In a critique of the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) acceptance of the book of the Apocrypha (“Deutero-canon”), Normal Geisler shot himself in the foot with the following:
Propheticity Is the Principle of Canonicity
According to the NT, inspired books
came only through Spirit-moved prophets (2 Pet 1:2, 21). Now every biblical author
was a prophet or mouthpiece for God by function, if not by occupation (cf. Amos
7;14). And within the traditional time period (ca. 1500 to 400 B.C.) that of the
traditional OT authors (Moses to Nehemiah), there is little problem of identifying
the 39 books as prophetic. Moses was a prophet (Deut 18:15), as was his
successor, Joshua (Deut 34:9 10). Samuel, Nathan, and Gad were all writing
prophets (1 Chr 29:29), as were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve.
Daniel is called a prophet by Jesus (Matt 24:15) and even Solomon received
prophetic revelations from God (1 Kgs 11:9). The rest of the proto-canonical
books are prophetic both by their own claim and by the claim of other prophetic
writings about them (cf. 1 Pet 1:20, 21). But this is not so with the Apoc[rypha].
There is neither a claim in them, nor for them by Scripture, to be prophetic
Scripture. Indeed, them themselves disclaim inspiration (1 Mac 4:46; 14:41).
Hence, on the grounds of the lack of propheticity the Apoc should be excluded
from the OT canon. (Norman. L. Geiser, “The Extent of the Old Testament Canon,”
in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor
of Merrill C. Tenney Presented By His Former Students, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne
[Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975], 43-44, emphasis added)
1
Chron 29:29 reads:
Now the acts of King David, from first
to last, are written in the records of the seer Samuel, and in the records of
the prophet Nathan, and in the records of the seer Gad (NRSV)
Yes,
Nathan and Gad (who are called a prophet and seer, respectively) were “writing
prophets,” ergo, their books were inspired/θεοπνευστος. However, this means that there are at least two missing books
of the Bible. For more on this and other issues, see:
Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura