Was Christ’s Birth Preceded by 400 Years of Divine Silence?

Russian Icon, The Prophet Simeon, (17th c.)

Here’s an anti-Biblical myth that many Protestants hold to, without knowing it: a belief in a so-called “intertestamental period” or “400 years of silence,” in which God allegedly (and inexplicably) ceased communicating with His People between roughly 400 or 450 B.C. and the Incarnation of Christ. GotQuestions? describes the mainstream Protestant view:

The time between the last writings of the Old Testament and the appearance of Christ is known as the “intertestamental” (or “between the testaments”) period. Because there was no prophetic word from God during this period, some refer to it as the “400 silent years.” 

There are several things wrong with this belief.

First, this belief in an “intertestamental period” or “400 silent years” has absolutely no Scriptural support. You won’t find any Scriptural references supporting this, because they don’t exist. The Protestant sources I’ve found explaining the doctrine don’t bother defending it Scripturally; rather, they just assume it.

That’s because the doctrine of intertestamental silence doesn’t originate from Scripture. Rather, it is a perversion of a (post-Christian) Jewish teaching that God permanently ceased prophetic revelation in 450 B.C. The Bablyonian Talmud teaches that “When Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.” But that’s an argument against Christianity, not just against the Deuterocanon. In any case, it’s contradicted elsewhere in the Talmud, since the Talmud quotes the Book of Sirach as Scripture. For more on this, see the section entitled “Bad Theology: The Holy Spirit Stopped Prophesy in 450 B.C.?” in this post. Needless to say, the Talmudic teaching serves as an extremely weak foundation, particularly for Christians.

Second, even as an assumption, the intertestamental period” is contrary to the whole logic of Scripture. A belief in “400 silent years” is an awfully peculiar position to simply assume. Both Catholics and Protestants tend to agree that the Old Testament exists for the sake of Christ (see, e.g., Hebrews 1:1-2; Luke 24:27; Matthew 5:17). As Erich Sauer said,

“The Old Testament exists for the New Testament. Christ Himself is the goal and soul of the pre-Christian historical revelation. He is the Goal of Old Testament history; the meaning of Old Testament worship to God; the fulfillment of Old Testament Messianic prophecy.”

The whole of the Old Testament slowly unfurls with increasingly-clear prophesies about Jesus Christ. But if that’s the case, if the Old Testament exists primarily to prepare the world for Christ, it’s exceedingly odd to assume that for the roughly 450 years prior to the Incarnation, God simply stopped preparing them. If Sauer and the innumberable Catholic and Protestants who agree with him on this point are right, this is precisely when we would expect there to be Christological Scriptures.

Third, Jesus refutes this 400 years of silence theory. As I’ve mentioned before, this notion of an “intertestamental period” is at odds with Jesus’ own account of salvation history, that “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:23).  Without a doubt, this is the most important point.

Where Protestants posit a gradual unfurling over centuries, abruptly and inexplicably stopped for nearly half a millenium, Christ suggests the opposite: that this gradual unfurling continued until John the Baptist, who stands as the clearest and most direct witness of Jesus.

Fourth, other places in the New Testament also dispel the myth of intertestamental silence. For example, Luke 2 mentions the aged prophet Simeon and the prophetess Anna in the Temple, showing that prophets (and prophetesses) were active in Judaism prior to the birth of Christ. Simeon received a prophesy of Christ’s immanent birth (Luke 2:26). Zechariah additionally receives a pre-Christian revelation tied to Jesus, with the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:13-17).

A Biblical Alternative

Aert de Gelder, Simeon’s Song of Praise (c. 1710)

How should we understand the relationship between the Old and New Covenant, then? As one of continuity and fulfillment. It’s significant that in Luke 1-2 Zechariah, Simeon, and Anna are all oldZechariah describes himself as old in Luke 1:18, Simeon is awaiting death (Luke 2:26, 29), and Anna is of “great age” at 84 (Luke 2:36-37). Christ, in contrast, is an infant, a mere forty days old (Luke 2:22). So the Old and New Covenant are reflected in the ages of those present.

