Do Catholics Think the Deuterocanonicals Are Important?

[Dave_Noonan]

But Luther just plain did not accept them as canonical. That does affect how one reads them. But, functionally speaking, there could be a great deal of similarity between Catholics and Lutherans today re the deuterocanonical books. I gather that is your point.

Yes, certainly.

I don’t want the thread to devolve into Luther’s view on the canon, but in one sense, Luther was simply following the (Catholic) scholarly consensus of his day as expressed in the standard medieval commentary on the Vulgate, the glossa ordinaria—wherein the introduction to each book of what is now referred to as the Deuterocanon contains the explicit statement, “This book is not part of the canon…” But there the books are, right there in the Bible nonetheless, occupying this sort of in-between status. Not in the canon, but in the Bible. Luther still goes to the great effort of having the Deuterocanonicals translated and similarly includes them in what he titles “The Entirety of Scripture.” Again this strange in-between status. Scripture but not canon. But Luther’s view about canonicity or lack thereof for these books wasn’t anything new. Luther’s innovation, which certainly lead to the eventual loss of these books from the Protestant Bible (a much later development), was placing the Deuterocanonical books in a separate section.

What was also innovative was Luther’s sense that some parts of the Scripture “bear Christ” more than others, or more bluntly, that some parts of the Bible are simply more important than others. As you correctly stated, my question or hypothesis is that functionally (though not officially) these books occupy a very similar place in the life of the Catholic Church. Thus playing this issue up as Catholic (or Protestant) polemical oneupmanship is really a distinction without a difference, and more about rhetoric than reality. At least that’s my hypothesis. Sometimes biblical theologians talk about a “canon within a canon” if that’s at all helpful.

Thanks for your sincere dialogue.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yes, certainly.

I don’t want the thread to devolve into Luther’s view on the canon, but in one sense, Luther was simply following the (Catholic) scholarly consensus of his day as expressed in the standard medieval commentary on the Vulgate, the glossa ordinaria—wherein the introduction to each book of what is now referred to as the Deuterocanon contains the explicit statement, “This book is not part of the canon…” But there the books are, right there in the Bible nonetheless, occupying this sort of in-between status. Not in the canon, but in the Bible. Luther still goes to the great effort of having the Deuterocanonicals translated and similarly includes them in what he titles “The Entirety of Scripture.” Again this strange in-between status. Scripture but not canon. But Luther’s view about canonicity or lack thereof for these books wasn’t anything new. Luther’s innovation, which certainly lead to the eventual loss of these books from the Protestant Bible (a much later development), was placing the Deuterocanonical books in a separate section.

What was also innovative was Luther’s sense that some parts of the Scripture “bear Christ” more than others, or more bluntly, that some parts of the Bible are simply more important than others. As you correctly stated, my question or hypothesis is that functionally (though not officially) these books occupy a very similar place in the life of the Catholic Church. Thus playing this issue up as Catholic (or Protestant) polemical oneupmanship is really a distinction without a difference, and more about rhetoric than reality. At least that’s my hypothesis. Sometimes biblical theologians talk about a “canon within a canon” if that’s at all helpful.

Thanks for your sincere dialogue.

Yes, great discussion.

I don’t have access to Medieval commentaries on the Vulgate, but since Jerome got his canon from the Jews, the comments you cite are understandable. Medieval theologians, however, call them “Scripture” not just “the Bible.” E.g., St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Richard of St. Victor, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas.

Bear in mind 2 things. (1) The Council of Florence (1431–1449) listed them as canonical and (2) the Orthodox Churches likewise considered them canonical. Luther operated in that context.

I’m not a fan of one-upmanship either, but if the difference is meaningless or nonexistent, why then did the Reformers protest the deuterocanonicals in the first place? Luther also rejected them for their doctrinal implications (e.g., 2 Macc 12 on prayer for the dead and purgatory).

I don’t think we can ignore the history and how the controversy over them started: in the Reformation protest. Nonetheless, today the common ground I believe–as it seems you do too–can be found in the manner of usage on the functional level. Wisdom and Sirach, as great as they are, are not the Torah and the Prophets . . . but . . . neither is Ruth and Esther.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes, great discussion.

I don’t have access to Medieval commentaries on the Vulgate, but since Jerome got his canon from the Jews, the comments you cite are understandable. Medieval theologians, however, call them “Scripture” not just “the Bible.” E.g., St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Richard of St. Victor, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas.

As does Luther: “Holy Scripture”.

Bear in mind 2 things. (1) The Council of Florence (1431–1449) listed them as canonical and (2) the Orthodox Churches likewise considered them canonical. Luther operated in that context.

I don’t know about the relationship between the Council of Florence and the glossa ordinaria. I know there were renewed challenges to the canon by Fr. William of Ockham in the 14th century, so maybe that has something to do with what’s behind this statement from the Council of Florence. Normally, the Church doesn’t make such declarations about things such as this unless there’s a controversy to address. Since this was long before the time of Luther, that probably deserves further study.

