Catholic Bible vs King James and others

[Calvinator]

The Protestant Bible and Hebrew Bible has more than 24 books, too. I believe you’re misunderstanding Bede in this instance. Would you show me the context of this paragraph?

How much more explict can Bede be? I’ll try to get the rest of it for you but please see the post just above this one and you will see that any reference to the OT canon having either 22 or 24 book invariably leads one to the Protestant canon.

BTW, it’s not germane to any of my points that “so and so’s” OT canon prior to Trent, match the Protestant OT canon, although in this case, Bede’s OT canon apparently did.

They voted on every issue the Protestants raised. Possibly, it was not decided whether or not that while the canon was already decided, it was not infallibly affirmed by the Church.

It sounds like you are saying that the canon hadn’t been infallibly defined until Trent, is this what you are saying?

OK, you can keep believing that, even though the Didache, epistles of Barnabas, Irenaeus and Polycarp all quote the deuterocanon before the canon was settled, and people continued to quote the deuterocanon after the Council of Carthage, such as Jerome, John Chrysostom, Pope Leo I, John Damascene and the Second Council of Niceae in 787 AD.

I thought Jerome rejected the apocrypha, do I have him mixed up w/ someone else?

Anyway, I never said everyone rejected the apocrypha only that it hadn’t been dogmatic until Trent and that you will find folks all the way up to the reformation rejecting the apocrypha in whole or in part.

I do believe most of the theologians in the west rejected the apocrypha though.

Perhaps the first infallible declaration, though that doesn’t mean the canon wasn’t decided until then, or that every Christian wasn’t using the deuterocanon until then.

I believe the first infallible declaration of the canon for your church occured at Trent and that up until that time, one was free to reject the apocrypha or the deutero’s as you call them.

But, it’s a fact that not “every” Christian believed the apocrypha to be inspired.

 

[Calvinator]

Because the Septuagint started to disappear in Jewish communities after Jamnia?

From Scripture Catholic:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17…

Thanks for the quotes, I’ll look at them later this weekend.

 

[JRKH]

First of all I would like to say that there are a number of good debators on this topic. If I were scoring this debate I’d be hard pressed…

The beauty of all of this is that it underscores my belief that the Bible is, at once, both a treasure and a trap. Here we have smart, dedicated people debating over how many books should be in the Bible; when the decisions were made; who made them, how they were made; etc. etc. etc. The Scribes and Pharasees would be proud. I say, Who Cares?? All this tells me is that, while the books “Of The Bible” may be inspired, the Bible itself is not. It is a collection of works that, along with other scholarly spiritual works, are good for the teaching and understanding of our faith.

The Bible exists as a minimum, core deposit of faith. When the NT was put together there were a number of books in both the old and new testiment eras that were considered important, but were left out. In addition the Early Church Fathers wrote many exceptional and inspired documents which were never considered for inclusion in the canon of the Bible. So there is much material out there which is useful, and beneficial that is not in the Bible.

In Christianity the heirarchy of teaching should flow as follows.
First - Belief in the Resurection, and the Passion of Jesus through which we are saved.
Second - The teachings of the Gospels directly relating to Jesus ministry, Including all the actions, sayings and parables of Jesus.
Third - Works relating to the Early Church. Mainly, but not necessarily limited to Acts and the Epistles.
Fourth - All other works. This includes the OT, works of the Church Fathers etc.

I believe that, in this sense, the Catholic Church has it correct. While it recognizes the Bible as an essential Core item, it doesn’t limit itself to that one document. This is probably the reason that the various councils did not dogmatically declare the canon closed until Trent. There really was no need to until the Reformation forced it.

James

 

[bankerdavid]

For all of you who think the earlier councils established the canon once and for all, I have a question.

When the Tridentine fathers met at Trent, they voted on what to accept and what to reject from the canon.

If the issue of the canon was already settled some 1,000 years previously, why did they have a vote?

We find at the council some of the Tridentine fathers rejecting the detuero’s. What gives?

From Wikipedia:

By the early 200’s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation. Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.

In 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, and he used the word “canonized” in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon. Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism.