As St. Bede the Venerable (673-735) explained, this signified Israel’s long wait for a Messiah, and its fresh fulfillment in Christ:

Simeon and Anna, a man and a woman of advanced age, greeted the Lord with the devoted services of their professions of faith. As they saw him, he was small in body, but they understood him to be great in his divinity. Figuratively speaking, this denotes the synagogue, the Jewish people, who, wearied by the long waiting of the incarnation, were ready with both their arms (their pious actions) and their voices (their unfeigned faith) to exalt and magnify him as soon as he came.

And St. Ephraim the Syrian described the encounter in this way:

The Son came to the servant not to be presented by the servant, but so that, through the Son, the servant might present to his Lord the priesthood and prophecy that had been entrusted to his keeping. Prophecy and priesthood, which had been given through Moses, were both passed down, and came to rest on Simeon.

In this view, the elderly priest and prophets represent the Old Covenant, while Christ embodies the New. This captures both the continuity of the New with the Old , as well as the radical newness. Something exciting and new was happening in Israel, but it wasn’t a repudiation of what had come before. There is, rather, a sort of passing of the torch between old and new.

We see the same thing in the respective ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus, of course. In John 3:25-30, John the Baptist praises those leaving him to follow Christ:

Now a discussion arose between John’s disciples and a Jew over purifying. And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.” John answered, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease.

Yet Christ nevertheless appears to wait until John’s public ministry had come to an end before beginning His own in earnest (Matthew 4:12-17):

Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth he went and dwelt in Caper′na-um by the sea, in the territory of Zeb′ulun and Naph′tali, 14 that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “The land of Zeb′ulun and the land of Naph′tali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles— the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.” From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

But this view leaves no room for the break that the “400 years of silence” imagines. There’s a continual witnesses with Old Covenant prophets up to, and including, John the Baptist.

This turns out to be an important issue, because it impacts how we view the Deuterocanon, the set of disputed Books (which Catholics and Orthodox believe are canonical, but which Protestants reject). If you view the four centuries (or so) prior to Christ as a time when God went silent, of course you’re going to reject the canonicity of these Books. But if you believe that God was still revealing His plan of salvation during this time, the case for the Deuterocanon is rather strong.


  1. It is a well written article. However, the Jews themselves didn’t include the OT apocrypha in the Old Testament; when Jerome included it in the Latin Vulgate, it was at the request of Augustine. Jerome even included notation with the OT apocrypha that they did not carry the same weight as the canon. Additionally when the church fathers quoted it they did not treat it with the same “authority” as Scripture. It was not until Trent that the RCC decided the apocrypha was to be included as canon. And as the author of the article mentions neither Paul or Jesus quotes from it. The RCC hemmed themselves during the early Middle Ages with the creation of indulgences and purgatory – the greatest support for these doctrines are in the OT Apocrypha, which according to us Protestants is a pretty big reason it was canonized by the RCC and rejected by the Protestants.

    1. John,

      Thanks for your gracious comment. There are several of your claims that I would challenge, however:

      However, the Jews themselves didn’t include the OT apocrypha in the Old Testament;

      False. The Jews after Christ rejected the Deuterocanon, as did some of the Jews before Christ. But as I noted above, the Talmud quotes Sirach as Scripture, showing that it used to have widespread Jewish acceptance. The Qumran community had Deuterocanonical Books and excerpts amongst their Scriptures. The LXX, the Jewish canon used by Greek-speaking Jews (who were the majority, by the time of Christ) contained the Deuterocanon… and it was this version of the Bible that Christ primarily quoted from.

      Here are a few posts on the question of Jewish consensus, the alleged Jewish Council of Jamnia, the differing Jewish canons at the time of Christ, and the LXX’s inclusion of the Deuterocanon.

      when Jerome included it in the Latin Vulgate, it was at the request of Augustine. Jerome even included notation with the OT apocrypha that they did not carry the same weight as the canon.

