I’m a very convicted Protestant. But after digging into the complex question of the deuterocanonical books, here’s the simplest way I know how to frame what’s going on: two different “moves,” two different burdens of proof.
The Protestant move:
The category of covenant Scripture already existed in Jesus’ day. Not as a closed canon, but as a consistent core. So if someone adds books to that category, they need to show they belong. So the burden lands on the deuterocanonical side to show things like:
- these books were actually part of that covenant category
- they were treated as Scripture in the same authoritative sense
The Catholic move:
The apostolic Church is the inheritor and guardian of Scripture. So if someone removes books long received in the Church, they need to justify that removal. So the burden lands on the Reformers to show things like:
- the Church got it wrong for over a millennium
- earlier reception was mistaken
- the post-Temple Hebrew canon should be treated as more binding than the Church’s reception
Notice what’s happening? Each side defines the controlling authority differently and then assigns the burden of proof based on that definition.
So if the controlling authority is:
- first-century Jewish covenant reception, Protestants will press that standard
- apostolic Church reception + conciliar clarification, Catholics will press that standard
That’s why this debate rarely feels “settled.” It’s not mainly about Tobit or Maccabees. It’s about the starting point: does canon flow forward from Israel’s covenant Scriptures into the Church, or become fully clarified within the Church?
I think theres a better and worse answer to that question…
Anyway… I’ll share a fuller video soon on why I’m not convinced the deuterocanonical books should be received as Scripture. Stay tuned!
