How the canon of Scripture was established

[Bishopite]

[David Zampino]I agree. The Synod of Rome, called by Pope St. Damasus I made, I believe, a definitive statement.

You are correct about St. Athanasius – he accepted Baruch, and rejected Esther and some of the other Deutero-canonical material. But his NT Canon is correct, and seems to be the earliest exposition of the 27 books.

Incidentally, the Ecumenical Council of Florence also promulgated a list of books more than 100 years prior to Trent.

Very good! Apostolic Tradition was one of the many criteria, among many others and AT was the primary method used by the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the NT canon and Scripture as a whole.

All on this thread are doing a great job answering questions.

Now another devils advocate question that our Protestant brethren assert about the canon and this time I’d like to broaden the discussion to include the deuterocanonicals.

How would you answer this:
“God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined to be in the canon.” (W Robert Godfrey, Sola Scriptura! page 19)

 

[forthright]

Bishopite:

How would you answer this:
“God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined to be in the canon.” (W Robert Godfrey, Sola Scriptura! page 19)

Correct - and the Church had the capability of discovery which books God inspired because that is part of its responsibility as the pillar and foundation of truth. No other organization was promised the protection of the Holy Spirit, and so no other organization could have possibly declared what was canonical.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The criteria seems to be that certain books were considered by the Church to be an authentic and inspired expression of the faith of the apostles.

Apostolicity or connection to the apostles was also important. There had to be apostolic origin or at least a connection to an apostle. Being contemporaneous was not enough (eg. 1 Clement).

Ultimately, despite variant personal opinion or regional usage, it was the authority of synods and councils ratifies by the Roman Pontiff that prevailed.

 

[David_Zampino]

itsjustdave1988:

The criteria seems to be that certain books were considered by the Church to be an authentic and inspired expression of the faith of the apostles.

Apostolicity or connection to the apostles was also important. There had to be apostolic origin or at least a connection to an apostle. Being contemporaneous was not enough (eg. 1 Clement).

Ultimately, despite variant personal opinion or regional usage, it was the authority of synods and councils ratifies by the Roman Pontiff that prevailed.

Actually, Luke was contemporaneous! And Clement is mentioned by Paul in the “personal greetings” at the end of one of his Epistles.

Accepting, of course, the final and binding role of the Pope, it has been my view that of four sub-canonical books which were long debated: I Clement, the DIdache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas, the first two came the closest to final acceptance.

Indeed, branches of the Coptic church regarded I Clement as canonical, hence the need for a list of Canonical books at the Council of Florence. The list was promulgated as part of one of the documents of reunion. I think that the problem with I Clement had to do with a lack of widespread usage throughout the Christian world. (Although it was read aloud in the Corinthian churches at least late into the 2nd century.)

With the Didache, I think that the problem was the third section of the book. It dealt with an issue of wandering prophets which was extremely time and place specific. The first two sections of the Didache provide a fascinating look at the baptismal and eucharistic practices of the Apostolic Church. It also contains a specific and direct prohibition of abortion.

Blessings,

 

[itsjustdave1988]

David Zampino:

Actually, Luke was contemporaneous! And Clement is mentioned by Paul in the “personal greetings” at the end of one of his Epistles.

Yes, Luke was contemporaneous, but being contemporaneous appearantly wasn’t enough, otherwise 1 Clement would have been canonized. Likewise, Ignatius (AD 50-110) was contemporaneous, writing many letters to Christian communities, yet his authentic letters, although congruent with apostolic tradition, were not canonized.

Luke was appearantly more than just contemporaneous. He had an active apostolic mission that was well known among the apostles and their successors. In short, he was a well-known companion to Paul. Why Ignatius and Clement were not canonized remains a mystery. However, it does show that merely being contemporaneous, even if in accord with apostolic tradition, was not enough to be included among the inspired texts of Sacred Scripture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t agree that the Decree of Damasus made the canon of Scripture definitive. It appears that the Catholic Church herself did not see it that way until Trent. Before Trent, for example, Cardinal Cajetan questioned the inspired nature of many passages of the canonical Scriptures. St. John of Damasus, to cite another example, questioned the inspired nature of some canonical texts. It appears that prior to Trent, the canon of Scripture was understood to be canonical (binding) but not definitive (immutable).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite,

How would you answer this:
“God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined to be in the canon.” (W Robert Godfrey, Sola Scriptura! page 19)

A agree that the Church’s canonization did not make the books inspired, but God did. I also agree that the Church, following Sacred Tradition, was able to discover which books were in fact inspired and which books were not. However, my question to the Protestants making this assertion is: “When did the Church discover which books God had determined to be in the canon?”

It appears that the Church first made this explicitly known by synodal canon in AD 382 with the Decree of Damasus. Other synods also canonized the same sacred books about that time. This same list of Sacred Books were affirmed in subsequent synods, and the General Council of Florence and Trent.

When Protestants claim that the deutrocanonicals were not “discovered” by the Church to be inspired, they often quote individual opinion, while Catholics quote synodal canons, showing the collective judgement of the churches which was ratified by the Roman Pontiff and never changed from Damasus to Trent.

 

[Bishopite]

Dave,

agree that the Church’s canonization did not make the books inspired, but God did. I also agree that the Church, following Sacred Tradition, was able to discover which books were in fact inspired and which books were not. However, my question to the Protestants making this assertion is: “When did the Church discover which books God had determined to be in the canon?”

Exactly in 382 AD. I like to narrow the issue even further and ask:

Specifically who authoritatively recognized the books God inspired? The answer…the Magisterium of the Catholic Church [the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, Pope]

It appears that the Church first made this explicitly known by synodal canon in AD 382 with the Decree of Damasus. Other synods also canonized the same sacred books about that time. This same list of Sacred Books were affirmed in subsequent synods, and the General Council of Florence and Trent.

Yes. Since Protestants don’t recognize the deuterocanonicals I tend to focus on the 27 books of the New Testament and then ask them who first recognized and authoritatively cited those NT books?
That again would be the council of Rome in 382 AD. Some counter with…it wasn’t until the council of Trent that the canon was “infallibly” pronounced…as though the canon issue hadn’t been cited and settled until Trent.

But to that I reply…so…you believe and submit to Catholic councils making infallible pronouncements?

When Protestants claim that the deutrocanonicals were not “discovered” by the Church to be inspired, they often quote individual opinion, while Catholics quote synodal canons, showing the collective judgement of the churches which was ratified by the Roman Pontiff and never changed from Damasus to Trent.

Exactly. Unfortunately many Protestants take an eisegetical view of the Church fathers and so do Jehovah’s Whitnesses as did the one who came to my door last Saturday. He said Jerome didn’t accept the deuterocanonicals which is only partially true. I told him with all due respect, you are “cherry picking” the Church fathers. Then I pointed out that St. Jerome translated the deuterocanonicals into Latin at the behest of Pope Damasus, which shows two very important truths about Jerome, the Church fathers and the Catholic Church.

1. By translating the deuterocanonicals St. Jerome is leaving open the possibility of their canonicity and not outright rejecting them [since the canon hadn’t been formally closed with an infallible pronouncement until Trent].
2. By translating the deuterocanonicals at the behest of Pope Damasus, St. Jerome is showing his submission to the Bishop of Rome and showing that his “view” of the deutero’s and Scripture as a whole isn’t his “sole” decision but that of the Bishops in union with the Pope.

Everyone has their way of talking with JW’s and Mormons when they show up at the door. Mine is straightfoward.
I normally wait for their opening speech and since they love to answer questions, I ask them if they would answer a question that I’ve been pondering for sometime…“Where did we get the Bible?”

They often respond with “the apostles” and I point out that that strict view eliminates the books Mark, Luke and Jude and Hebrews since no one knows who wrote Hebrews. Then I’m able to show them how the Catholic Church gave them the very Scriptures they use

 

[Bishopite]

RobNY:

I’ve read that the authenticity of the decree of Damasus is… sketchy at best, and that it isn’t genuine. Check the wiki and tell me what you think.

Could you specifically cite “who” you’ve read that questions the authenticity of the decree of Damasus?

 

[Philthy]

Bishopite:

Now, can I play the devils advocate and pose a question to you or anyone else?

How would you answer this affirmation by some Protestants:

The canon was established by Scripture itself because the canonical books are self-authenticating.

First I would say that I don’t understand the term “self-authenticating” and how, if that were true, we ended up in a discussion over the validity of the canon of Scripture.
In my own life, I read the entire bible (Catholic) before I had any clue that some books were considered uninspired by Protestants. I would write certain passages that “spoke to my heart”. When I later - a year or two afterwards - learned of the historical controversy and the “self authentication” theory, I went back to my notes to see if, in fact, none of the deuterocanonicals produced verses that “spoke to my heart”. As it turned out I had several beautiful quotes from some of the deutero’s. Here is one that I pulled out from the crumpled paper I still cling to from those days gone by:
Sirach 11:21
“Admire not how sinners live, but trust in the Lord and wait for his light. For it is easy with the Lord, suddenly, in an instant, to make a poor man rich.”
I KNOW that the “self-authenticating” argument fails by my own experience. I would not have known it if I had been on either side of the debate when I read my bible from cover to cover for the first time. But I had no bias and the fact remains that Sirach “touched my heart” and would pass the “self-authentication” criteria.
Now, I have to tell you that I have often wondered how Protestants would fare if you gave them 10 sets of ten verses, one of which was from a deutero and asked them: Which, if any, are inspired? Which, if any, are uninspired? Realize by the self authenticating theory that not only would all answers need to be correct, but that every person taking the test would have to come up with exactly the same answers! I know where my money is…
As an aside, I’ll never forget when, in my ignorance of the canon issue, I shared my verse from Sirach with my cousin. I was excited to share these verses as at the time of recording them I was totally reading the bible on my own and had not shared any of it with anyone. There I was all excited and when he saw that it was from the book of Sirach it produced the funniest look of dumbfoundedness, abhorence and confusion on his face. He managed to smile barely and sort of excused himself without comment. I assumed my breath was foul or something and it had caused him to leave, but once I learned of the whole canon issue much later I realized exactly what had happened!

Phil

 

[MrS]

I hold in my formerly pagan-out-of-the-Catholic-Church-for-25-years hands

a copy of the newly released

"Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger - The Untold Story Of The Lost Books Of The Protestant Bible"

Arguments about 73 or 66 usually are either ended in confusion in trying to present all the evidence, because no one (until now) has really accumulated all that evidence.

Certainly a work like this would not come from a protestant camp, lest they find themselves in error.

Gary Michuta, the author, presents over 300 pages which any serious student can check and double check. There are many footnotes, many references, many proofs that once again the Catholic position is the correct one… and it is a fairly easy read.

handsonapologetics.com/ is the website of the author, and you can link on to Grotto Press to order… a $20 reference book every “66” proponent should now consider.

Thanks Gary… but where were you 500 years ago when Luther was playing his game?

seriously, if one can afford to pick this up… it is not only a great and long overdue reference on the deutrocanonicals, but you would be supporting a darn good ministry too.