      This is partially true. Jerome doubted the canonicity of the Deuterocanon, because he was aware that the Jews of his age rejected it. But he was aware, and acknowledged, that he was going against the grain on this. And it was more than Augustine who disagreed: the pope is the one who commissioned the Vulgate, with the Deuterocanon, and Jerome acquiesced.

      Additionally when the church fathers quoted it they did not treat it with the same “authority” as Scripture.

      False. Perhaps some of the Fathers did, but I think with enough work, I could provide you with dozens of Deuterocanonical citations that unambigiously treat it as Scripture. For now, this will have to suffice: Defending the Deuterocanon, Book by Book, Part I, and Part II. Those two posts provide direct quotations from the Church Fathers in which they quote each and every Book of the Deuterocanon as Scripture.

      It was not until Trent that the RCC decided the apocrypha was to be included as canon.

      False. The Council of Florence, an Ecumenical Council attended by Catholics, Orthodox, and Copts, and officially accepted by all three (at least briefly: it’s still accepted by Catholics) affirmed the Deuterocanon as Scripture. See Part III here. The Council of Carthage and the Synod of Hippo, both in the fourth century, also affirmed the Deuterocanon as Scripture, but they were only regional councils, so didn’t carry the same weight.

      More to the point, it would be a big mistake to assume that the Church doesn’t believe something until it’s dogmatically defined. This is the mistake that the Dan Brown crowd makes with the Trinity, but it’s just not how the Church works. By definition, the Church can only dogmatically define something She already (and always) believed.


    2. And as the author of the article mentions neither Paul or Jesus quotes from it.

      True, but nobody in the New Testament quotes from Esther, Judges, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Ezra, or Nehemiah, either.  Protestants employ a double-standard on this score: requiring the Deuterocanon to be quoted directly, while allowing in the Books they want in with the much lower standard of New Testament “allusions.”

      If you require direct Scriptural quotations to prove the canonicity, much of the Protestant Old Testament is out. If you allow indirect Scriptural allusions, much of the Catholic New Testament is in. But in any case, canonicity by quotation is a bad standard, since non-inspired works are quoted or referred to directly, while some inspired ones are not.

      The RCC hemmed themselves during the early Middle Ages with the creation of indulgences and purgatory – the greatest support for these doctrines are in the OT Apocrypha, which according to us Protestants is a pretty big reason it was canonized by the RCC and rejected by the Protestants.

      False: indulgences and Purgatory date back before the Middle Ages. As you note, there’s support for praying for the dead in the Deuterocanon, which predates Christianity.

      If anything, the widespread Jewish and Christian acceptance of these Books should cause you to revisit your views on indulgences and Purgatory. After all, even those pre-Reformation Christians who rejected the canonicity of the Deuterocanon still thought that the Books were orthodox.

      The Protestant belief (the Deuterocanon is both uninspired and heretical) just isn’t held by any sizeable contingent of pre-Reformation Christians: I can’t name a single Christian who held this belief. If you can, I would welcome it.

      In Christ,


    3. Need to look closely at history. The Saducees accepted only the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). The Pharisees accepted the modern 39 book OT that you guys love so much. The Essene Jews accepted every the Protocanon (minus Nehemiah and Esther) plus Sirach and Tobit. The Alexandrian Jews accepted the entire Catholic OT. Plus, the Pharisees that you guys get your OT from rejected Jesus and the entire NT as well. Don’t forget, they accepted Simon Bar Kokhba as their Messiah. Why trust them for your OT?

      As for other things, Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome (382 AD) gave an exact Catholic OT (before St. Jerome rejected the Deuterocanon); the same Council that you guys look to for your NT. As for your statement about St. Augustine, he came after Pope Damasus I as well.

      As for the Early Church Fathers not treating it as Scripture, read Gary Michuta’s WHY CATHOLIC BIBLES ARE BIGGER. He provides good references of which Early Church Father quotes which Deuterocanonical passage.

