Interesting, since it is the exact New Testament Canon that you still use today, how is it that no one takes it seriously?
But you are missing the point. The Gelasian decree has no impact on the issue at hand. The Canon that we have was revealed through The Catholic Church. Whether it was in the third, fourth or fifth century is not the relevant issue, it was still The Catholic Church which was guided by The Holy Spirit.
Here’s some more good stuff. I already showed the authentic Canon from Catholic sources as well as the admission from Bruce, whom RD has used as his authority. But also, the Gelasian decree does not debunk Damasus’ decree as he asserts. Here is the pertinent excerpt from
Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 1, page 404:
*The first part of this decree has long been known as the Decree of Damasus, and concerns the Holy Spirit and the seven-fold gifts. The second part of the decree is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis.
It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. and that
Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, the apocrypha. It is now
almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D.*The assertion from Wiki that this decree of Damasus is a fraud is cross-referenced to an article which in turn cites a
Ernst von Dobschutz. The reason he says the decree of Damasus is false is because within it is a quotation from Augustine from 416. He does not provide the quote or the context, but he therefore concludes that the
entire decree cannot be attributed to Damasus. Wiki’s, and in turn RD’s entire allegation, are based on von Dobschutz’ claim.
But as you can see from Jurgens, the document did indeed undergo an edit
after Augustine would have made his quote available to the world. This edit would in no way discredit the prior portions that were the authentic parts of Damasus’ Decree.
In summary the timeline would go like this.
- 382 - Pope Damasus makes his decree, lists the authentic canon (which would make sense in light of his order to Jerome to translate the canon)
- 416 - Augustine makes his comments.
- ca. 490 - Gelasius takes Damasus’ decree, and edits it, adding to it
Von Dobschutz speciously takes the edits by Gelasius to discredit what was originally Damasus’. Given Damasus’ concern with the canon, the repeat of his canon at Hippo and Carthage, what Jurgens wrote of his decree is by far the more plausible explanation. And this is probably why, as Jurgens stated, the almost universally accepted position is that Damasus authored the parts on the canon at the Council of Rome.
