 14:5
Luke 21:24 Sirach 28:18
Luke 21:25 Wisdom 5:22
Luke 24:4 2 Maccabees 3:26
Luke 24:31 2 Maccabees 3:34
Luke 24:50 Sirach 50:20s
Luke 24:53 Sirach 50:22



John 1:3 Wisdom 9:1
John 3:8 Sirach 16:21
John 3:12 Wisdom 9:16
John 3:12 Wisdom 18:15s
John 3:13 Baruch 3:29
John 3:28 1 Maccabees 9:39
John 3:32 Tobit 4:6
John 4:9 Sirach 50:25s
John 4:48 Wisdom 8:8
John 5:18 Wisdom 2:16
John 6:35 Sirach 24:21
John 7:38 Sirach 24:40, 43[30s]
John 8:44 Wisdom 2:24
John 8:53 Sirach 44:19
John 10:20 Wisdom 5:4
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
John 14:15 Wisdom 6:18
John 15:9s Wisdom 3:9
John 17:3 Wisdom 15:3
John 20:22 Wisdom 15:11



Acts 1:10 2 Maccabees 3:26
Acts 1:18 Wisdom 4:19
Acts 2:4 Sirach 48:12
Acts 2:11 Sirach 36:7
Acts 2:39 Sirach 24:32
Acts 4:24 Judith 9:12
Acts 5:2 2 Maccabees 4:32
Acts 5:12 1 Maccabees 12:6
Acts 5:21 2 Maccabees 1:10
Acts 5:39 2 Maccabees 7:19
Acts 9:1-29 2 Maccabees 3:24-40
Acts 9:2 1 Maccabees 15:21
Acts 9:7 Wisdom 18:1
Acts 10:2 Tobit 12:8
Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 10:25
Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 11:30, 33 etc.
Acts 10:26 Wisdom 7:1
Acts 10:30 2 Maccabees 11:8
Acts 10:34 Sirach 35:12s
Acts 10:36 Wisdom 6:7
Acts 10:36 Wisdom 8:3 etc.
Acts 11:18 Wisdom 12:19
Acts 12:5 Judith 4:9
Acts 12:10 Sirach 19:26
Acts 12:23 Judith 16:17
Acts 12:23 Sirach 48:21
Acts 12:23 1 Maccabees 7:41
Acts 12:23 2 Maccabees 9:9
Acts 13:10 Sirach 1:30
Acts 13:17 Wisdom 19:10
Acts 14:14 Judith 14:16s
Acts 14:15 Wisdom 7:3
Acts 15:4 Judith 8:26
Acts 16:14 2 Maccabees 1:4
Acts 17:23 Wisdom 14:20
Acts 17:23 Wisdom 15:17
Acts 17:24, 25 Wisdom 9:1
Acts 17:24 Tobit 7:17
Acts 17:24 Wisdom 9:9
Acts 17:26 Wisdom 7:18
Acts 17:27 Wisdom 13:6
Acts 17:29 Wisdom 13:10
Acts 17:30 Sirach 28:7
Acts 19:27 Wisdom 3:17
Acts 19:28 Daniel 14:18, 41
Acts 20:26 Daniel 13:46
Acts 20:32 Wisdom 5:5
Acts 20:35 Sirach 4:31
Acts 21:26 1 Maccabees 3:49
Acts 22.9 Wisdom 18.1
Acts 24:2 2 Maccabees 4:6
Acts 26:18 Wisdom 5:5
Acts 26:25 Judith 10:13



Romans 1:19-32 Wisdom 13-15
Romans 1:21 Wisdom 13:1
Romans 1:23 Wisdom 11:15
Romans 1:23 Wisdom 12:24
Romans 1:28 2 Maccabees 6:4
Romans 2:4 Wisdom 11:23
Romans 2:11 Sirach 35:12s
Romans 2:15 Wisdom 17:11
Romans 4:13 Sirach 44:21
Romans 4:17 Sirach 44:19
Romans 5:5 Sirach 18:11
Romans 5:12 Wisdom 2:24
Romans 9:4 Sirach 44:12
Romans 9:4 2 Maccabees 6:23
Romans 9:19 Wisdom 12:12
Romans 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
Romans 9:31 Sirach 27:8
Romans 9:31 Wisdom 2:11
Romans 10.7 Wisdom 16.13
Romans 10:6 Baruch 3:29
Romans 11:4 2 Maccabees 2:4
Romans 11:15 Sirach 10:20s
Romans 11:33 Wisdom 17:1
Romans 12:15 Sirach 7:34
Romans 13:1 Sirach 4:27
Romans 13:1 Wisdom 6:3s
Romans 13.10 Wisdom 6.18
Romans 15:4 1 Maccabees 12:9
Romans 15:8 Sirach 36:20


1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 1:24 Wisdom 7:24s
1 Corinthians 2:16 Wisdom 9:13
1 Corinthians 2:9 Sirach 1:10
1 Corinthians 4:13 Tobit 5:19
1 Corinthians 4:14 Wisdom 11:10
1 Corinthians 6:2 Wisdom 3:8
1 Corinthians 6:12 Sirach 37:28
1 Corinthians 6:13 Sirach 36:18
1 Corinthians 6:18 Sirach 23:17
1 Corinthians 7:19 Sirach 32:23
1 Corinthians 9:19 Sirach 6:19
1 Corinthians 9:25 Wisdom 4:2
1 Corinthians 10:1 Wisdom 19:7s
1 Corinthians 10:20 Baruch 4:7
1 Corinthians 10:23 Sirach 37:28
1 Corinthians 11:7 Sirach 17:3
1 Corinthians 11:7 Wisdom 2:23
1 Corinthians 11:24 Wisdom 16:6
1 Corinthians 15:29 2 Maccabees 12:43s
1 Corinthians 15:32 Wisdom 2:5s
1 Corinthians 15:34 Wisdom 13:1


