Chapter 20

New Testament Use of the Deuterocanonical Books

Allusions, Echoes, and Theological Dependence

Here is a claim you have probably heard before: "The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha." If you grew up in a Protestant church, you may have heard this dozens of times. It sounds convincing. It sounds final. And it is — to put it bluntly — false.

Not only does the New Testament contain numerous allusions, verbal parallels, and theological dependencies on the deuterocanonical books, but even early Protestantism knew this. Many of the earliest Protestant English translations of the Bible — the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew's Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1541), the Geneva Bible (1557, 1560, 1583), the Bishops' Bible (1568), and even the original 1611 King James Bible — included cross-references in the New Testament that pointed readers to the deuterocanonical books.¹ These cross-references were placed there by Protestant editors and translators. They were not the product of Catholic bias. They reflected something the translators themselves recognized: the New Testament uses these books.

But then a strange thing happened. When the deuterocanonical books were eventually removed from Protestant Bibles — a process we will trace in detail in Chapter 30 — the cross-references disappeared too. As the Anglican scholar W. H. Daubney observed, the cross-references told an inconvenient story about how the church had always used these books, and so they were quietly removed.² The reference to the Maccabean martyrs in Hebrews 11:35–37, for instance, was — in Daubney's striking word — "illicitly suppressed."³ Once the cross-references vanished, the myth of an "Apocrypha-free New Testament" took root and grew. And most Protestants today have never heard anything different.

In this chapter, I want to set the record straight. We will examine the New Testament's actual use of the deuterocanonical books — not by overstating the evidence, but by looking honestly at what is there. And what is there, I believe, is far more substantial than most Protestants realize.

The Framework: What Counts as "Use"?

Before we look at specific texts, we need to set up the right framework. The argument against the deuterocanon often runs like this: "The New Testament never formally quotes these books with introductory formulas like 'it is written' or 'thus says the Lord.' Therefore they were not considered Scripture." This sounds logical, but it proves far too much. It proves too much because the New Testament does not formally quote every book of the Protestant Old Testament either.

Think about this for a moment. The following books of the Protestant Old Testament are never directly quoted in the New Testament: Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, and Nahum.⁴ Some of these books — Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther — do not even appear to receive so much as a clear allusion anywhere in the New Testament.⁵ If the absence of a formal quotation proves that a book is not inspired, then we have a serious problem with the Protestant canon itself. Nobody argues that Esther is uninspired because the New Testament never quotes it. So why apply this test to the deuterocanon?

There is a flip side to this as well. The New Testament does formally quote some non-canonical works. Jude 14–15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 with an introductory formula ("Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying..."), yet 1 Enoch is not part of anyone's Bible except the Ethiopian Orthodox canon.⁶ James 4:5 formally introduces as "Scripture" a quotation whose source is unknown — it does not appear in any Old Testament book, whether protocanonical or deuterocanonical.⁷ So if formal quotation automatically equals canonical status, then we are missing inspired books. And if it does not, then the argument from silence collapses.

The real question, then, is not whether the New Testament formally quotes the deuterocanon with an introductory formula. The real question is: How does the New Testament use these books? Does it use them the way it uses other Scripture — drawing on their language, building theological arguments on their content, treating their characters as part of sacred history? As we will see, the answer is yes.

The Argument Is Cumulative, Not Singular

I want to be honest about what this chapter can and cannot prove. No single allusion, taken by itself, proves that a given deuterocanonical book is inspired Scripture. A New Testament author might echo a phrase from Wisdom or Sirach the way a modern preacher might echo a phrase from C. S. Lewis — because the language is familiar and fitting, not because the source is considered inspired.

But that is not what we find when we look at the full picture. What we find is a pattern. We find dozens — arguably hundreds — of verbal parallels, thematic connections, and theological dependencies spread across multiple New Testament books. We find cases where New Testament authors build core doctrinal arguments on deuterocanonical texts — arguments that do not work without those texts. We find the New Testament treating deuterocanonical characters as part of sacred history, right alongside Abraham and Moses and David. And we find that the New Testament never qualifies, distances itself from, or rejects the deuterocanon. It never calls these books "apocrypha." It never treats them as second-class.

The argument, in other words, is cumulative. It gains its force not from any single data point but from the sheer weight and consistency of the evidence. Let us look at that evidence now, starting with what I consider the three strongest cases.

The Three Strongest Cases

1. Matthew 27:43 and Wisdom 2:18 — The Mocking at the Cross

We begin at the foot of the cross. In Matthew 27:41–43, the chief priests, scribes, and elders mock Jesus as He hangs dying:

"He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God'" (Matt 27:43, ESV).

Where did these Jewish leaders get this taunt? The standard Protestant answer is Psalm 22:8: "He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him." And there is no doubt that Psalm 22 is in the background here. But Psalm 22:8 provides only a partial parallel. It says nothing about "the Son of God." The Psalm speaks of someone who trusts God — it does not include the conditional test: if he is the Son of God, then God will rescue him.

