Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 3
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?
Another 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?

Direct Answer Bercot’s point implies that New Testament “silence” is often explained by genre and focus rather than by a book’s lack of authority; absence of direct quotations is not a verdict. Christians should be cautious about building conclusions on silence when the same silence exists for whole categories of books in the accepted canon.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says quotations are concentrated: “over half… come from just three books,” and the “top 10… total 90%.”
  • He observes the top-quoted list includes “Psalms… the Pentateuch… and various prophetic books.”
  • He highlights a pattern: “None of the historical books make the list.”
  • He explains why this matters: “except for Sirak and The Wisdom of Solomon, all of the books of the Apocrypha are historical books.”
  • He adds that post-exile history in the Protestant canon (Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther) is “never quoted” and their names are “missing entirely from the New Testament,” so post-exile Apocrypha books shouldn’t be expected to be quoted.
Discussion Follow-ups Where do you personally argue from “silence” (for example, treating absence of a practice or quotation as proof it’s wrong)? How might Bercot’s genre-pattern caution apply to those arguments?