2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians 5:1, 4 Wisdom 9:15
2 Corinthians 12:12 Wisdom 10:16



Galatians 2:6 Sirach 35:13
Galatians 4:4 Tobit 14:5
Galatians 6:1 Wisdom 17:17



Ephesians 1:6 Sirach 45:1
Ephesians 1:6 Sirach 46:13
Ephesians 1:17 Wisdom 7:7
Ephesians 4:14 Sirach 5:9
Ephesians 4:24 Wisdom 9:3
Ephesians 6:12 Wisdom 5:17
Ephesians 6:14 Wisdom 5:18
Ephesians 6:16 Wisdom 5:19, 21



Philippians 4:5 Wisdom 2:19
Philippians 4:13 Wisdom 7:23
Philippians 4:18 Sirach 35:6



Colossians 2:3 Sirach 1:24s


1 Thessalonians

1 Thessalonians 3:11 Judith 12:8
1 Thessalonians 4:6 Sirach 5:3
1 Thessalonians 4:13 Wisdom 3:18
1 Thessalonians 5:1 Wisdom 8:8
1 Thessalonians 5:2 Wisdom 18:14s
1 Thessalonians 5:3 Wisdom 17:14
1 Thessalonians 5:8 Wisdom 5:18


2 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians 2:1 2 Maccabees 2:7


1 Timothy

1 Timothy 1:17 Tobit 13:7, 11
1 Timothy 2:2 2 Maccabees 3:11
1 Timothy 2:2 Baruch 1:11s
1 Timothy 6:15 Sirach 46:5
1 Timothy 6:15 2 Maccabees 12:15
1 Timothy 6:15 2 Maccabees 13:4


2 Timothy

2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 17:26
2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 23:10v1
2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 35:3
2 Timothy 4:8 Wisdom 5:16
2 Timothy 4:17 1 Maccabees 2:60



Titus 2:11 2 Maccabees 3:30
Titus 3:4 Wisdom 1:6



Hebrews 1:3 Wisdom 7:25s
Hebrews 2:5 Sirach 17:17
Hebrews 4.12 Wisdom 18.15s
Hebrews 4:12 Wisdom 7:22-30
Hebrews 5:6 1 Maccabees 14:41
Hebrews 7:22 Sirach 29:14ss
Hebrews 11:5 Sirach 44:16
Hebrews 11:5 Wisdom 4:10
Hebrews 11:6 Wisdom 10:17
Hebrews 11.10 Wisdom 13.1
Hebrews 11:10 2 Maccabees 4:1
Hebrews 11:17 1 Maccabees 2:52
Hebrews 11:17 Sirach 44:20
Hebrews 11:27 Sirach 2:2
Hebrews 11:28 Wisdom 18:25
Hebrews 11:35 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42
Hebrews 12:4 2 Maccabees 13:14
Hebrews 12:9 2 Maccabees 3:24
Hebrews 12:12 Sirach 25:23
Hebrews 12:17 Wisdom 12:10
Hebrews 12:21 1 Maccabees 13:2
Hebrews 13:7 Sirach 33:19
Hebrews 13:7 Wisdom 2:17



James 1:1 2 Maccabees 1:27
James 1:13 Sirach 15:11-20
James 1:19 Sirach 5:11
James 1:2 Sirach 2:1
James 1:2 Wisdom 3:4s
James 1:21 Sirach 3:17
James 2:13 Tobit 4:10
James 2:23 Wisdom 7:27
James 3:2 Sirach 14:1
James 3:6 Sirach 5:13
James 3:9 Sirach 23:1, 4
James 3:10 Sirach 5:13
James 3:10 Sirach 28:12
James 3:13 Sirach 3:17
James 4:2 1 Maccabees 8:16
James 4:11 Wisdom 1:11
James 5:3 Judith 16:17
James 5:3 Sirach 29:10
James 5:4 Tobit 4:14
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:10
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:12
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:19


1 Peter

1 Peter 1:3 Sirach 16:12
1 Peter 1:7 Sirach 2:5
1 Peter 2:25 Wisdom 1:6
1 Peter 4:19 2 Maccabees 1:24 etc.
1 Peter 5:7 Wisdom 12:13


2 Peter

2 Peter 2:2 Wisdom 5:6
2 Peter 2:7 Wisdom 10:6
2 Peter 3:9 Sirach 35:19
2 Peter 3:18 Sirach 18:10


1 John

1 John 5:21 Baruch 5:72



Jude 13 Wisdom 14:1



Revelation 1:18 Sirach 18:1
Revelation 2:10 2 Maccabees 13:14
Revelation 2:12 Wisdom 18:16 [15]
Revelation 2:17 2 Maccabees 2:4-8
Revelation 4:11 Sirach 18:1
Revelation 4:11 Wisdom 1:14
Revelation 5:7 Sirach 1:8
Revelation 7:9 2 Maccabees 10:7
Revelation 8:1 Wisdom 18:14
Revelation 8:2 Tobit 12:15
Revelation 8:3 Tobit 12:12
Revelation 8:7 Sirach 39:29
Revelation 8:7 Wisdom 16:22
Revelation 9:3 Wisdom 16:9
Revelation 9:4 Sirach 44:18 etc.
Revelation 11:19 2 Maccabees 2:4-8
Revelation 17:14 2 Maccabees 13:4
Revelation 18:2 Baruch 4:35
Revelation 19:1 Tobit 13:18
Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 3:25
Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 11:8
Revelation 19:16 2 Maccabees 13:4
Revelation 20:12s Sirach 16:12
Revelation 21:19s Tobit 13:17