      Also, you say that the NT does not quote the Deuterocanon. Lets put your proposed standard under scrutiny. If quotation equals canonicity argument, goodbye Ezra, Ecclesiastes, Nahum, 1 and 2 Chronicles.

      As for Trent, that Council merely reaffirmed that which was already affirmed by the Council of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), Pope Innocent (408 AD) and Florence (1442 AD).

      So you trust the Pharisees for your OT yet trust the Catholic Church for your NT? Two groups that are diametrically opposed to one another when it comes to Jesus?

    4. Joe can probably point out his articles where he discusses this in depth. But if you look at the side bar he discusses where the different early church fathers DID consider the deuterocanon (we dont typically use the term apocrypha since it has a different connotation/ meaning) to be a part of Biblical canon.

      Trent was mostly because of Protestant objections. Prior to that the deuterocanon was defined by other smaller and less church wide councils to be part of scripture. Again Joe wrote about that.

      Jesus participated in Hannukah. Joe discusses that too.

      I’ve heard various reasons for their rejection by Protestants. Martin Luther rejected them. Other early Protestant groups did not necessarily follow suit. Considering the sheer number of different denominations why the broad brush?

  2. Joe, when you say the ‘Talmud quotes Sirach as Scripture, showing that it used to have widespread Jewish acceptance.” what do you mean by “quotes as Scripture.” This implies some kind rule for knowing that a quote used is meant to be understood as Scripture. What is that for you in this argument here? Because:

    NT never quotes the apocrypha, even though it refers to Gk poets
    Acts 17:28– Phaenomena, by Aratus (3rd cent. BC Cilician poet)
    1 Cor 15:33– Thais, by Menander (late 4th cent. BC Greek poet)
    Tit 1:12– not extant, but attributed by Clement of Alex. To Epimenedes. Some scholars say Callimachus
    (3rd cent. BC Alexandrian poet)

    and to Jewish traditions and pseudepigraphical writings
    2 Tim 3:8 Jewish tradition
    Jude 9– Assumption of Moses (not extant)
    Jude 14– Book of Enoch (not in RC or Orth apoc)

    So, if the Bible (OT and NT) quotes other things as well, how do we know which ones are considered authoritative?

    1. John,

      Good question. And I agree with you, mere quotation doesn’t mean something is understood to be Scripture (which is why I don’t find your earlier argument, that the Deuterocanon isn’t directly quoted, to be very strong).

      But there’s an obvious exception to this: if someone says, for example, “Scripture says…” you can be sure that they understand the thing they’re quoting as Scripture. That’s what we find in the case of the Talmud.

      The Talmud explicitly describes Sirach as part of the Hagiographa (which is the Greek name for the Ketubim, the third of the three parts of the Jewish Old Testament structure, the TNK). Here’s the direct quotation:

      “This matter was written in the Pentateuch, repeated in the Prophets, mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, and also learnt in a Mishnah and taught in a Baraitha: It is stated in the Pentateuch as written, So Esau went unto Ishmael [Genesis 28:9]; repeated in the prophets, as written, And there gathered themselves to Jephthah idle men and they went out with him [Judges 11:3]; mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written: Every fowl dwells near its kind and man near his equal…  [Sirach 13:5].”

      So the idea that the Jews never accepted the Deuterocanon is just historically false, and demonstrably so.



    2. Purgatory is explicitly Jewish. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12446-purgatory



      Intercessory prayer via the saints is explicitly Jewish.


      and http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/562222/jewish/Is-it-okay-to-ask-a-deceased-tzaddik-to-pray-on-my-behalf.htm

      As far as the canon, it’s time Protestants have the intellectual honesty–which I pause to note it includes both actual intelligence and actual honesty, something lacking from some Protestant academia–to admit that the logical corollary of “It never was Jewish Scripture” is that they were Catholic forgeries.