The canon had already been defined, but because of the Protestant Reformation, it was dogmatically defined. The Church, throughout it’s history, has only defined dogma when it was specifically questioned, some examples would be the dogmas of Transsubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary.

 

[bankerdavid]

It sounds like you are saying that the canon hadn’t been infallibly defined until Trent, is this what you are saying?

I believe the first infallible declaration of the canon for your church occured at Trent and that up until that time, one was free to reject the apocrypha or the deutero’s as you call them.

But, it’s a fact that not “every” Christian believed the apocrypha to be inspired.

Because a dogma has not been infallibly declared doesn’t mean that the Church doesn’t believe it. As I stated above, the Assumption of Mary was believed long before it was defined, as was transsubstantiation, as was the Immaculate Conception.

 

[flyersfan1088]

I believe the first infallible declaration of the canon for your church occured at Trent and that up until that time, one was free to reject the apocrypha or the deutero’s as you call them.

But, it’s a fact that not “every” Christian believed the apocrypha to be inspired.

You believe. That pretty much sums it up. As you have been told again, and again, and again, you are mistaken.
Also please quit confusing deuterocanonical with apocryphal. They refer to two completely different things. Look it up.

 

[Calvinator]

Because a dogma has not been infallibly declared doesn’t mean that the Church doesn’t believe it.

Some accepted the books, some rejected the books. The earlier councils did not settle the issue for the whole church.

What you wrote above in no way disagrees w/ anything I said earlier.

 

[Calvinator]

That pretty much sums it up. As you have been told again, and again, and again, you are mistaken.

Exactly and precisely what am I wrong about?

 

[Calvinator]

The canon had already been defined, but because of the Protestant Reformation, it was dogmatically defined.

Have I said anything differently?

The two earlier councils were not binding, it was only at Trent that the canon was dogmatically defined.

I never said that no one accepted the books in question.

I never denied that theren’t any earlier councils, I can think of three, that defined the OT canon with the books in question.

I don’t recall ever even suggesting that the books don’t belong in the canon. Well, I guess I actually did do that by labeling them as apocrypha, but never made an issue of that.

My point is that the other two councils were not binding.

 

[Calvinator]

Jerome didn’t accept the books you guys call deuterocanonical as inspired:

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church (80NPNF2, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel.)
*
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a " helmeted " introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. (Prefaces to the books of Solomon and Kings)*

 

[EphelDuath]

No, he didn’t. He personally did not approve of the deuterocanon, but he sided with the Church instead of his own opinion.

Hence why the Vulgate had the contested books.

 

[Calvinator]

I don’t remember where the following came from but for those of you who believe the canon issue was settled in the 4th or 5th century you have some 'splainin to do.

First off, the article at newadvent.org has on the OT canon says that the canon wasn’t dogmatically defined until Trent. Notice I did not say that it was never defined before Trent.

Secondly, we find major theologians and works on the Bible up to the middle ages that reject the books you call apocrypha.

Please see the following on the Glossa.
The Glossa Ordinaria:

The Ordinary Gloss, known as the Glossa ordinaria, is an important witness to the position of the Western Church on the status of the Apocrypha because it was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance:

A designation given during the Middle Ages to certain compilations of ‘glosses’ on the text of a given MS. The earliest Glossa ordinaria is that made of the Bible, probably made in the 12th century…Although glosses originally consisted of a few words only, they grew in length as glossators enlarged them with their own comments and quotations from the Fathers. Thus the tiny gloss evolved into a running commentary of an entire book. The best-known commentary of this type is the vast Glossa ordinaria of the 12th and 13th centuries…So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philosophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called ‘the tongue of Scripture’ and ‘the bible of scholasticism’.119

Karlfried Froehlich summarizes the importance, authority and influence of the Glossa ordinaria on the Middle Ages:

For medieval Christians this tool was supremely necessary, indispensable for the reading of the sacred book which could not be understood without it. In their preface of 1617, taking up Peter Lombard’s remark about the Gloss as the ‘tongue’ of Scripture, the Douai theologians gave voice to this sentiment. Many generations, they suggested, 'thought of this collection of scriptural interpretation so highly that they called it the “normal tongue” (glossa ordinaria), the very language (lingua) of Scripture, as it were. When Scripture speaks with it, we understand. But when we read the sacred words without it, we think we hear a language which we do not know.'120

