Do the Deuterocanonical Books Contain Errors?

An anti Catholic ministry posted an article claiming the Dueterocanonical books of the Old Testament contained theological and historical errors. This article is a brief refutation of the points made by Matt Slick who heads up CARM (“Christian” Apologetics and Research Ministry), regarding the Deuterocanonical books of Sacred Scripture, aka the Word of God.

First, it should be noted that the official Canon of the Bible was determined by Catholic Bishops, at no less than three successive Councils in the late 4th century. It was later reaffirmed at the Council of Florence and it was a dogma at the Council of Trent. Protestants today accept the decisions made in regards to the New Testament, but they have an issue with 7 books of the Old Testament.

Without getting into the entire back story of the historical debate on this topic, it suffices to say that the reason why they wrestle with these books is because they teach explicitly Catholic Christian doctrine, on topics such as praying for the dead, the intercession of Angels, the role of works in the Christian life, etc. So they try to find any loophole they can to erase them from the Table of Contents.

Secondly, Slicks's arguments are all too familiar to the arguments made by secular scholars, skeptics, Progressives, and Atheists against the Bible as a whole. Rather than seek to harmonize Scriptures which seem to contain contradictions due to the faultiness of man's limits in thinking, these "scholars" will just say that the Bible contains errors and contradictions. They love to cite the genealogies of Jesus, as an example. Even he is familiar with those arguments and he has refuted them in the past. But it is a double standard. Why does he not seek to do that with the deutercanonical books? The simple answer is because he knows that they contradict his Protestant theology. He should apply the same standard to himself that he does in other areas of his ministry against others.

So let's briefly examine his points.

He says that Tobit 6:5-7 condones the use of "magic," since a cooked fish was used by God to drive away evil spirits.

The Bible indicates that God uses all sorts of things for His purposes. Sampson’s hair, Jesus’ spit, Paul’s handkerchief, and Peter’s shadow are just some of the things we encounter in this regard. And yet Slick would not dare say this was "magic."

Slick can’t just call miracles “magic” because he does not like them. In Matthew 17:24-27, Jesus has Peter catch a fish with enough money in its mouth to pay the Temple tax. All four Gospels involve the miraculous feeding of thousands of people with just a few fish. If Tobit 6 is “magic,” then so are these. This argument displays a total failure to understand the difference between miracles and magic.

Next, Slick asserts that these books teach “forgiveness of sins is by human effort / salvation of works." He cites Tobit 4:11, Tobit 12:9, and 2 Maccabbees 12:43.

This is not a real argument because it is a straw man. Rather, Slick misunderstands the Catholic position on the role of works in justification, and rejects the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. He also disagrees with Romans 2:6-8, James 2:14-24, Luke 6:46, Matthew 7:21, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and many others which teach the role of works in justification.

As well, he disregards the New Testament teaching taken as a whole regarding the doctrine of Purgatory, not to mention the early Church testimony. So of course he is going to have an issue with these passages, because again, it doesn't fit with his theology. They are too explicitly Catholic.

We also have 1 Peter 4:8, which says, "Charity shall cover the multitude of sins." This is literally what the deuterocanonical books are teaching. Tobit 4:11 says, "Alms deliver from all sin." This is the same teaching as St. Peter. So either he rejects St. Peter, or he accepts the deuterocanonical sections which teach the same thing. He can not have it both ways.

Finally, he claims there are historical errors, and he cites two references: Judith 1:5 and Baruch 6:2.

He writes, “The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians… Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years.”

This is another example of a clear double standard. Secular skeptics and Atheists use these exact same types of arguments against Exodus and Daniel.

The simple answer is that these most likely are due to copyist errors and minor issues with variants, such as we find in other books. For example, 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, while 2 Chronicles 22:2 indicates that he was forty-two years old. In the New Testament, Mark 2:26 says  David “went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest,” but 1 Samuel 21:1 says Ahimelech (Abiathar’s father) was the high priest. Yet these books are not rejected for that reason.

Biblical scholars across the board admit that these examples are most likely the result of copyist errors in translation, and they are duly noted as containing a possible variant for that very reason. Yet, Slick does not apply this same standard to the Deuterocanonicals.

The deeper issue is that Slick knows these books teach solid Catholic doctrine, so he wants to reject them for the same reason Luther wanted to reject them. But let us also remember that Luther wanted to reject James as well, and he wanted to add words to Romans. This is not the right template to follow.

We are held bound to the entire written Word of God, not just the books we personally like and think we can twist.