That conditional test comes from somewhere else. It comes from the Wisdom of Solomon:

"For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes" (Wisdom 2:18).

Look at the precision of the parallel. The mocking in Matthew combines two elements: (1) the appeal to God to deliver the sufferer (from Psalm 22:8), and (2) the conditional test of divine sonship — if he is the Son of God, God will rescue him (from Wisdom 2:18). It is the second element — the "Son of God" element — that gives the taunt its theological bite. And that element is found only in the Wisdom of Solomon.⁸

Now think about what this means. The chief priests, scribes, and elders were not stupid men. They were the most educated religious leaders in Israel. They knew their Scriptures inside and out. When they crafted their mocking challenge — "If he is the Son of God, let God deliver him" — they were not making up an argument on the spot. They were appealing to a text. They were citing what they regarded as a divine warrant — a scriptural promise — that the true Son of God would be rescued by the Almighty. And the only text in all of the Old Testament that provides that promise is Wisdom 2:18.⁹

As Gary Michuta argues, these leaders must have seen the Book of Wisdom as a prophetic and authoritative source capable of providing the divine warrant necessary to discredit Jesus.¹⁰ If the Wisdom of Solomon was just a human book — mere "apocrypha" — then their taunt would carry no weight. Appealing to a non-scriptural text to challenge someone's messianic claims would be like quoting a novel in a courtroom. It would be meaningless. But the taunt did carry weight. The crowd responded to it. And Matthew recorded it as significant. Matthew expected his readers — Jewish Christians who knew their Scriptures — to recognize where the taunt came from and to see the terrible irony: the very Scripture that the wicked were using against Jesus was actually a prophecy about Jesus.¹¹

We will examine Wisdom 2:12–20 in much greater depth in Chapter 21, where I will show how the entire passage reads like a preview of the passion of Christ. But for now, the point is this: Matthew 27:43 presupposes that both the Jewish leaders and Matthew's readers knew the Wisdom of Solomon and regarded it as authoritative Scripture.

2. Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7 — The Maccabean Martyrs in the Hall of Faith

The eleventh chapter of Hebrews is one of the most beloved passages in all of Scripture. It is often called "the Hall of Faith" because it provides a sweeping panoramic view of sacred history, listing the great heroes of faith from Abel to the prophets. Every figure in this chapter is drawn from the Old Testament, arranged in roughly chronological order: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets.

After naming these figures, the author of Hebrews continues with a series of unnamed individuals whose exploits are described in general terms: they "conquered kingdoms," "stopped the mouths of lions," "quenched the power of fire." Then comes verse 35:

"Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb 11:35, ESV).

The first half of this verse — "women received back their dead by resurrection" — refers to the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17) and the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4), whose children were raised from the dead by Elijah and Elisha. So far, so good — these are protocanonical references. But the second half of the verse — "some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life" — is a different matter entirely.

Where in the Protestant Old Testament do we find people who were tortured, who refused to accept release, and who did so for the sake of a better resurrection? The answer is: nowhere. There is no passage in any of the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament that matches this description. The description fits one passage and one passage only: the story of the seven brothers and their mother in 2 Maccabees 7.¹²

In that chapter, seven brothers and their mother are arrested by King Antiochus IV Epiphanes and ordered to eat pork in violation of the Torah. When they refuse, they are tortured and killed one by one. And as each brother dies, he expresses his confidence in the resurrection. The second brother declares: "The King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws" (2 Macc 7:9). The fourth brother says: "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life" (2 Macc 7:14).¹³

The verbal and thematic parallels between Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7 are not disputed by any serious scholar, whether Protestant or Catholic. Even scholars who reject the canonicity of the deuterocanon acknowledge that the author of Hebrews is alluding to 2 Maccabees 7. The reference is universally recognized.¹⁴

The linguistic connections reinforce the identification. The word in Hebrews 11:35 translated "tortured" is tympanizō (τυμπανίζω), a rare word referring to a particular form of execution involving the tympanon, the instrument used in the account of Eleazar's martyrdom in 2 Maccabees. Additionally, the word for "cruel mockings" in verse 36 is a term found elsewhere only in 2 Maccabees 7:7. These are not general echoes — they are precise verbal links to a specific text.¹⁵

Now here is where the argument gets really interesting. Protestant apologists often respond by saying that the author of Hebrews is simply making a historical reference — that he knew about the Maccabean martyrs from general historical knowledge and that this does not prove he regarded 2 Maccabees as Scripture. But this response misses something crucial about the context of Hebrews 11.