I’m not a fan of one-upmanship either, but if the difference is meaningless or nonexistent, why then did the Reformers protest the deuterocanonicals in the first place? Luther also rejected them for their doctrinal implications (e.g., 2 Macc 12 on prayer for the dead and purgatory).

I don’t think they did–Luther’s treatment of the Deuterocanonicals was basically the scholarly norm at the time. I think saying that Luther rejected them for doctrinal reasons is reading way too much into one particular debate that Luther was having about indulgences. I think both Catholics and Evangelicals are guilty of simply inventing a lot of history around the Deuterocanonicals that just doesn’t mesh with what actually happened. And honestly, I don’t think that can ever be quelled–the ideas are way too engrained to be rooted out.

I don’t think we can ignore the history and how the controversy over them started: in the Reformation protest. Nonetheless, today the common ground I believe–as it seems you do too–can be found in the manner of usage on the functional level. Wisdom and Sirach, as great as they are, are not the Torah and the Prophets . . . but . . . neither is Ruth and Esther.

Right. I don’t think history should be ignored either. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I find both the Evangelical apologetical approach (“We’re just a-historical New Testament Christians following the Bible”) and the Catholic approach (a constructed history, sometimes with no or even counter-evidence) to be huge “turn-offs”. I don’t think either side will willingly give up their version of “history” so I wanted to see whether there is perhaps a third way.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

As does Luther: “Holy Scripture”.

So Luther called the Deuterocanonicals “Holy Scripture” and “The Bible.” I didn’t know that. Let me ask, though, does he use them to build his doctrinal arguments calling them and citing them as Scripture in the way St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Richard of St. Victor, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas did?

I don’t know about the relationship between the Council of Florence and the glossa ordinaria. I know there were renewed challenges to the canon by Fr. William of Ockham in the 14th century, so maybe that has something to do with what’s behind this statement from the Council of Florence. Normally, the Church doesn’t make such declarations about things such as this unless there’s a controversy to address. Since this was long before the time of Luther, that probably deserves further study.

I’m not a medieval textual expert, but as far as I know the primary relationship of the glossa ordinaria is to the Vulgate and hence to the received opinion regarding Jerome’s statements on the canon which in turn he says he got from the Jews.

The Bull of Union Cantate Domino (1442 AD) from the Council of Florence, on the other hand, was to establish a common creedal statement as a basis for reunion with the Eastern Churches. The Deuterocanonicals were not in dispute since the Eastern Churches used the Septuagint. The interesting thing to note here is that this statement simply reaffirmed the status quo conviction of the Church East and West in her liturgical and doctrinal practice regarding the canon.

I think it should be looked into.

I don’t think they did–Luther’s treatment of the Deuterocanonicals was basically the scholarly norm at the time. I think saying that Luther rejected them for doctrinal reasons is reading way too much into one particular debate that Luther was having about indulgences. I think both Catholics and Evangelicals are guilty of simply inventing a lot of history around the Deuterocanonicals that just doesn’t mesh with what actually happened. And honestly, I don’t think that can ever be quelled–the ideas are way too engrained to be rooted out.

But the cure for anyone who invents history is to back up what really happened. And central to handling any issue is taking into account its historical development.

It can be granted that Luther reflects scholarly debates on the canon of the time, maybe a scholarly current of the time–much due to the authority of Jerome. But it is hardly the ecclesiastical norm.

Also it was not long in the Reformation before the deuterocanonicals were dropped from the canon. Calvin wrote in his Antidote to the Council of Trent re the Fourth Session: “Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?” Clearly Calvin rejected them for doctrinal reasons. The Westminster Confession (I,3) explicitly excluded the Deuterocanonicals.

So again my questions is: if the difference between the deuterocanonicals and the protocanonicals is meaningless or nonexistent, why then did the Reformers protest the deuterocanonicals in the first place? and make it a matter of doctrine?

Consider all of the things below that were in place at the time of the Reformation.

The Decretum Damasi 2 originating from the Acts of the regional Council in Rome (382 AD) states: “Now indeed the issue of the divine scriptures must be discussed, which the universal Catholic church accepts and what she must shun.” It then lists the larger canon i.e., includes the deuterocanonicals (except Baruch). The Acts of the council were edited at the end of the 5th century by Pope Gelasius to include also the list of books excluded from the canon. This final product is known as the Decretum Gelasianum.

Augustine’s own acceptance of the deuterocanonicals.

The Synod of Hippo (393 AD, can 36), and the Third Synod of Carthage (397 AD, can. 47) and the Council of Carthage (419 AD, can. 24) all list the larger canon. Can 24 concludes: “Let this be sent to our brother and fellow priest Boniface, bishop of the city of Rome, and even to the other bishops of these regions, for confirmation of this canon, since we have received it handed down from our fathers to be read in church.” These councils together are known as the “African Code.”

The Second Council of Nicea (787) by ratifying the decrees of local synods in canon 1, consequently ratified the canons of the Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo, 692 AD) which in turn (canon II) ratified the decrees of the synods of Carthage [the African Code] which listed the larger OT canon.

The Council of Florence listed the larger canon.

