Discussion Questions

David Bercot compares Protestant objections to the Apocrypha with his “Chinese food” aversion that started from one traumatic experience but later got dressed up with “plausible-sounding fake reasons”; what “real reasons” does he say are actually behind the Jewish and Lutheran rejection of these books, and how does that challenge the way you’ve been taught to trust your own objections? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “real reasons” does Bercot say are behind why Jews and Lutherans rejected the Apocrypha? How does that make you question whether your own objections might be more about habit or fear than solid proof?

Bercot says he rejected the Apocrypha because the New Testament writers “never quote” it—until he realized the New Testament never directly quotes about a third of the Protestant Old Testament either (he lists Judges, Ruth, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Nahum, Zephaniah, Obadiah); what does this do to the common argument “not quoted = not Scripture,” and what does it expose about how we decide what counts as authoritative? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the New Testament never quotes many Old Testament books either, what happens to the idea that “not quoted means not Scripture”? What does that show about how we decide which books have authority?

He argues the New Testament quotation pattern heavily favors Psalms, the Pentateuch, and prophets—and that most Apocrypha books are post-exile historical books (plus two wisdom books), which “fits the same pattern”; how should that shape the way Christians interpret silence in the New Testament, and what other doctrines or practices might we be wrongly building on “silence” rather than on evidence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the New Testament mostly quotes Psalms, the Law, and the prophets, how should we think about books it doesn’t mention much? What beliefs or church practices might we be building just because the Bible is silent instead of because it gives clear support?

When Bercot broadens “quoting” to include allusions/references, he gives examples he believes come from Wisdom of Solomon (“gates of Hades”), Sirach (“by his word all things hold together,” “quick to listen, slow to answer”), and 2 Maccabees (Hebrews 11’s tortured martyrs); what would change in your view of Jesus and the apostles if they were intentionally drawing language and examples from these books? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus and the apostles were purposely using words and stories from books like Wisdom, Sirach, and 2 Maccabees, how would that affect your view of them? Would it change how you view those books?

Bercot calls it misguided for Christians to appeal to Josephus on the canon because Josephus (writing ~AD 105) was describing what Jews considered “divine” after rejecting the Septuagint and also rejecting Christian writings; what does this reveal about whose testimony we’re willing to treat as an authority, and why might evangelicals feel safer leaning on a Pharisaic source than on the pre-Luther Christian consensus he describes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Bercot say it’s a mistake to use Josephus to decide the Bible’s book list? Why might evangelicals feel safer trusting a Pharisee’s view than the older Christian agreement he talks about?

He accuses Protestants of a “double standard” by labeling hard passages in the canonical Old Testament as “difficult,” but labeling similar difficulties in the Apocrypha as “proof” it’s not Scripture (Jephthah’s daughter, the witch of Endor, God sending a “lying spirit”); what does this suggest about our assumptions regarding the character of God and the nature of inspiration, and where do you see yourself tempted toward the same double standard? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Bercot say Protestants use a double standard by excusing hard parts of the Old Testament but using similar issues to reject the Apocrypha? Where do you notice yourself doing the same thing when a passage makes you uncomfortable?

On 2 Maccabees and “prayers for the dead,” Bercot insists the text only describes Judas sending a sin offering for fallen soldiers found wearing pagan amulets, and the narrator commends belief in resurrection—not purgatory or post-mortem assistance; how does his handling of this passage challenge common Protestant reflexes about Catholic misuse of Scripture, and what does it imply about how God expects His people to respond when Scripture is twisted? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Bercot’s reading of 2 Maccabees challenge the quick claim that it teaches purgatory or “prayers for the dead”? What should believers do when someone twists Scripture to support a teaching?

Bercot says the Bible (including the Protestant 66) contains many unresolved historical/geographical/chronological difficulties (John vs. Synoptics chronology; “Dan” in Genesis 14; Judith and “Nineveh”), and he claims to affirm inerrancy without inventing answers; what kind of faith in God is he modeling here, and how does that contrast with the way modern Christians often connect “certainty” with “true spirituality”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kind of trust in God is Bercot showing when he admits some Bible problems don’t have easy answers but still believes inerrancy? How is that different from the idea that real faith always means total certainty?

He argues it is “ironic” that “nearly all” attacks on the Apocrypha come from conservative Bible-believing Christians, even though “virtually all Christians before Luther” (and groups he calls “kingdom Christians” like Waldensians, Lollards, early Moravians, Anabaptists) embraced and quoted these books; what might God think about believers belittling books their spiritual forefathers treated as Scripture, and what does this raise about humility, tradition, and repentance in our approach to the Bible? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If most Christians before Luther treated the Apocrypha as Scripture, what might God think when modern believers mock those books? What does this bring up about humility, listening to tradition, and being willing to repent?

Bercot claims there are “no ramifications whatsoever” in doctrine or lifestyle from accepting the Apocrypha—yet he also says these books remove the “fictitious 400 years of silence” and show God preparing His people (demons in Tobit, immortality in Wisdom, care for the poor and forbidding oaths in Sirach, rulers as God’s ministers); how can both be true, and what concrete changes might happen in your reading habits, preaching emphasis, or discipleship priorities if you took his “no silence” claim seriously? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Bercot say accepting the Apocrypha changes nothing, but also say it ends the “400 years of silence” and shows God at work? If you believed there was no silence, what might change in how you read the Bible, preach, or disciple others?