The entire chapter is a survey of sacred history. It is not a general catalog of brave people throughout history. It is a carefully arranged list of biblical characters — people whose stories are found in the Scriptures. The author himself tells us this. In Hebrews 11:2, he says these are the people who "received their commendation" — they were "attested to" — by Scripture. In Hebrews 11:39, he says the same thing again: "all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised." The word translated "commended" or "attested" (martyreō, μαρτυρέω) means to be testified to, borne witness to — by Scripture.¹⁶

Every figure in Hebrews 11 is drawn from the canonical Scriptures. Not from secular history. Not from oral tradition. From the Bible. Abel is from Genesis. Enoch is from Genesis. Noah is from Genesis. Abraham is from Genesis. Moses is from Exodus. Rahab is from Joshua. Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah are from Judges. David and Samuel are from 1–2 Samuel. The prophets are from the prophetic books. If the author of Hebrews places the Maccabean martyrs in this list — right at the chronological end, exactly where 2 Maccabees would fall in a survey of biblical history — then 2 Maccabees must be part of the author's Bible.¹⁷

Some might object that the reference to those who were "sawn in two" in Hebrews 11:37 probably alludes to the tradition about the prophet Isaiah being sawn in half — a tradition preserved in the non-canonical Ascension of Isaiah. Does that mean the Ascension of Isaiah is also Scripture? No, and the distinction is important. The reference to "sawn in two" is an expansion on an already-known biblical figure — Isaiah is a character in the canonical Old Testament, and the tradition about his death simply fills in a detail about a biblical figure. But the Maccabean martyrs are not found in the Protestant Old Testament at all. They are not an expansion of a protocanonical character. They are new characters, introduced for the first time, and treated as biblical figures "attested to" by Scripture. The only place they are "attested to" is 2 Maccabees.¹⁸

3. Hebrews 1:3 and Wisdom 7:26 — The Radiance of Eternal Light

Our third case takes us to the very opening of the letter to the Hebrews, where the author makes one of the most magnificent Christological statements in all of Scripture:

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Heb 1:3, ESV).

The word translated "radiance" is apaugasma (ἀπαύγασμα). This is a rare and important word. In the entire Greek Bible — the Septuagint and the New Testament combined — the word apaugasma appears in exactly two places: Hebrews 1:3 and Wisdom 7:26.¹⁹

Let us look at what Wisdom says:

"For she [Wisdom] is a radiance [apaugasma] of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:26).

The parallels between these two texts are extensive. Both describe the relationship between a divine figure and God the Father. Both use the same rare word — apaugasma. Both speak of this figure as an "image" (eikōn) of God. Both are set in a context that describes this figure's role in creation. And both use this language to affirm the closest possible relationship between this figure and the Almighty — not identity, not separation, but the kind of intimate connection that the later church would describe as the relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity.²⁰

Now think about what the author of Hebrews is doing here. He is writing the opening sentence of a letter whose purpose is to demonstrate the supremacy and deity of Christ. This is the most theologically loaded sentence in the entire letter. Every word matters. And the word he chooses to describe the Son's relationship to the Father — apaugasma, "radiance" — is a word he draws from the Wisdom of Solomon.

Michuta puts the point powerfully: the formulation of the relationship of the pre-incarnate Son to the Father requires the utmost precision. The slightest distortion could affirm any of dozens of heretical beliefs about Christ. The analogy of brightness to light — radiance to the source of light — has the doctrinal fine-tuning necessary to express Christ's relationship to the Father without falling into either modalism (the Son is the same person as the Father) or Arianism (the Son is a created being).²¹ This is not a casual allusion. This is the author of Hebrews using a deuterocanonical text to formulate core Christological doctrine.

If the Wisdom of Solomon were merely a human book — "apocrypha" — then the author of Hebrews would be building his Christology on a fallible human source. He would be borrowing the most important theological term in his letter from a text that could not be trusted to confirm doctrine. But the author of Hebrews clearly does not think this way. He uses Wisdom 7:26 with the same confidence and authority with which he uses the Psalms, Isaiah, and Deuteronomy. He treats it as a text capable of confirming the highest possible doctrine — the nature of the Son of God.²²

Hebrews 4:12–13 and Wisdom 7:23–24 / 18:14–15 — The Living Word as a Sword

The letter to the Hebrews provides yet another powerful example. In Hebrews 4:12–13, the author writes:

"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Heb 4:12–13, ESV).

A common misreading of this passage is that the "word of God" here means Scripture — the Bible. But verse 13 makes clear that the "Word" is a person. Scripture does not have "sight." Scripture does not have "eyes" before which "all are naked and exposed." The "Word of God" here is Christ, the living Word — the Logos of John 1:1.²³

But where did the author get this striking imagery — the Word of God as a fierce warrior wielding a sword, penetrating all things, discerning thoughts? The source appears to be the Book of Wisdom, drawing on two passages.