Alister McGrath adds these comments:

…the Glossa Ordinaria may be regarded as a composite running commentary upon the text of the bible, characterized by its brevity, clarity and authoritativeness, drawing upon the chief sources of the patristic period…So influential did this commentary become that, by the end of the twelfth century, much biblical commentary and exegesis was reduced to restating the comments of the gloss.121

The original Glossa ordinaria began as a marginal gloss on the Bible and was attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century. Over time the interlinear gloss was added which most likely originated in the twelfth century with Anselm of Laon. Margaret Gibson confirms this:

To this extent the old heresy is not without foundation: that Walafrid Strabo (a Carolingian) wrote the marginal gloss, whereas Anselm of Laon (the early scholastic) wrote the interlinear. The dating is sound enough.122

The work consisted of standard commentaries on the books of the Bible by major Church fathers and theologians from the Carolingian period. The principal Church fathers and theologians who provided authoritative commentary in the Gloss are described by Margaret Gibson:

Ultimately the principal contributor to the Gloss-the giant who bears it on his shoulders-is Jerome. He was responsible for the text of the Bible, for many of the explanatory prefaces to individual books, and for the learned and comprehensive exegesis of most of the Old Testament and part of the New. Behind Jerome stands Origen, whose work was known directly to Jerome but to later scholars indirectly (and partially) in Rufinus’ translation. Augustine contributed to Genesis and Ambrose to Luke; Cassiodorus to the Psalms, and Gregory the Great at least to Job and perhaps to Ezekiel and the Gospels. The next great figure is Bede. He is the leading player in Ezra-Nehemiah, Mark, the Acts of the Apostles and the Canonical Epistles. The basic material from Jerome to Bede, was edited in the ninth century by Rabanus Maurus, who commented the entire Old Testament (except Baruch) and much of the New. Paschasius Radbertus supplied a commentary on Lamentations and revised Jerome’s commentary on Matthew.123

 

[Calvinator]

Glossa continued:

The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It states that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon’ and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome. For example, the following is an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and non-canonical books. It begins by explaining the distinctions that should be maintained between the canonical and non-canonical or Apocryphal books:

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.124

The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,125 and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha,126 all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome. Again, the significance of this is that the Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians. Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole, demonstrating the emptiness of the claims of Roman apologists that the decrees of Hippo and Carthage officially settled the canon for the universal Church. We come back again to the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states that the canon was not officially settled for the Roman Catholic Church until the sixteenth century with the Council of Trent.

 

[Calvinator]

We also have two cardinals who reject the books you call the deutero’s. Surely they wouldn’t have rejected two or three councils which declared the books in question to be canonical, unless of course the issue hadn’t been settled.
Cardinal Cajetan:

Cardinal Cajetan

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.129

 

[Calvinator]

No, he didn’t. He personally did not approve of the deuterocanon, but he sided with the Church instead of his own opinion.

Hence why the Vulgate had the contested books.

“No, he didn’t”. No he didn’t what?

 

[Calvinator]

For all of you who have had snide remarks to make, I present this from Mark Shea…you know, the Catholic apologist. Maybe you should take your snide remarks to Shea.

You can find the following at:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html
Myth 5:

The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent.

First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn’t defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ’s earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea’s definition. This doesn’t make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380,** nonetheless wasn’t dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years**. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

Obviously there are things Shea has to say that I find objectionable but notice he says two (2) things of interest:
a.) the canon wasn’t dogmatically defined until Trent

b.) Christians had flexibility on what they regarded as canon during this time

What does it mean if the canon wasn’t dogmatically defined until Trent and believers had flexibility in what they regarded as the canon? It means that the canon was not settled until Trent. If something is settled the church wouldn’t have allowed for flexibility in accepting the canon.