      To dispel that wicked notion, I cite the canon of Ethiopian Jews which includes “These include Sirach, Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 4 Baruch, the three books of Meqabyan, Jubilees, Enoch, the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Isaac, and the Testament of Jacob. The latter three patriarchal testaments are distinct to this scriptural tradition.” Wikipedia then has a footnote: “Because of the lack of solid information on this subject, the exclusion of Lamentations from the Ethiopian Jewish canon is not a certainty. Furthermore, some uncertainty remains concerning the exclusion of various smaller deuterocanonical writings from this canon including the Prayer of Manasseh, the traditional additions to Esther, the traditional additions to Daniel, Psalm 151, and portions of Säqoqawä Eremyas.”

    1. Unknown,

      I quoted some of the specific advocates for it. This view transcends denominations. I know of no denomination that officially teaches it, but I don’t think you would have trouble finding it widely held by members of nearly any of the major Protestant denominations.



    2. Joe,

      You quoted 1) Got Questions?, 2) The Babylonian Talmud, 3) Erich Sauer, 4) St. Bede the Venerable, and 5) St. Ephraim. Am I missing some well known Protestants who you quoted that hold this position? If the view is so widespread, can’t you give just a handful of the most known names? Two or three Protestants? I just want know who they are.



    3. Sure, I can. R.C. Sproul claims that “in John [the Baptist]’s day the voice of prophecy has been silent for 400 years according to various extra-canonical writings.” Mark Driscoll likewise claims that the Angel Gabriel’s appearance to Zechariah came “after 400 years of silence.” Tim LaHaye talks about these 400 “silent years” in one of his books. So does John MacArthur. Jon Bloom (at Desiring God, John Piper’s blog) mentions the alleged 400 years of silence in passing. And so on: I could give plenty of other examples, but you see the point.

      This isn’t something I’m making up: this is a myth that many big-name Protestants buy into. But perhaps more importantly, this is a myth that lots of ordinary Protestants buy into. So it seems worth refuting.



    4. Bradley the TheophiRogue,

      Norman Geisler “Fifth, even the Jewish community, whose books they were, acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written…” Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, 1995, p. 167.

      Matthew Henry http://books.google.com/books?id=Gt0fAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA18-IA55&dq=prophecy+ceased+400+years&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZQKgUruHIMnskQfJ4IFg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prophecy%20ceased%20400%20years&f=false

      John MacArthur http://books.google.com/books?id=8I7t6Kfj1tcC&pg=PA323&dq=prophecy+ceased+400+years&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tQKgUtHTOYLekQfYgIGoBQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=prophecy%20ceased%20400%20years&f=false

      Mark Driscoll http://marshill.com/2013/11/27/how-have-you-loved-us-sermon-recap

    5. I would throw in Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict but I gave it to a friend and can’t find the exact reference online (and he quotes Geisler so much it’s possible that might be a double-count anyway)…

  3. Joe & DanielSon,

    Thanks. I wasn’t doubting there were Protestants who believed this, but the more I studied critical literature (of the widely respected scholarly type) the more certain teachings of people like R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur have become a vague part of my memory since they write so much popular literature. It was bugging me to remember who held these type of views. Now that you mention these names, it doesn’t surprise me.

    Thanks for the clarification and the links.


    1. Bradley,

      No problem. And I absolutely agree that this view seems to be found more on the popular level than the scholarly level. Also, it often works in the background, so to speak. The individual simply assumes that there were 400 years of silence, without really considering the warrants or coherence of that position. But it still colors the way that many Protestants approach the canonicity of the Deuterocanon (and Judeo-Christian history more broadly), so it’s worth pointing out its falsity.



      P.S. DanielSon and TheophiRogue? Are you two trying to start a band or something?

    2. About that. ..misread Theo’s tone and got a little hot-tempered.

      Sorry to both of you about that.

      Btw, Theophilogue, I can’t tell from your blog if you are Prot or Catholic.

      M Div in seminary put not a priest says Prot.

      But your top 10 posts are preoccupied with theologians that are the pinnacle of High Church ecclesiology.

