Discussion Questions

David argues that “nearly all of us have grown up with enormous prejudice” against the Deuterocanonical books; what specific stories, warnings, or assumptions shaped your own bias, and what would it take—practically and emotionally—to “get past” it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What stories, warnings, or assumptions taught you to distrust the Deuterocanonical books? What would you need—emotionally and practically—to move past that bias?

The speaker claims the Septuagint was “the Bible of the apostles and the New Testament Christians,” noting that “90% of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are taken out of the Septuagint”; how does that claim challenge the way you were taught to think about “the Old Testament text behind our Bible,” and what would it change about how you argue doctrine from Scripture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If most New Testament quotes of the Old Testament come from the Septuagint, how does that challenge what you were taught about the “real” Old Testament text? How might it change how you use Scripture to support doctrine?

David says early Christians wouldn’t even understand the category “Apocrypha” because “to them, these books were simply part of the Old Testament”; what does that reveal about how the earliest Christians assumed God guided His people in receiving Scripture, and how does that compare to modern Protestant instincts about guarding the canon? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians didn’t think in terms of “Apocrypha,” what does that say about how they believed God guided His people in receiving Scripture? How does that compare to how many Protestants today try to protect the canon?

The teaching describes a “fierce struggle” in the second century between Christians and unbelieving Jews over Scriptures, including the claim that banning the Septuagint helped remove “a key Messianic prophecy”; how does this framing reorient your view of who you trust to preserve Scripture—Jewish leadership after rejecting Christ or the apostolic church—and why? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If some Jewish leaders rejected the Septuagint and removed a Messianic prophecy, who do you trust more to preserve Scripture after Jesus—post-Christ Jewish leadership or the apostolic church? Why?

Origen’s question is pressing: “Are we to suppose that the providence…had no concern for those…for whom Christ died?”; what does accepting Origen’s argument imply about God’s providence over church history, and what would rejecting it imply about God’s care for the post-apostolic church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christ died for later Christians too, what does that suggest about God caring for and guiding the church after the apostles? What does it imply if you think God did not guide the post-apostolic church much?

David points out that Protestants often appeal to the Council of Carthage (397) to support the 27-book New Testament, while “very honestly” not mentioning that it also affirmed the Old Testament list including these books; what does this selective use of history expose about our modern apologetic habits, and where might we be doing something similar in other doctrines? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it say about us if we cite the Council of Carthage to defend the New Testament but ignore that it also supported these Old Testament books? Where else might we use history this selectively in defending our beliefs?

The speaker narrates three “steps” that turned these books from Scripture → edifying-but-not-doctrinal → “evil, fictitious” (Jerome’s notes, Luther’s reclassification, and the Bible Society’s 1826 cost-cutting removal); which step do you find most spiritually or ethically troubling, and what does it suggest about how fragile “what feels normal” in Christianity can be? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which change bothers you most: Jerome’s doubts, Luther moving the books, or the Bible Society removing them to save money in 1826? What does that show about how easily “normal Christianity” can change?

David calls the objection “they’re never quoted in the New Testament” a “fake objection” and lists many Protestant OT books never quoted either; what standard are you actually using—consciously or unconsciously—when you decide what counts as authoritative, and how consistent is it with the standard you demand for other believers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “not quoted in the New Testament” would also remove some Protestant Old Testament books, what rule are you really using to decide what is authoritative? How consistent are you with that rule when judging other believers?

When discussing 2 Maccabees and prayers/offering for the fallen, David argues that Catholic misuse (purgatory) is not grounds to discard a book, comparing it to Catholic interpretations of Revelation 12; what would it look like to apply his principle consistently to passages your tradition thinks are misused by other groups (Calvinists, Catholics, charismatics, etc.)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a book can be misused, does that mean it should be rejected, or should it be interpreted carefully instead? How would you apply that same rule to Bible passages your group says other Christians misuse?

The speaker says these books “serve as a spiritual bridge” and challenges the “400 silent years,” citing martyrs in 2 Maccabees (linked to Hebrews 11), the crucifixion-like prophecy in Wisdom of Solomon, demons in Tobit, and Sirach’s proximity to James plus its discourse on free will; if those claims are true, what practices (reading plan, preaching, discipleship, doctrinal disputes) would need to change in your church life—and what resistance do you anticipate in yourself or your community? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If these books really connect the Old and New Testaments in important ways, what would need to change in your church (reading, sermons, discipleship, debates)? What pushback do you expect from yourself or others?