Scholarly debates are one thing, but the doctrinal/confessional choice to protest against and drop part of the canon as a matter of doctrine in the face of the above and in the face of Catholic and EOC liturgical usage which included the Deuterocanonicals is what started the confessional controversy over the canon.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Right. I don’t think history should be ignored either. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I find both the Evangelical apologetical approach (“We’re just a-historical New Testament Christians following the Bible”) and the Catholic approach (a constructed history, sometimes with no or even counter-evidence) to be huge “turn-offs”. I don’t think either side will willingly give up their version of “history” so I wanted to see whether there is perhaps a third way.

I accept only the version of history that is based on sound scholarship. Again the charge of a “constructed history” must be substantiated with fact. When a “history” has been shown to be constructed, it must be abandoned.

But I would not call the fathers who accepted larger canon in increasing numbers as time went on, the data mentioned above, the larger canon in EOC reaffirmed at the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), which explicitly rejected Calvinism, a constructed history. The Reformers protested against all of this status quo.

I do think it is accurate to argue that the OT canon was debated in scholarly circles well into the High Middle Ages. But one must also say that the majority opinion in the ECFs as time went on and the early councils and Popes plus liturgical and theological usage all favor the larger canon. Finally the Council of Florence and even more strongly the Council of Trent reaffirming it settled it for Catholics.

For one not bound by those councils I can see how they are debatable. But it can’t be said that Catholics added to the Bible.

Hopefully taking into account all that accurate history affords and matters of practical usage we can reach some common ground on the deuterocanonical books.

 

[Contarini]

For all the fuss made by Catholic apologists about the Deuterocanonical texts, I’m wondering why they aren’t made more of a priority in Catholic worship. For example, one would never hear a reading from 1Maccabees or Tobit at Sunday Mass. And even if the daily Mass readings are considered, one would never ever hear from, say, the book of Judith. If those responsible for the Catholic Lectionary (Coetus XI) didn’t consider these books to be a very essential or useful part (praestantior pars) of Scripture, the history of their inclusion or exclusion in the canon seems almost irrelevant—since they are mostly ignored anyway.

Why is that?

A fuss is made simply because Protestants deny them. But I don’t think there’s any reason to dispute that they are relatively less important, relatively peripheral to the Canon, compared to most of the OT and all of the New. And of course some are much more central than others. The Wisdom books do show up–the tales less so. And that makes sense.

If they weren’t relatively peripheral, there wouldn’t have been so much controversy about them.

Edwin

 

[Dave_Noonan]

A fuss is made simply because Protestants deny them. But I don’t think there’s any reason to dispute that they are relatively less important, relatively peripheral to the Canon, compared to most of the OT and all of the New. And of course some are much more central than others. The Wisdom books do show up–the tales less so. And that makes sense.

If they weren’t relatively peripheral, there wouldn’t have been so much controversy about them.

Edwin

Ironically, their place on the periphery places them in the center of controversy.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I accept only the version of history that is based on sound scholarship. Again the charge of a “constructed history” must be substantiated with fact. When a “history” has been shown to be constructed, it must be abandoned.

But I would not call the fathers who accepted larger canon in increasing numbers as time went on, the data mentioned above, the larger canon in EOC reaffirmed at the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), which explicitly rejected Calvinism, a constructed history. The Reformers protested against all of this status quo.

I do think it is accurate to argue that the OT canon was debated in scholarly circles well into the High Middle Ages. But one must also say that the majority opinion in the ECFs as time went on and the early councils and Popes plus liturgical and theological usage all favor the larger canon. Finally the Council of Florence and even more strongly the Council of Trent reaffirming it settled it for Catholics.

For one not bound by those councils I can see how they are debatable. But it can’t be said that Catholics added to the Bible.

Hopefully taking into account all that accurate history affords and matters of practical usage we can reach some common ground on the deuterocanonical books.

I would need to know a lot more about the canon controversies of the Middle Ages to know what constituted a consensus or minority view. Or how the glossa ordinaria (which dates back to the 8th century) came to represent a view that counters official doctrine, if indeed people really considered it that sold.

Certainly I never said that Catholics added to the Bible, although you’re right, some in Evangelical/Fundamentalists circles do and that’s a good example of badly construed/constructed history. Or let’s face it, it’s just an outright falsehood.

But I also find general claims from Catholic apologists, and some shared by fundamentalist apologists, that are equally false, or at least pretty misleading:

1. Martin Luther removed books from the Bible. And "wanted"to throw out others. (I guess he ran out of energy or something? )
2. Martin Luther followed the Jewish canon, in the sense that he based his understanding of what should be canonical on Jewish authority (an argument used both by Catholics and Evangelicals).
3. The Jewish canon was set at the Council of Jamnia/Yavneh (used by both Catholics and Evangelicals, depending on what they are arguing). It never happened. And even if it had, it wouldn’t have been authoritative outside Palestine anyway.
4. Catholics follow the Septuagint, usually accompanied by some long scenario about how Jews used the Septuagint until the Christians started using it and then switched to Hebrew–without ever acknowledging that most Jews at the time didn’t even speak/read Greek. Or acknowledging that the Septuagint canon is different than the Catholic one. Or acknowledging that the Catholic Old Testament they read today is actually a translation of the Hebrew text and not the Greek text, except for texts for which there is no underlying Hebrew text.
5. A lack of acknowledgement that other Apostolic Churches don’t follow the same biblical canon as the Catholic Church–thus the early synods that discussed canon only applied to the West. Or that they were synods and not general councils of the Church. Or that the Eastern Churches don’t even have the same sense of canon. Or that there are even Eastern Churches besides the Greek Orthodox Church for that matter. (The whole Church was just one big happy family until 1086 for them I guess.)

I’ve even read a pretty funny one someone posted, one that I believe is authored by or repeated by Jimmy Akin on the EWTN site–that Luther refused to number the pages of the Deuterocanonicals in his Bible (sometimes also claiming that this was done by Luther to confuse people or discourage people from reading the Deuteros.) Of course the part that’s left out is that there are NO PAGE NUMBERS AT ALL in Luther’s Bible. So yes, it’s true that he didn’t number the pages of the Deuterocanonicals, but he didn’t number anything else either.

A typical example of what I’m talking about can be found here:

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html

Or you could go on EWTN and find very similar stuff. Or I’m sure there are plenty of tracts and things here on Catholic.com for that matter. Not all of these errors show up in all materials but I’d say that’s a pretty representative list.

My point is that lots and lots of Catholics read stuff like this and for whatever reason simply buy it hook, line and sinker. Just like fundamentalists find junk on the Internet that they like and but it, hook, line and sinker. As long as material like this continues to float around on the Internet, I don’t think it can ever be rooted out–it’s like folklore–you can’t kill it.

Now I’m not saying there’s not some good information in the Mark Shea link. (If there actually are Evangelicals that claim that the Deuterocanoncials declare themselves to be non-canonical, that’s indeed just crazy.) On the other hand, I would say about 30% of what Mark Shea has written in this article is just out-and-out wrong. It’s made up. I’m not saying that he made it up (he doesn’t footnote of course) but someone did.

Again, I’m 100% positive one could easily find fundamentalist links that quote equally invented out-and-out-wrong, totally made-up “history” to benefit their “side” but that doesn’t really help people come to an honest, historically grounded understanding of the controversy. Inventing one falsehood to counter another invented falsehood just to score debating points doesn’t help anyone.

So what I was trying to explore in this thread is whether there isn’t some other way out of this very ugly morass of…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Also it was not long in the Reformation before the deuterocanonicals were dropped from the canon. Calvin wrote in his Antidote to the Council of Trent re the Fourth Session: “Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?” Clearly Calvin rejected them for doctrinal reasons. The Westminster Confession (I,3) explicitly excluded the Deuterocanonicals.

So again my questions is: if the difference between the deuterocanonicals and the protocanonicals is meaningless or nonexistent, why then did the Reformers protest the deuterocanonicals in the first place? and make it a matter of doctrine?

Consider all of the things below that were in place at the time of the Reformation.

I think this is where things get pretty complicated and probably too complicated for a thread here. At least among biblical scholars, again based on the glossa ordinaria, the Deuterocanonical books occupied this sort of in-between status as I mentioned earlier. In the Bible, but explicitly NOT in the canon. Hard to get one’s head around I know–it certainly is for me. So if you want to say Calvin took them “out” I’d personally be fine with that because it’s very explicit, but one could just as easily argue that they were already “out” of the canon (though not out of the Bible) by the 8th century.

As for the issues surrounding purgatory and prayers for the dead, the first mistake NOT to make (in my view) is to think that these practices somehow flow from the Bible. They flow from the faith of the Church. It’s not like the Church prayed for the dead because they are commanded to do so in the book of Maccabees. But when indulgences were challenged by the Reformers, Catholic scholars started running to the Bible for prooftexts. IMO, that’s not really even a good basis for an argument (maybe to help support an argument), but anyway. When the appeal was made to the Deuterocanonicals, Luther, et. al. in their very academic, debate-y way said “a-ha!” “The Deuterocanonicals have always been controversial, you need better evidence!” And of course the Catholic scholars said, “no we don’t.” etc. The Catholic side overstressed the solidity of the place of the Deuterocanonicals, and the Reformist side denigrated them because that helped make their case. It’s trying to make “debating points” again.

But the point is that it’s not as though: 1) Everything was hunky-dory with the Deuterocanoncials before Luther came along 2) Luther found something in the Deuterocanonicals that he didn’t like 3) therefore he took them out. The situation is way, way more complicated than that.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I think this is where things get pretty complicated and probably too complicated for a thread here. At least among biblical scholars, again based on the glossa ordinaria, the Deuterocanonical books occupied this sort of in-between status as I mentioned earlier. In the Bible, but explicitly NOT in the canon. Hard to get one’s head around I know–it certainly is for me. So if you want to say Calvin took them “out” I’d personally be fine with that because it’s very explicit, but one could just as easily argue that they were already “out” of the canon (though not out of the Bible) by the 8th century.

But that’s the point, one really can’t say they were out of the canon by the 8th c. This is certainly not so in the East that went by the Septuagint, but also in the West for all the reasons I gave . . .not the least of which is Florence. In the East, again, consider the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 (Question III). It listed the larger canon citing the “rule of the Catholic Church” and its “ancient custom” as its authority.

Debates in academia are a far cry from the constant liturgical and theological practice of the Church. See quote from Hayes in post below.

As for the issues surrounding purgatory and prayers for the dead, the first mistake NOT to make (in my view) is to think that these practices somehow flow from the Bible. They flow from the faith of the Church. It’s not like the Church prayed for the dead because they are commanded to do so in the book of Maccabees. But when indulgences were challenged by the Reformers, Catholic scholars started running to the Bible for prooftexts. IMO, that’s not really even a good basis for an argument (maybe to help support an argument), but anyway. When the appeal was made to the Deuterocanonicals, Luther, et. al. in their very academic, debate-y way said “a-ha!” “The Deuterocanonicals have always been controversial, you need better evidence!” And of course the Catholic scholars said, “no we don’t.” etc. The Catholic side overstressed the solidity of the place of the Deuterocanonicals, and the Reformist side denigrated them because that helped make their case. It’s trying to make “debating points” again.

I agree the faith comes to one in the CC through Scripture and Tradition in the Church operating together. No doctrine is held by any one of them in isolation. As Newman points out, “From the very first, that rule has been, as a matter of fact, that the Church should teach the truth, and then should appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching.” Because “a traditional system of theology, consistent with, but independent of, Scripture, has existed in the Church from the Apostolic age.” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, I,3,2; and II,5,4,1)]

Newman’s point from Dr. Hawkins is on the money: “He lays down a proposition, self-evident as soon as stated, to those who have at all examined the structure of Scripture, viz. that the sacred text was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that, if we would learn doctrine, we must have recourse to the formularies of the Church; for instance to the Catechism, and to the Creeds. He considers, that, after learning from them the doctrines of Christianity, the inquirer must verify them by Scripture.” (Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Chap 1)

Prior to the time of the Reformation the Deuterocanonicals were established enough in Church life to be listed in the Council of Florence. . . . to say nothing their use in lectionaries and theological treatises. That’s pretty solid. But given that, it is true there was still debate. For the Catholic, Trent settled it. For the EOC, the Synod of Jerusalem. I acknowledge, theologically, that neither of these is authoritative in a binding way for Protestants.

But the point is that it’s not as though: 1) Everything was hunky-dory with the Deuterocanoncials before Luther came along 2) Luther found something in the Deuterocanonicals that he didn’t like 3) therefore he took them out. The situation is way, way more complicated than that.

As stated, agreed. But there is a grain of truth to the above too, as Sundberg (in article referenced in post below) points out.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . .
Certainly I never said that Catholics added to the Bible, although you’re right, some in Evangelical/Fundamentalists circles do and that’s a good example of badly construed/constructed history. Or let’s face it, it’s just an outright falsehood.

Thanks.

But I also find general claims from Catholic apologists, and some shared by fundamentalist apologists, that are equally false, or at least pretty misleading:

1. Martin Luther . . . . Hebrew text.

I agree with your assessment of 1-4.

1. A lack of acknowledgement that other Apostolic Churches don’t follow the same biblical canon as the Catholic Church–thus the early synods that discussed canon only applied to the West. Or that they were synods and not general councils of the Church. Or that the Eastern Churches don’t even have the same sense of canon. Or that there are even Eastern Churches besides the Greek Orthodox Church for that matter. (The whole Church was just one big happy family until 1086 for them I guess.)

True, but it must also be acknowledged that EOC canons were/are varients of the larger canon.

I’ve even read a pretty funny . . . Inventing one falsehood to counter another invented falsehood just to score debating points doesn’t help anyone.

Agreed

So what I was trying to explore in this thread is whether there isn’t some other way out of this very ugly morass of…

A noble goal. OK, so here’s my take.

(1) The NT is not at issue.

(2) In the OT the Torah, Prophets, Psalms, and historical books (Josh, Jgs, 1-2 S, 1-2 K) are not at issue.

(3) At issue are books among the “Writings,” the Deuteronomical books. (Dt books)

(4) The NT canon almost universally agreed to have been settled by Athanasius’ Festal Letter (39) in 376.

(5) The OT, esp. the Dt books, continued to be debated.

(6) What is need to find our way through is solid history of the canon, theological understanding between confessions, and practical usage.

(7) The best historical work I can find points to this: the larger canon is testified to in the early Church by numerous witnesses, had its dissenters, but grew in acceptance as time went on in the Church both East and West. It was listed at the Council of Florence which, as I pointed out, simply reaffirmed the status quo conviction of the Church East and West in her liturgical and doctrinal practice regarding the canon. Academic debates continued. With the teachings of the Reformers, who shortly after Luther explicitly rejected the Dt books, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the teaching of Florence. It was also taught by the EOC.

John H. Hayes, a Protestant historian of the canon, writes: “In the sixteenth century, the canon of the Bible became one of the most controversial issues of the time. Prior to this period, some differences of opinion existed in the Church over the extent of the canon, the canonicity of certain books, and whether different degrees of authority should be assigned to different works, but generally opinion followed the positions established in the Decretum Gelasianum [listing the larger canon] from the early Middle Ages. In conjunction with the Council of Florence Pope Eugenius IV had provided a list of biblical books identical with what would be approved at the Council of Trent.”
[John H. Hayes, “Historical Criticism of the Old Testament Canon” in Magne Saebø, ed., *The Hebrew Bible Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996-2008, II:985-6.]

I would also read Albert C. Sundberg’s articles on the history of the canon. He has one “The Bible and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration” Interpretation 29 (October 1975) that discusses Luther and the Reformation. He finds doctrinal reasons in Luther’s canonical choices. I can send you a PDF of it if you like. Sundberg is also a Protestant.

(8) (a) Theologically for a Catholic given the lack of clear agreement concerning the canon, Trent acted to discern in the Holy Spirit which books belong to the OT canon. For an EO it is the Synod of Jerusdalem.
(b) Theologically for those in the Reformation churches Trent and the Synod of Jerusdalem have no binding authority. And the canon is determined by other means.

(9) Practically speaking we can find some common ground by usage. E.g., we’re only talking about the Writings–we’re agreed on the whole rest of the Bible; the Writings don’t cover core doctrines; some are used but a little in the liturgy (but others are used more than some canonical books).

What do you think?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I agree with your assessment of 1-4.

Thanks I appreciate that.

True, but it must also be acknowledged that EOC canons were/are varients of the larger canon.

I would agree except for the part about there being “THE” larger/longer canon. I would say there are a variety of longer canons and one pretty short one. But in the sense that what I will call the “Protestant canon” is a minority view, yes, most certainly.

(6) What is need to find our way through is solid history of the canon, theological understanding between confessions, and practical usage.

Yes, this is absolutely the key. There’s a lot of just very bad “history” out there, including a lot of misconceptions flowing from academics with no particular theological stance on the issue.

John H. Hayes, a Protestant historian of the canon, writes: “In the sixteenth century, the canon of the Bible became one of the most controversial issues of the time. Prior to this period, some differences of opinion existed in the Church over the extent of the canon, the canonicity of certain books, and whether different degrees of authority should be assigned to different works, but generally opinion followed the positions established in the Decretum Gelasianum [listing the larger canon] from the early Middle Ages. In conjunction with the Council of Florence Pope Eugenius IV had provided a list of biblical books identical with what would be approved at the Council of Trent.”
[John H. Hayes, “Historical Criticism of the Old Testament Canon” in Magne Saebø, ed., *The Hebrew Bible Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation

, 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996-2008, II:985-6.]

I would also read Albert C. Sundberg’s articles on the history of the canon. He has one “The Bible and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration” Interpretation 29 (October 1975) that discusses Luther and the Reformation. He finds doctrinal reasons in Luther’s canonical choices. I can send you a PDF of it if you like. Sundberg is also a Protestant.

Thanks very much for these sources and your offer for the PDF. I should be able to access these fairly readily in the library. John H. Hayes is a solid scholar so I will be interested in reading his work. I don’t know much about the work of Albert Sundberg except that he was an Evangelical.

(9) Practically speaking we can find some common ground by usage. E.g., we’re only talking about the Writings–we’re agreed on the whole rest of the Bible; the Writings don’t cover core doctrines; some are used but a little in the liturgy (but others are used more than some canonical books).

What do you think?

Yes I agree. For mainline Protestants who follow the Revised Common Lectionary, I think there’s much less of an issue because the Deuterocanonicals are listed as alternative readings. And it seems to me that some even show up in the old Book of Common prayer lectionary, but I would have to verify that. In any event, the Deuteros have not been anathematized in those contexts.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is certainly not so in the East that went by the Septuagint, but also in the West for all the reasons I gave . . .not the least of which is Florence. In the East, again, consider the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 (Question III). It listed the larger canon citing the “rule of the Catholic Church” and its “ancient custom” as its authority.

In the context of what I mentioned earlier about “THE longer/larger canon,” I do bristle at the use of the term “the East”–which is part of a much broader tendency on the part of Catholic apologists, and even I would say most legitimate Catholic church historians, to flatten and homogenize the non-Latinate history of Christianity.

One could say that the Greek church or the Eastern half of the Roman Empire “went by the Septuagint” but one couldn’t say that of, say, the Armenian Church, or the various other non-Greek/Latin speaking Churches.

Prior to the time of the Reformation the Deuterocanonicals were established enough in Church life to be listed in the Council of Florence. . . . to say nothing their use in lectionaries and theological treatises. That’s pretty solid. But given that, it is true there was still debate.

Councils are usually called to settle debates and are sometimes unsuccessful, requiring more councils, so I still think there must be a lot more to what’s going on at the Council of Florence—which I don’t know much about except that in the back of my mind, there were some very controversial decisions reached.

It would be interesting to know what role the Deuteros played in various Lectionaries prior to the Roman lectionary that preceded the Vatican II lectionary.

For the Catholic, Trent settled it. For the EOC, the Synod of Jerusalem. I acknowledge, theologically, that neither of these is authoritative in a binding way for Protestants.

Right. As I mentioned, I don’t think it’s helpful to think about the history of the Church in “East/West” terms, I.e., “THE” (my emphasis) EOC.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I agree with your assessment of 1-4.

Again, I very much appreciate your honestly. It’s extremely refreshing.

So here’s a more pointed question for you. What do you think Catholics of goodwill can and should do about articles such as the Mark Shea article I referred to or say this one by Jimmy Akin?

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

…just to cite an example of the “page number” canard.

 

[rfournier103]

For all the fuss made by Catholic apologists about the Deuterocanonical texts, I’m wondering why they aren’t made more of a priority in Catholic worship.

Good morning, Dave.

The “fuss” is because these books are disputed by Protestants. The Church has decreed that they are the inspired Word of God, and our separated brethren deny it. They were accepted for centuries before the Council of Trent (see Hippo and Carthage), but were not seriously challenged until the Protestants did so in the 1500s. The Church makes a “fuss” because it needs to defend itself from continuous attacks by anti-Catholic Protestant ministers and apologists who not only attack the canon of the Bible; but Catholic theology that cites those texts.

For example, one would never hear a reading from 1Maccabees or Tobit at Sunday Mass. And even if the daily Mass readings are considered, one would never ever hear from, say, the book of Judith. If those responsible for the Catholic Lectionary (Coetus XI) didn’t consider these books to be a very essential or useful part (praestantior pars) of Scripture, the history of their inclusion or exclusion in the canon seems almost irrelevant—since they are mostly ignored anyway.

Why is that?

That is a good question. Since nobody ever asked for my (name removed by moderator)ut as to what readings are read at Sunday and Daily Mass; I will just give my opinions. By the way… congratulations on coming up with a rather unique topic. If you hang around here long enough, you’ll see that the topics begin to repeat themselves.

There are 365 days in a year. On certain holy days, there is more than one set of readings. There are also three cycles of Sunday Masses and two cycles of Daily Masses. There is a LOT of Scripture there. Throw in the readings for Sacraments - and there is even more.

HOWEVER…

Let us take a look at how the Mass is set up. There is USUALLY only ONE reading from the Old Testament per Mass. For some reason, the Easter vigil has SEVEN readings from the OT; but that is the exception.

It is my understanding that the readings for every Mass have been chosen very carefully for very specific reasons. I am certain that the readings were not chosen as a reaction to Protestant rejection of the Deuterocanonical books. This doesn’t mean that the 7 books being discussed here are in some way inferior, it just means that other passages from other books fit the themes and lessons of that particular day better. If there were more days in the year, or two or three OT readings per Mass; then I think that more readings from those books would have found their way into the Liturgy of the Word.

Do you think that all books are equally important? Or are some more important than others?

2 Timothy 3:16 ~ …and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Kind of a tricky question here, Dave. I suspect (just MY opinion, here) that the New Testament is more important than the Old; and the books of the Gospel are the MOST important books of the New Testament. But according to the Bible; it’s ALL important.

Is Exodus more important than Psalms? Is Acts more important than Revelation? Is Romans more important than 1 Corinthians? Is Matthew more important than John? Only God knows for sure.

Just because some books of the Bible aren’t read as much at Mass as others, doesn’t mean that they don’t matter as much as the books that get used more often.

ALL Christians are expected to “do their homework” and read the Bible. Scripture isn’t just for Mass, it’s for every day. Sadly, like many Christians, I don’t always make enough time to “do my homework”. Mass is just the beginning. The Bible and all it’s parts are important; and each and every one of us are responsible for keeping the Faith not just on Sunday - but every day.

My wife and I selected a passage from Tobit as the Old Testament reading at our wedding Mass.

Tobit 8:4-7 ~ Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, “My love, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance.” She got up, and they started to pray and beg that deliverance might be theirs. He began with these words: “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever. You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself.’ Now, Lord, you know that I take this wife of mine not because of lust, but for a noble purpose. Call down your mercy on me and on her, and allow us to live together to a happy old age.”

For our first anniversary, I had a collage made of pictures from our relationship and wedding; as well as the three readings from our wedding in English and Latin. Tobit included. When my father-in-law saw the collage and read the passage from Tobit, he was very impressed. My father-in-law is a die-hard Protestant (former Pentecostal minister) with numerous misconceptions about the Catholic Church, it’s teachings, and even the canon of the Bible. He apparently had never read Tobit, but seemed rather impressed with it.

To summarize - Catholics do think that the Deuterocanonical books are important. This Catholic certainly does.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

In the context of what I mentioned earlier about “THE longer/larger canon,” I do bristle at the use of the term “the East”–which is part of a much broader tendency on the part of Catholic apologists, and even I would say most legitimate Catholic church historians, to flatten and homogenize the non-Latinate history of Christianity.

It would be a foolhardy overgeneralization (not that you’re doing so) to argue that one can make no spiritual, theological, cultural, canonical, liturgical distinctions between the Latin Church on the whole and the Eastern Churches on the whole. Those are what make distinct particular sui iuris churches in the first place. Orthodox scholars themselves note general differences between the Church in the East versus that in the West and general trends in each. E.g., Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church. New Edition. He is an EO bishop. The same is true for responsible western scholars such as Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom; and The World of Late Antiquity; Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom; and Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, and many other authors, among them Christopher Dawson.

True, one must be careful not to make facile generalizations.

One could say that the Greek church or the Eastern half of the Roman Empire “went by the Septuagint” but one couldn’t say that of, say, the Armenian Church, or the various other non-Greek/Latin speaking Churches.

True, and some, like the Copts, go beyond the Septuagint.

Councils are usually called to settle debates and are sometimes unsuccessful, requiring more councils, so I still think there must be a lot more to what’s going on at the Council of Florence—which I don’t know much about except that in the back of my mind, there were some very controversial decisions reached.

A central goal of Basel-Ferrara-Florence was reunion with the Eastern Churches. The Bull Cantate Domino from the Council in which the canon is listed was an instrument for reunion.

I would agree except for the part about there being “THE” larger/longer canon. I would say there are a variety of longer canons and one pretty short one. But in the sense that what I will call the “Protestant canon” is a minority view, yes, most certainly.

Sure, I should have said a larger canon.

Yes, as far as I can see the consensus among scholars is that Protestant canon was the minority view within the Christian church…

Another reference, if it’s of use to you:
“Until the time of the Reformation, only few teachers in the church, mostly from the east, wanted to adopt the more limited Old Testament canon of the Jews (especially Melito and Jerome). Most of the early church fathers adopted a broader Old Testament canon. . . . It was only in the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the Protestant communities limited the Old Testament canon to the Jewish canon of scriptures. The Catholic Church continued to have a much larger canon that included the Apocryphal, or ‘Deutero-Canonical,’ books.”
[Lee M. McDonald, “Canon (of Scripture).” *Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge, 1999. 206. Print]

Again, I very much appreciate your honestly. It’s extremely refreshing.

So here’s a more pointed question for you. What do you think Catholics of goodwill can and should do about articles such as the Mark Shea article I referred to or say this one by Jimmy Akin?

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

…just to cite an example of the “page number” canard.

A few observations
(1) Shea and Akin are reacting to ignorant, bigoted, snide, and unfounded charges against the CC made by Fundamentalists and some Evangelical Christians. These are taught to their people who should view them as an insult to their intelligence. They are also used to attack and ensnare hapless Catholics.
Given your comments above, however, you already see these charges for what they are.

(2) To meet these charges Akin, et al. make historical and theological claims that present as historical and theological facts.
The way to straighten them out (when need be) is to set the record straight with sound scholarship showing consenses that are against them or alternative or corrected facts that are properly sourced. After all it doesn’t help the CC to engage in sloppy scholarship.

I also have enjoyed the conversation. I believe the truth will speak for itself among people of good will. It takes disciplined effort to engage in a discussion intent of uncovering the truth.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes, as far as I can see the consensus among scholars is that Protestant canon was the minority view within the Christian church…

Another reference, if it’s of use to you:
“Until the time of the Reformation, only few teachers in the church, mostly from the east, wanted to adopt the more limited Old Testament canon of the Jews (especially Melito and Jerome). Most of the early church fathers adopted a broader Old Testament canon. . . . It was only in the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the Protestant communities limited the Old Testament canon to the Jewish canon of scriptures. The Catholic Church continued to have a much larger canon that included the Apocryphal, or ‘Deutero-Canonical,’ books.”
[Lee M. McDonald, “Canon (of Scripture).” *Encyclopedia of Early Christianity

, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge, 1999. 206. Print]

Yes, that seems correct. The only slight emendation would be that while indeed Protestant communities did adopt the Jewish canon, it wasn’t (as near as I can tell) because of its Jewishness per se—that’s a common Evangelical/fundamentalist misrepresentation.

A few observations
(1) Shea and Akin are reacting to ignorant, bigoted, snide, and unfounded charges against the CC made by Fundamentalists and some Evangelical Christians. These are taught to their people who should view them as an insult to their intelligence. They are also used to attack and ensnare hapless Catholics.
Given your comments above, however, you already see these charges for what they are.

Certainly these actions by Evangelical/Fundamentalists are inexcusable.

(2) To meet these charges Akin, et al. make historical and theological claims that present as historical and theological facts.
The way to straighten them out (when need be) is to set the record straight with sound scholarship showing consenses that are against them or alternative or corrected facts that are properly sourced. After all it doesn’t help the CC to engage in sloppy scholarship.

Right. Of course I see the actions of Akin and Shea to be equally inexcusable and I guess I’m hopeful that eventually the truth will win out among all via sound scholarship. I do though wonder whether the faith of some (on both sides) will be shaken once they realize that what they’ve understood to be the case all along turns out to not be the case after all. Or perhaps so few people think about this issue that it probably doesn’t matter that much. There is much good that can come from apologetics, however there is a very dark side to it as well.

I also have enjoyed the conversation. I believe the truth will speak for itself among people of good will. It takes disciplined effort to engage in a discussion intent of uncovering the truth.

Thank you again and I agree.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)