First, Wisdom 18:14–15 describes God's judgment on Egypt at the first Passover:

"Your all-powerful word [logos] from heaven's royal throne bounded, a fierce warrior, into the doomed land, bearing the sharp sword of your inexorable decree. And as he alighted, he filled every place with death; he still reached to heaven, while he stood upon the earth."

The contacts between this passage and Hebrews 4:12 are striking. In both texts, the subject is the Logos — the Word of God. In both, the Word is personified as an active, intelligent agent — not an abstraction. In both, the Word is described using the metaphor of a sword. And in both, the context is the execution of God's judgment.²⁴

Second, Wisdom 7:23–24 describes God's Wisdom as "all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle. For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things."²⁵ This language closely parallels Hebrews 4:12's description of the Word as "piercing to the division of soul and of spirit" and 4:13's declaration that "no creature is hidden from his sight."

Commentators have noted that while various Old Testament passages use one or two similar images (such as Isaiah 49:2, where God's servant is made "like a sharp sword"), only the Wisdom of Solomon combines all of the elements found in Hebrews 4:12–13: the personified Logos, the sword imagery, the penetration of all things, and the all-seeing knowledge. These parallels are so extensive that the Protestant theologian E. H. Plumptre once speculated that the same author wrote both Hebrews and Wisdom — a wrong conclusion, certainly, but one that illustrates just how strong the literary dependence actually is.²⁶

The implication is the same as with Hebrews 1:3. The author of Hebrews is using the Wisdom of Solomon to establish doctrine — specifically, the omniscience of Christ. A purely human, uninspired document cannot serve as the basis for such a claim. The author must have regarded Wisdom as inspired and authoritative.²⁷

The Letter of James and the Book of Sirach

If the letter to the Hebrews has the strongest individual connections to the deuterocanon, the letter of James has the most pervasive ones. The relationship between James and the book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) is so extensive that the great Protestant scholar Alfred Edersheim concluded that the evidence proves "beyond doubt the familiarity of St. James with Ecclus [Sirach]."²⁸

Let us trace the connections, one by one.

James 1:13 and Sirach 15:11–13. James writes: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one" (James 1:13). Sirach had addressed the exact same false accusation against God: "Say not: 'It was God's doing that I fell away'; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: 'It was he who set me astray'; for he has no need of a wicked man" (Sirach 15:11–13). Both writers address the same theological error — blaming God for human sin — and both refute it in similar terms.²⁹

James 1:19 and Sirach 5:11. James writes: "Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" (James 1:19). Sirach writes: "Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering" (Sirach 5:11). The Greek is strikingly similar: James uses tachys eis to akousai (ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι); Sirach uses ginou tachys en akroasei sou (γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου).³⁰

James 3:5–6 and Sirach 28:12. James writes: "So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire" (James 3:5–6). Sirach uses the same distinctive imagery: "If you blow on a spark, it will glow; if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth" (Sirach 28:12). Both authors use the metaphor of a spark or small fire to describe the destructive power of speech.³¹

James 5:3 and Sirach 12:11 / 29:9–10. James writes: "Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you" (James 5:3). The Greek verb translated "have rusted" is katioō (κατιόω). This verb occurs in only two places in the entire Greek Bible: James 5:3 and Sirach 12:11. The illustration of rust corroding unused treasure appears nowhere else in the Greek Old Testament or New Testament outside of these two books. As Bruce Metzger observed, the linguistic connections here are impossible to dismiss.³²

Consider the cumulative weight. Within the five short chapters of James, we find at least a half-dozen clear connections to Sirach: James 1:13 / Sirach 15:11–13; James 1:19 / Sirach 5:11; James 3:5 / Sirach 28:12; James 3:6, 10 / Sirach 5:13; and James 5:3 / Sirach 12:11. Taken individually, one or two of these might be dismissed as coincidence. Taken collectively, they form a pattern that is, in Edersheim's words, "beyond doubt."³³

Paul and the Wisdom of Solomon

Romans 1:18–32 and Wisdom 13–14 — The Case Against Idolatry

Paul's argument in Romans 1:18–32 is one of the most important theological passages in the New Testament. It establishes the guilt of the entire Gentile world before God. And it follows the argument of Wisdom 13–14 so closely that many scholars believe Paul was consciously drawing on it.

The parallels are structural, not just verbal. Both Paul and Wisdom argue that knowledge of God is available through the created world — that by looking at what God has made, people should be able to know that He exists and what He is like. Wisdom 13:1 declares: "For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works." Paul echoes: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20).³⁴

Both then describe the same downward progression: from ignorance of God, to worship of created things instead of the Creator, to moral degradation. Wisdom 13–14 traces this arc at length, describing how people first worshiped natural elements, then crafted idols, then descended into every kind of wickedness. Paul traces the same arc in Romans 1:21–31: they "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images," and "God gave them up" to the consequences of their idolatry — including a catalog of vices that closely parallels the vice list in Wisdom 14:22–31.³⁵

The thematic and structural parallels are so extensive that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Paul knew Wisdom 13–14 and drew upon it in constructing his argument. This does not mean he simply copied it — Paul develops the argument in his own distinctive way, with his own theological emphasis on the wrath of God and the universal guilt of humanity. But the framework, the logic, and much of the language come from the Wisdom of Solomon.³⁶

Romans 9:21 and Wisdom 15:7 — The Potter and the Clay

In Romans 9:21, Paul asks: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" The primary Old Testament source for this metaphor is Jeremiah 18, where God is compared to a potter shaping Israel. But the specific language of making from "the same lump" (ek tou autou phyramatos, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος) vessels for different purposes is closer to Wisdom 15:7: "For a potter, kneading the soft earth, laboriously molds each vessel for our service, fashioning out of the same clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses."³⁷

Paul appears to be combining Jeremiah's theology with Wisdom's specific vocabulary. This suggests familiarity with — and use of — both texts.

2 Corinthians 5:1–4 and Wisdom 9:15 — The Body as an Earthly Tent

Paul writes: "For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling" (2 Cor 5:1–2). Compare Wisdom 9:15: "For a perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthly tent burdens the thoughtful mind."

Bruce Metzger noted that the Greek word skēnos (σκῆνος), translated "tent" or "tabernacle," appears in these two passages and nowhere else in all of biblical Greek — the entire Septuagint and the entire New Testament.³⁸ Although Metzger stopped short of saying Paul was directly dependent on Wisdom for his theology, he acknowledged that the apostle borrowed thoughts and phrases from the deuterocanonical books. The renowned Protestant exegete E. H. Plumptre was more direct, writing that "the whole passage is strikingly parallel to Wisdom 9:15."³⁹

The Gospels and the Deuterocanon

The Sadducees' Test Case and the Book of Tobit (Matt 22:23–34)

In Matthew 22:23–34, the Sadducees present Jesus with a scenario designed to make the resurrection look absurd. They describe a woman who married seven brothers in succession, each dying without producing children. At the resurrection, they ask, whose wife will she be?

Here is the puzzle: why seven brothers? Two would have been sufficient to create the dilemma. Seven is such an extreme number that it risks making the scenario seem absurd and easy to dismiss. Why would the Sadducees open themselves to ridicule by using such an outlandish example?⁴⁰

Perhaps because it was not outlandish at all. In the deuterocanonical book of Tobit, Sarah the daughter of Raguel married seven husbands, and all seven died before the marriage could be consummated (Tobit 3:8, 15). If the Sadducees were drawing on a well-known scriptural story — one that both they and Jesus would recognize — then their scenario was not a wild hypothetical. It was a brilliant trap. If Jesus dismissed the scenario as ridiculous, the Sadducees could point to the Book of Tobit: "See? It happened right there in your Scriptures." This would force Jesus to either reject Tobit or concede the difficulty.⁴¹

Notice what Jesus did not do. He did not say, "That's absurd — show me such a woman." He did not dismiss the scenario. He did not say, "Don't you know that Tobit is apocrypha?" Instead, He accepted the premises of the question and addressed the misunderstanding about the nature of resurrection life: "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt 22:30). He left both premises intact — the levirate marriage law and the plausibility of the scenario — and corrected their theology of the resurrection.⁴²

This is not a proof that Tobit is canonical. But it is striking evidence that Tobit was known, accepted, and treated as a plausible source of sacred history by both the Sadducees and Jesus. And it fits the broader pattern we are tracing in this chapter — a pattern of New Testament familiarity with and respectful use of the deuterocanonical books.

John's Prologue and the Wisdom Tradition (John 1:1–14)

The prologue to John's Gospel — "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" — is one of the most theologically profound passages in the entire Bible. Where did John find the conceptual framework for identifying Jesus as the divine Logos (Word) who was present at creation, who was with God, and who became flesh and "tabernacled" (eskēnōsen, ἐσκήνωσεν) among us?

The roots lie in the Old Testament wisdom tradition — and that tradition runs through both Proverbs 8 and the deuterocanonical books. Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom as present with God at creation: "When he established the heavens, I was there" (Prov 8:27). But John's prologue goes beyond what Proverbs alone can supply. Two additional elements come from the deuterocanon.