 

[Calvinator]

Earlie in this thread, I made these points

a.) Trent was the first time the canon was dogmatically declared.

b.) Before this, one could accept or reject the apocrypha as the canon had not been declared.

c.) There was no consensus on the canonocity of the apocrypha in the western church and I believe the majority of theologians rejected the apocrypha. Even as late as the reformation we find Cardinals Bellarmine and Ximenes rejecting the apocrypha or at least part of it. I doubt folks such as Pope Gregory the Great or the two cardinals mentioned above would reject a dogmatic declaration of the church. But, the fact is, there was no such declaration. The Catholic Encyclopedia even admits this much.

d.) At Trent there was a vote to determine which books were and which books were not canonical. If the issue of the canon had truly been settled earlier, and we all know it hadn’t, there would be no reason for a vote and certainly no reason for any of the Tridentine fathers to vote in the negative. If the issue had been truly settled in the 4th or 5th century, Trent would have just re-iterated the list but that is not what they did. They voted with some of the fathers voting in the negative.

Please, someone tell me exactly what points I am wrong on?

This is a special invitation for a certain poster who says I have been proven wrong again and again as well as another poster who says I am grasping at straws.

Let’s see:
a.) Mark Shea agrees explicitly with points a, b, and c and point d is a matter of historical fact.

b.) newadvent.org’s article on the OT canon agrees with points a and c.

I guess I could keep going but that probably won’t matter to most of you.

 

[Calvinator]

Please, someone tell me exactly what points I am wrong on?

This is a special invitation for a certain poster who says I have been proven wrong again and again as well as another poster who says I am grasping at straws.

Let’s see:
a.) Mark Shea agrees explicitly with points a, b, and c and point d is a matter of historical fact.

b.) newadvent.org’s article on the OT canon agrees with points a and c.

I guess I could keep going but that probably won’t matter to most of you.

BTW, in the above post I should have said that both Shea and newadent.org agree with point “c” as far as “There was no consensus on the canonocity of the apocrypha in the western church” goes but am sure they would disagree about the majority of theolgogians rejecting the apocrypha but that is of no consequence because the main issue in point “c” is simply that there was no consensus.

 

[flyersfan1088]

I didn’t realize Mark Shea was infallible. Like has been previously pointed out, the Canon was dogmatically defined when it was attacked. The list was in place for 1000 years before this. Individuals might have disagreed personally, but they would have followed the tradition of the Church on which books were inspired.

deu·ter·o·ca·non·i·cal
Pronunciation Key - Pronunciation[doo-tuh-roh-kuh-non-i-kuhl, dyoo-]
–adjective of, pertaining to, or constituting a second canon.

a·poc·ry·phal Pronunciation[uh-pok-ruh-fuhl] –adjective
of doubtful authorship or authenticity.

deuterocanonical would be the 7 books Martin Luther threw out that had been included in the Bible for 1000 years.

apocryphal would be spurious books that were never considered part of Sacred Scripture, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Peter, etc.

 

[Calvinator]

I didn’t realize Mark Shea was infallible. Like has been previously pointed out, the Canon was dogmatically defined when it was attacked. The list was in place for 1000 years before this. Individuals might have disagreed personally, but they would have followed the tradition of the Church on which books were inspired.

deu·ter·o·ca·non·i·cal
Pronunciation Key - Pronunciation[doo-tuh-roh-kuh-non-i-kuhl, dyoo-]
–adjective of, pertaining to, or constituting a second canon.

a·poc·ry·phal Pronunciation[uh-pok-ruh-fuhl] –adjective
of doubtful authorship or authenticity.

deuterocanonical would be the 7 books Martin Luther threw out that had been included in the Bible for 1000 years.

apocryphal would be spurious books that were never considered part of Sacred Scripture, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Peter, etc.

No, Shea is not infallible and neither are you.

You didn’t address any of my points so let me re-iterate them for you:
a.) Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the canon.

b.) Before Trent, a believer had some freedom in accepting which books formed the OT canon.

c.) There was no consensus before Trent that the books in question were canonical.

d.) At Trent there was a vote (historical fact) which finally determined which book made up the canon.

Obviously from the above FACTS, the canon was not settled until Trent.

I have never denied the declaration from the earlier councils nor have I denied that at least some in the church used the canon from the earlier councils.

I suggest you read some church history that hasn’t been sanitized for apologetics purposes.

You say “Individuals might have disagreed personally, but they would have followed the tradition of the Church on which books were inspired.” Where in the world did you get that?