  4. Speaking at least of one deuterocanon i.e Book of Tobias: The book is clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit and affirmed throughout Church history. Clearly the allusion to it by the Lord Jesus in his discussion with the Sadducees (about the woman who married 7 different husbands at different times, who all died on the night of the wedding) is an important factor in affirming its canonicity.
    Besides the Book of Tobit is the only book in the Bible where the name of St. Raphael the Archangel is explicitly mentioned. Now consider the many apparitions of St.Raphael the Archangel down the centuries (e.g Cordova, Spain in the 15th century and in the 18th century to the Neapolitan nun, St. Maria Fracesca of the Five Wounds).
    Therefore to me, to dismiss the book of Tobias is to dismiss St. Raphael the Archangel who stands before the throne of the Most High God.
    I don’t think any Christian, catholic or protestant would want to do that.

  5. Heya i was just wondering, when Christ states the names of the martyrs, 35 So that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, [a] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (Matthew 23:35) this would be contrary to the Apocrypha in which the last martyr would be Eleazer.

    1. Christiaan,

      You’re right: in Matthew 23:35, Christ is almost certainly alluding to the Pharisaic canon which was identical (or at least close) to the modern Protestant Old Testament. But that’s because He was speaking to Pharisees. When He spoke with Sadducees, He referred only to those Books that they considered canonical (the Torah). And generally, He quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament containing the Deuterocanon. More on that here.



    2. In saything this though, you are just making assumptions to support your cause, because this same thing can be interpreted as you say or as if Christ had the pharisaic Canon and that is what he used, and yes he did use the Torah when speaking with the Sadducees but never can it be proven that he used the Deuterocanon with the Hellenistic Jews, thus how can you claim from this then that he also had the Deuterocanon?

  6. Although a guy can probably still get to heaven whether or not he thinks there was a period of 400 or so years of divine silence betweent the testaments, and although I’ve not yet come across anything directly regarding this idea in the Fathers, I did arrive at something like the same conclusion based on my own research and mainly because of a typological fittingness to the idea. First, Malachi is the last of the prophets in canon and he was prophesying (our best guess) about 400 years BC. So, “silence” might just mean, silence in terms of new public revelation. So, of course the Holy Spirit is still at work during those 400 or so years, and of course He is revealing things to individuals such as Simeon and Anna as you point out, but when Jesus says that the Law prophesied till John, He’s talking about the Scriptures–they prophesied. But it’s not crazy to hold that during that 400 years there was no new public revelation being given like there had been up to the time of Malachi. 1 Macc 4:46 and 14:41 both indicate a time when there was no prophet, had been no prophet for a long time, and that the people were really wanting another prophet to come.

    Typologically it is also fitting: This period of divine silence while Israel awaited the last of the prophets, John, and the redeemer/Christ parallels the same period of time during which the Israelites in Egypt awaited a redeemer in the person of Aaron (Moses’ “prophet”) and Moses, their redeemer. Exod 12:40 etc

  7. This comment is so long after the initial post there is almost no point but I did have something to share. I see that you are saying that if God was silent for 400 years that would mean these other books were not inspired. Logically this does not indicate the reverse is true. In other words, if God was not silent during these years the books are not necessarily inspired. You say “But if you believe that God was still revealing His plan of salvation during this time, the case for the Deuterocanon is rather strong.” Your use of ‘a strong case’ is curious here. I am not saying your belief that the Deuterocanon is incorrect. I am only saying that your statement there is exactly what academic logic teaches us not to do. If you use an “I” claim in categorical logic, or some s are p, such as “some books (such as Old Testament books) written when God was still revealing His plan of salvation were inspired” and say “therefore ‘all books written when God was still revealing His plan of salvation were inspired” (an “A” claim) it’s just not valid logic. If you were saying “all books written during…. are inspired” and “the Deuterocanon was written during…. therefore it is inspired” it would be valid logic (however only sound when valid AND all premises are true). My point here is not that the Deuterocanon is not inspired; only that your statement, quoted above, is not a way to support it being inspired. If I said ‘Ben and Jerry’s makes some of its ice cream containing chocolate with chocolate that is fairly traded’ ‘therefore all Ben and Jerry’s ice cream containing chocolate is made with chocolate that is fairly traded’ it would be invalid logic. Claim 1 does not support the conclusion even though in reality all Ben and Jerry’s ice cream containing chocolate is indeed made with fairly traded chocolate. The truth of each or all of the premises does not make the logic valid or sound.

  8. Critical scholarship has established with a high degree of confidence that Chronicles (400 – 250 B.C.), Esther (4th or 3rd century B.C), Ecclesiastes (3rd century B.C.), Song of Songs (3rd century B.C.), a number of the later psalms (2nd -1st centuries B.C), as well as Daniel (167 – 164 B.C.), were all written after the Book of Malachi, when prophetic inspiration was said to have ended by the later Jewish rabbis and by most Protestants. If prophetic inspiration had indeed come to an end with the prophecies of Malachi (ca. 420 B.C.), all of the above named books must likewise be removed from the Old Testament Canon as mere apocrypha. Or, recognizing that the Deuterocanonical writings had been written contemporaneously with (or even prior to) some of these other books, we must accept the Deuterocanonicals as being numbered with the other sacred writings on the authority of the ancient Church, which at the conciliar level (Councils of Rome, Carthage, Trullo, II Nicea, Florence, Trent, and Jerusalem) had always recognized the inspired status of the Deuterocanonical writings. Certainly with regard to spiritual and literary quality, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon far excel Esther, a book which does not even mention God at all, but serves as a fictional account underpinning the festival of Purim. Armed with the facts, the only argument for including Esther especially along with the other Protocanonical writings listed above in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, and excluding the Deuterocanonical books from the canon, is belief in the flawed datings traditionally ascribed to all of the Protocanonicals. Since the datings are flawed, the supposition of a 450 year intertestamental period falls by the wayside, and we are left to judge all of the venerable Jewish writings composed during the 4th century B.C. until the beginning of the New Testament era on their religious merits, not on the basis of some mistaken prescriptive rule relating to dates of composition subsequent to Malachi. On this matter, the Church has spoken definitively, in the same manner as it has regarding the books of the New Testament. If Trent settled the Old Testament Canon, as Protestant apologists (not serious Protestant scholars) like to claim, it likewise settled the New Testament Canon, which is absurd. If the ancient Councils of Rome and Carthage settled the New Testament Canon, as Protestants freely admit, they likewise settled the Old Testament Canon, which included the Deuterocanonical corpus. Protestant theories of the canon are based on discredited assumptions regarding dates of composition of the books of the Old Testament. The true dates of composition of the books of the Old Testament clearly point to an ongoing age of prophetic inspiration which continued to express divine revelation far later than the 5th century B.C, as many if not most Protestant believers continue to falsely believe, despite the wealth of evidence against their supposition.

  9. Quite a debate on this subject ! I did enjoy reading the comments and the research was quite extensive in support of or non support of the various positions. I think this is good for theologians or aspiring theologians and for the Holy Spirit led and
    the academically empowered. I have heard many discussions about Calvin and Luther and recently do we really have free will
    or not.I recently read a paper discussing the separate genealogies in MATTHEW and LUKE and a lot of arguments were
    presented about the Point of each one and what they reveal.Some I had heard of and some I had not. I write this only because
    I have been in situations as a spectator when discussions like this one were taking place. The others in the room were listening
    until the discussion turned to debate at which point they tuned out. Also I remember a Bible Study I was at when a discussion
    like this came up and I could see 99% of the class tuning out and I ASSUME w/o saying it out loud lets get on with the lesson !
    I myself try to study all aspects of Scripture not so much as to be expert but to at least have a working knowledge so when a subject comes up I will have some knowledge to be able to discuss it and possibly learn more. My Gift from God is Evangelism
    so about 2/3 of my study is devoted to that. I also believe that much of what is debated today Will Not be resolved concretely
    until Jesus returns. But as long as there is mutual love and respect from both viewpoints though differing in positions the love of
    GOD and for each other is the common denominator. Yours in Christ Stanley Anderson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *