Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 2

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer Based on Bercot’s teaching, the argument “not quoted in the New Testament = not Scripture” collapses, because it would force Protestants to reject 12 books they already accept. He says this exposes that the issue is often not evidence but “indoctrination” and selective standards.

Support from Transcript:

He says his former key objection was: “Jesus and the New Testament writers never quote from them.”
He then notes the NT “never directly quote[s] from about a third of the Old Testament books” in the Protestant canon.
He lists the 12 unquoted books (Judges through Obadiah) and asks: if that’s the criterion, “then I’d have to reject these 12 books as well, wouldn’t I?”
He concludes his earlier reason wasn’t the real one: “in reality, it didn’t have anything to do with it… I had been indoctrinated against them.”
He also shows quotations aren’t uniform: “over half… come from just three books… Psalms, Isaiah, and Deuteronomy.”

Discussion Follow-ups If “quoted” is not a reliable test, what tests are you using—historical habit, comfort level, denominational tradition? Are those tests consistent across all books?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 2 of 10