Documentation on development of canon

[Awful_Things]

I’m familiar with and use the claim that there was disagreement on which books to include in the canon of Scripture and that, while it was mostly settle by the 4th century, it was not definitively so until the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Does anyone have good documentation to put with that claim? I would imagine writings from the first few centuries would be best, I suppose as primary references. Surely these have been compiled somewhere. Thanks in advanced.

 

[thistle]

I’m familiar with and use the claim that there was disagreement on which books to include in the canon of Scripture and that, while it was mostly settle by the 4th century, it was not definitively so until the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Does anyone have good documentation to put with that claim? I would imagine writings from the first few centuries would be best, I suppose as primary references. Surely these have been compiled somewhere. Thanks in advanced.

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[SemperReformada]

I’m familiar with and use the claim that there was disagreement on which books to include in the canon of Scripture and that, while it was mostly settle by the 4th century, it was not definitively so until the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Does anyone have good documentation to put with that claim? I would imagine writings from the first few centuries would be best, I suppose as primary references. Surely these have been compiled somewhere. Thanks in advanced.

Weren’t Carthage and Hippo provincial councils and thus incapable of settling the issue?

It is my understanding that it was at Trent where the canon of the Catholic chuch was finally dogmatized.

 

[Awful_Things]

Weren’t Carthage and Hippo provincial councils and thus incapable of settling the issue?

It is my understanding that it was at Trent where the canon of the Catholic chuch was finally dogmatized.

My understanding is that Carthage and Hippo then sent there findings on to Rome for approval. The Synod of Rome, just before these too, also dealt with the matter.

 

[SemperReformada]

My understanding is that Carthage and Hippo then sent there findings on to Rome for approval. The Synod of Rome, just before these too, also dealt with the matter.

I believe you are correct but nonetheless, that wouldn’t change the fact that they were provinical councils thus there was some flexibility in accepting the canon up until the time of Trent.

 

[Awful_Things]

I believe you are correct but nonetheless, that wouldn’t change the fact that they were provinical councils thus there was some flexibility in accepting the canon up until the time of Trent.

What I’m suggesting is that, once the provincial councils had approval by Rome, this spread their decision to the universal church. But, I see where you are coming from in that Trent stated the case definitively because it responded to an attempt to remove books from the Bible. However, that it was settled with the threat of anathema at Trent would be the same as Marian doctrines being settled at a particular point. In neither case does it imply that one had flexibility before that, but that some heretic groups were claiming that flexibility and Rome had to clarify that it didn’t exist. In my interpretation, Trent was affirming that the decisions of Hippo and Carthage had been binding and that more recent groups trying to deny them were, indeed, in error. I could be wrong, though, and the way that would be shown would be if, from the documents of Trent, there was some discussion as to what definitively belonged in the canon, rather than just an affirmation of the obvious.

 

[SemperReformada]

What I’m suggesting is that, once the provincial councils had approval by Rome, this spread their decision to the universal church. But, I see where you are coming from in that Trent stated the case definitively because it responded to an attempt to remove books from the Bible. However, that it was settled with the threat of anathema at Trent would be the same as Marian doctrines being settled at a particular point. In neither case does it imply that one had flexibility before that, but that some heretic groups were claiming that flexibility and Rome had to clarify that it didn’t exist. In my interpretation, Trent was affirming that the decisions of Hippo and Carthage had been binding and that more recent groups trying to deny them were, indeed, in error. I could be wrong, though, and the way that would be shown would be if, from the documents of Trent, there was some discussion as to what definitively belonged in the canon, rather than just an affirmation of the obvious.

I’ll try to post more on this later but I do believe that there was flexibility in accepting the canon before Trent and this can be shown in several ways. At Trent there was a discussion of what books to include in the OT canon which culminated in a vote.

 

[Awful_Things]

I’ll try to post more on this later but I do believe that there was flexibility in accepting the canon before Trent and this can be shown in several ways. At Trent there was a discussion of what books to include in the OT canon which culminated in a vote.

No problem. In fact, if you are correct, it would be even more testimony to the fact that the Bible wasn’t definitively settled in the first century, as the man I am dialoguing with believes.

 

[SemperReformada]

No problem. In fact, if you are correct, it would be even more testimony to the fact that the Bible wasn’t definitively settled in the first century, as the man I am dialoguing with believes.

I think I would ask him what he means by “definitively settled”.

 

[SemperReformada]

I do not believe that the canon of scripture for the Catholic Church was settled at Carthage or Hippo and it was not until Trent that the Catholic Church’s canon was finally settled.

Neither Carthage or Hippo were ecumenical councils and were only provincial so they had no jurisdiction over the church as a whole.

I am unaware of any appeals to Carthage or Hippo as settling the canon of the OT in the early church and in fact we see that Augustine did not understand the two councils as being the final say.

We also see from Hippo and Carthage all the way up until Trent that there is plenty of evidence that the canon of the OT was not settled at either of the earlier councils.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say…
Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.

Note that if Trent was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the canon addressed to the universal church, Carthage and Hippo couldn’t have been.

Augustine himself, though accepting the deutero’s as canonical had this to say about how one is to determine what is and what isn’t canonical and remember he was a major player at the North African councils.
Agustine:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.
84NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8.

Obviously Augustine acknowledged the lack of unanimity in the churches regarding the canon and gave advice on how to determine which books were truly canonical and did not see Carthage or Hippo as being settling the issue.

Cardinal Cajetan who was sent to the Diet of Worms to oppose Luther had this to say about the canon:

Cajetan:

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.
Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament

Post Continued…

 

[SemperReformada]

Even at Trent we see that there was still controversy surrounding the deuterocanonical books.
Jedin:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

So even at Trent we see that the council fathers did not understand the councils of Hippor and Carthage as settling the canon of the OT. It would seem obvious that Trent was not just reaffirming Carthage and Hippo.