First, the concept of the Word/Wisdom "tabernacling" among God's people. The Greek verb skēnoō (σκηνόω) in John 1:14 ("dwelt among us" — literally "pitched his tent among us") echoes Sirach 24:7–8, where personified Wisdom says: "He who formed me chose the spot for my tent [skēnē], saying, 'In Jacob make your dwelling [kataskēnoō].'" Proverbs 8 says nothing about Wisdom being "tabernacled." Sirach does.⁴³

Second, the description of the Word as "only-begotten" (monogenēs, μονογενής) of the Father. John 1:14 calls the Word "the only-begotten from the Father." Where in the Old Testament is God's Wisdom described as "only-begotten" or "unique"? Not in Proverbs. But in Wisdom 7:22, the author describes the spirit in Wisdom as monogenēs — "unique" or "only-begotten." This is the very word John uses to describe the Son.⁴⁴

John's Christology thus draws on Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, and Wisdom 7 — weaving together strands from both protocanonical and deuterocanonical wisdom texts to construct his portrait of Jesus as the incarnate Logos. If John regarded Sirach and Wisdom as capable of confirming the most important Christological claims in his Gospel, then he regarded them as Scripture.⁴⁵

Jesus, Sirach, and the Invitation of Wisdom (Matt 11:28–30 / John 6:35)

In Matthew 11:28–30, Jesus issues a remarkable invitation: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

This language echoes Sirach's description of Wisdom's invitation. Sirach 51:23–27 reads: "Draw near to me, you who are uneducated, and lodge in the house of instruction... Put your neck under her yoke, and let your souls receive instruction... See with your own eyes that I have labored but little and found for myself much serenity." Sirach 6:24–25 adds: "Put your feet into her fetters, and your neck into her collar. Bend your shoulders and carry her."

Jesus speaks in the very language of Wisdom's invitation from Sirach — but He transforms it. In Sirach, the invitation is to study the Law of Moses. In Jesus' teaching, the invitation is to come to Him. Jesus is not merely a teacher of Wisdom; He is the Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24). His words gain their full depth and resonance when we hear them against the background of Sirach's wisdom teaching.⁴⁶

A similar dynamic appears in John 6:35. Jesus says: "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." Compare Sirach 24:19–21: "Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my fruits... Those who eat of me will hunger for more, and those who drink of me will thirst for more." Jesus takes Sirach's language and reverses it: Sirach says those who eat will hunger for more; Jesus says those who come to Him will never hunger again. The contrast only works if the audience knows Sirach and recognizes the allusion. Jesus is claiming to be the ultimate fulfillment of what Sirach's Wisdom only pointed toward.⁴⁷

Ephesians 6:13–17 and Wisdom 5:17–20 — The Armor of God

Paul's famous description of the "whole armor of God" in Ephesians 6:13–17 draws on two Old Testament sources: Isaiah 59:17 and Wisdom 5:17–20. Isaiah describes God putting on "righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head." But Wisdom provides a fuller parallel:

"The Lord will take his zeal as his whole armor [panoplian], and will arm all creation to repel his enemies; he will put on righteousness as a breastplate, and wear impartial justice as a helmet; he will take holiness as an invincible shield, and sharpen stern wrath for a sword" (Wisdom 5:17–20).

The crucial detail is the Greek word panoplian (πανοπλίαν), translated "whole armor" in Ephesians 6:13. This word is found in Wisdom 5:17 but not in the Septuagint version of Isaiah 59:17. When Paul writes "take the whole armor (panoplian) of God," he is using Wisdom's vocabulary, not Isaiah's alone.⁴⁸

Revelation 8:2 and Tobit 12:15 — The Seven Angels Before God

In Revelation 8:2, John sees "the seven angels who stand before God." Where does the concept of seven specific angels who stand in God's presence come from? It is found nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament. But in Tobit 12:15, the angel Raphael reveals his identity: "I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Lord." This is the only other passage in the Greek Bible that identifies a group of seven angels who stand before God.⁴⁹

Luke 6:31, Luke 14:13, and John 10:22 — Further Connections

Several additional connections deserve brief mention. The "Golden Rule" as stated by Jesus — "As you wish that others would do to you, do so to them" (Luke 6:31) — appears in a negative form in Tobit 4:15: "And what you hate, do not do to anyone." The original 1611 King James Bible noted this cross-reference.⁵⁰

Jesus' instruction to "invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind" to one's feast, "and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you" (Luke 14:13), echoes the teaching of Tobit 4:7: "Give alms from your possessions to all who live uprightly, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from any poor man, and the face of God will not be turned away from you."⁵¹

And John 10:22 mentions that Jesus attended "the feast of Dedication at Jerusalem" — the festival known today as Hanukkah. The origin of this feast is recorded in 1 Maccabees 4:59, where Judas Maccabeus and his brothers establish an annual eight-day celebration to commemorate the rededication of the Temple. Without 1 Maccabees, we have no scriptural account of the origin of a festival that Jesus himself celebrated.⁵²

A Summary Table of Major NT Allusions to the Deuterocanon

The following table presents the most significant parallels between the New Testament and the deuterocanonical books. This is not an exhaustive list — Michuta catalogs over 300 verbal parallels and allusions — but it gives a sense of the breadth and depth of the connections.⁵³

This table presents only about two dozen of the most significant connections. The full catalog, as documented by scholars like Michuta, extends to over 300 verbal parallels and allusions.⁵⁴ The breadth of these connections — spanning the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles, the General Epistles, and Revelation — demonstrates that the New Testament's engagement with the deuterocanon is not confined to one author or one genre. It is pervasive.

The Disappearing Cross-References

One of the most telling details in this story involves the cross-references in early Protestant Bibles. As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, the original 1611 King James Bible included eleven cross-references in the New Testament that pointed to deuterocanonical passages, along with 102 cross-references from the deuterocanon to the New Testament — a total of 113 cross-references linking the two collections.⁵⁵

These cross-references were not placed there by Catholic editors. They were placed by the forty-seven Protestant scholars who produced the King James Version. These men recognized what the evidence showed: the New Testament and the deuterocanon are interconnected.

The cross-references remained in subsequent editions of the KJV for some time. But when the movement to remove the deuterocanonical books from Protestant Bibles gained momentum in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the cross-references gradually disappeared too. Bruce Metzger suggested the removal was simply because the margins were too crowded.⁵⁶ But Daubney saw something more deliberate at work: "Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin."⁵⁷

The removal of these cross-references had a profound effect. Without them, generations of English-speaking Protestants grew up with no idea that their New Testament had any connection to the deuterocanonical books. The myth of the "Apocrypha-free New Testament" became self-perpetuating. And today, most Protestants are genuinely surprised to learn that the evidence exists at all.

Addressing the Objections

Before we draw our conclusions, we need to address the strongest objections to the argument presented in this chapter. I want to be fair to those who disagree, and I want to show that I have heard their concerns.

Objection 1: "Allusion does not equal canonicity."

This is the most common objection, and it has genuine force. The New Testament alludes to many texts that no one considers canonical. Paul quotes the pagan poet Aratus in Acts 17:28 ("In him we live and move and have our being") and the Cretan poet Epimenides in Titus 1:12 ("Cretans are always liars"). Jude quotes 1 Enoch. Nobody argues that Aratus or Epimenides should be in the Bible. So why should an allusion to Wisdom or Sirach carry more weight?

This is a fair point, and I want to answer it carefully. First, the argument of this chapter is not that the deuterocanon is inspired Scripture simply because the New Testament alludes to it. That would indeed be too simple. The argument is cumulative and qualitative, not merely quantitative.

Here is the crucial distinction. When Paul quotes Aratus, he is using a well-known poetic phrase to make a point. He does not build theological doctrine on Aratus. He does not treat Aratus as a prophetic text. He does not include Aratus's characters in a list of biblical heroes. But the New Testament's use of the deuterocanon is qualitatively different. The author of Hebrews uses Wisdom 7:26 to formulate Christological doctrine (Heb 1:3). He includes Maccabean martyrs in a list of "attested" biblical figures (Heb 11:35). Matthew records the Jewish leaders using Wisdom 2:18 as a prophetic warrant (Matt 27:43). These are not casual allusions to well-known phrases. These are cases of theological dependence on texts treated as authoritative Scripture.⁵⁸

Second, the sheer number of allusions matters. Paul quotes pagan poets twice. The New Testament's connections to the deuterocanon number in the hundreds. At some point, quantity becomes quality. A pattern this extensive cannot be dismissed as incidental.

Objection 2: "The New Testament never introduces a deuterocanonical citation with 'it is written.'"

This is true, and I acknowledged it at the beginning of this chapter. But as we saw, this proves nothing. Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are never introduced with "it is written" either. The formal quotation formula is used for only a handful of Old Testament books — primarily the Torah, the Psalms, and Isaiah. It would be strange to use this test to exclude the deuterocanon when it would also exclude books that all Christians accept.⁵⁹

Objection 3: "The Hebrews 11 reference to the Maccabean martyrs is just a historical reference, not a canonical one."

We addressed this above, but it bears repeating. The context of Hebrews 11 is not general history. It is sacred history. Every figure is drawn from the canonical Scriptures. The author explicitly says these figures were "attested to" — borne witness to by Scripture (Heb 11:2, 39). If the Maccabean martyrs are part of this list, then the book in which they are "attested to" — 2 Maccabees — must be part of the author's canon.⁶⁰

Objection 4: "1 Enoch is also quoted in Jude, and nobody includes it in the canon."

This is a reasonable point, and it deserves a careful response. There are important differences between the deuterocanon and 1 Enoch. First, 1 Enoch was never included in the Septuagint — the Greek Old Testament that served as the Bible of the early church. The deuterocanonical books were. Second, 1 Enoch was not received as Scripture by the overwhelming majority of the early church. The deuterocanonical books were — as we will see in Chapter 26. Third, 1 Enoch quickly fell out of use in the church after the first century. The deuterocanonical books continued to be used, read, and cited as Scripture for centuries.⁶¹

So while the quotation of 1 Enoch in Jude does show that New Testament authors could cite non-canonical texts, the analogy breaks down when we consider the broader picture. The deuterocanonical books have a history of reception as Scripture that 1 Enoch simply does not share (outside the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition).

What the New Testament Does Not Do

There is one final point that often goes unnoticed. The New Testament never qualifies or rejects the deuterocanon. It never says "the apocryphal book of Wisdom teaches..." or "although some regard Sirach as merely human wisdom..." It never draws a line between the deuterocanonical and protocanonical books. It never makes a distinction between a "first canon" and a "second canon." It treats all of the Old Testament books it uses — whether Deuteronomy, Isaiah, the Psalms, Wisdom, Sirach, or 2 Maccabees — in the same way: as authoritative, prophetic, and capable of confirming doctrine.⁶²

This silence is significant. If the New Testament authors knew that the deuterocanonical books were not Scripture — if they regarded them as mere human wisdom, useful but not inspired — we would expect to find at least some indication of this distinction. But we find none. They use the deuterocanon as Scripture, without qualification and without apology.

The Cumulative Case

Let me pull together the threads of this chapter. What have we found?

We have found that the New Testament contains a substantial number of allusions, verbal parallels, and theological dependencies on the deuterocanonical books — far more than most Protestants realize, and far more than the early Protestant translators themselves tried to hide when they removed the cross-references from their Bibles.

We have found three cases of special strength: Matthew 27:43 / Wisdom 2:18, where the Jewish leaders' taunt at the cross presupposes the authority of the Wisdom of Solomon; Hebrews 11:35 / 2 Maccabees 7, where the author of Hebrews includes the Maccabean martyrs in a list of "attested" biblical figures; and Hebrews 1:3 / Wisdom 7:26, where the author of Hebrews uses a word found only in the Wisdom of Solomon to formulate the most precise Christological statement in his letter.

We have found additional cases where Hebrews uses Wisdom to establish Christ's omniscience (Heb 4:12 / Wis 7:23–24, 18:14–15), where Paul structures his argument against idolatry along the lines of Wisdom 13–14 (Rom 1:18–32), where Paul uses Wisdom's vocabulary for the potter-and-clay metaphor (Rom 9:21 / Wis 15:7) and for the body as an earthly tent (2 Cor 5:1 / Wis 9:15), where James draws pervasively on Sirach throughout his letter, where John constructs his Logos Christology using elements from Sirach 24 and Wisdom 7, where Jesus echoes Sirach's wisdom invitation (Matt 11:28–30; John 6:35), and where multiple books draw on Tobit, 1 Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Solomon in various ways.

We have found that the New Testament never qualifies, rejects, or distances itself from the deuterocanon. It uses these books in a way indistinguishable from its use of the protocanonical Old Testament.

And we have found that early Protestant translators themselves recognized these connections — placing cross-references in their Bibles that linked the New Testament to the deuterocanon — only to have those cross-references quietly removed when the deuterocanonical books themselves were excised.

No single allusion proves inspiration. But the cumulative weight of the evidence is substantial. The New Testament authors knew the deuterocanonical books. They used them. They built theological arguments on them. They treated their characters as part of sacred history. And they never once suggested that these books were anything less than Scripture.

As Michuta concludes his survey of the evidence: the New Testament's inspired authors did not regard the deuterocanon as human apocrypha, but as an integral part of Sacred Scripture. If the New Testament treats these books in such a fashion, why should Christians not follow this biblical pattern?⁶³

In the chapters that follow, we will look more closely at individual deuterocanonical books — examining the theology of the Wisdom of Solomon (Chapter 21), the wisdom teaching of Sirach (Chapter 22), the narratives of Tobit, Judith, and Baruch (Chapter 23), and the historical and theological riches of 1 and 2 Maccabees (Chapter 24). What we will find, again and again, is that these books are not secondary or inferior. They are theologically rich, prophetically significant, and deeply connected to the New Testament. The New Testament itself tells us so — if we are willing to listen.

Bibliography

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975.

Daubney, William Heaford. The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church. London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900.

deSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.

Metzger, Bruce M. An Introduction to the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1957.

Michuta, Gary G. The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments. 2nd ed. 2017.

Michuta, Gary G. Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold History of the Bible. Rev. 2nd ed. El Cajon, CA: Catholic Answers, 2017.

Plummer, Alfred. The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1891.

Plumptre, E. H. Commentary in The Commentary for Schools: Corinthians, the First Epistle, edited by C. J. Ellicott. London: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co., 1883.

Woodward, S. Douglas. A Biography of the Christian Bible: And How We Defend the Protestant Scriptures in the 21st Century. Oklahoma City: Faith Happens, 2020.