If the Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did so many versions of the canon continue to circulate afterwards?

[Justy90]

Actually, the Canon was pronounced officially. It was by Pope Damasus I in A.D. 382. It is the very definition of consistancy, the Canon of Pope Damasus I is identical to that of every council that addressed the issue from Rome, Hippo, Carthage, through Florance, all the way up to Trent and down to today. Not one has deviated from the Canon declared by Pope Damasus.

I’m afraid you (or whoever (mis)informed you) got the facts wrong. The same identical canon that was first declared by Pope Damasus I in 382 (see excerpt of declaration below). This idential canon was reaffirmed many times down through the millennia. Below is an excerpt from the It was the canon declared by Pope Damasus I in 382 was confirmed at Hippo, Carthage and in many more councils down through the aeons. 1546 is only the most recent reaffirmation. Here are the actual declarations from several of those Councils.

The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

.
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
******It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ******
******The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. ******
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393: Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.” (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 397: Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical " (canon 47 A.D. 397).

397 AD is when it became official in the Early Church.

 

[BrianH]

wikipedia

The Council of Rome was a meeting of Orthodox Church officials and theologians which took place in 382 under the authority of the bishop of Rome, Damasus I. The previous year, the Emperor Theodosius I had appointed the “dark horse” candidate Nectarius Archbishop of Constantinople. The bishops of the West opposed the election result and asked for a common synod of East and West to settle the succession of the see of Constantinople, and so the Emperor Theodosius, soon after the close of the First Council of Constantinople in 381, summoned the Imperial bishops to a fresh synod at Constantinople; nearly all of the same bishops who had attended the earlier second council were assembled again in early summer of 382. On arrival they received a letter from the synod of Milan, inviting them to a great general council at Rome; they indicated that they must remain where they were, because they had not made any preparations for such long a journey; however, they sent three—Syriacus, Eusebius, and Priscian—with a joint synodal letter to Pope Damasus, Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, and the other bishops assembled in the council at Rome.

The Roman synod to which this letter was addressed was the fifth under Damasus. No formal account remains of its proceedings, nor of how its members treated the question of Nectarius. Theodosius did, however, send commissioners to Rome in support of his synod.

This historical synod at Rome gained additional importance long afterwards. According to a document appended to some manuscripts of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum or “Gelasian Decretal” and given separately in others, at this council the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal. The document was first connected to this council of Rome in 1794, when Fr. Faustino Arevalo (1747-1824), the editor of Coelius Sedulius, expressed his theory that the first three of the five chapters of the Decretum were really the decrees of a Roman council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382.

Arevalo’s conclusions were widely accepted, and the text of these first three chapters, given the title of “The Roman Council under Damasus” have often been reprinted. On this theory the so-called “Damasine List” would be the earliest Western list of the Biblical canon promulgated by a council, two years earlier than the publication of the first installment of the Latin Vulgate.

 

[BrianH]

The so-called Decretum Gelasianum or Gelasian Decree was traditionally attributed to the prolific Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496. In surviving manuscripts the Decretal exists on its own and also appended to a list of books of Scripture titled as attested as canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383. Since that list contains a quotation from Augustine, writing about 416, it is evident that the title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, is of no historical value [1].although the canon presented herein represents the same canon as shown in the council of carthage Canon 24, 415 AD [2][3].

 

[qui_est_ce]

BrianH:
Wiki’s conclusions are not the same as the Catholic Church’s. I hold the Teachings of our 2,000 years of Tradition in higher esteem.

Brian-
I think you just like to play the Devil’s advocate. But you have forced me to research more carefully:thumbsup:

 

[Justy90]

Wiki’s conclusions are not the same as the Catholic Church’s. I hold the Teachings of our 2,000 years of Tradition in higher esteem.

Brian-
I think you just like to play the Devil’s advocate. But you have forced me to research more carefully:thumbsup:

It’s always the same. When sources are used to refute the Catholic viewpoint, the sources then are accused of being skewed, biased or flat out false.

 

[BrianH]

It’s always the same. When sources are used to refute the Catholic viewpoint, the sources then are accused of being skewed, biased or flat out false. Look at the horrendous child sexual abuse scandal. A good number of Catholics still dismiss it to this day as media bias. Go figure.

The last sentence will take this thread on a tangent that is not productive at this time. If you could erase it, or edit it, it would benefit a good thread.

 

[Justy90]

The last sentence will take this thread on a tangent that is not productive at this time. If you could erase it, or edit it, it would benefit a good thread.

I would have chosen to keep it as it was to further illustrate my point, but I do believe that you are correct in your assumption of what it would do so I deleted it.

 

[Teneas]

It’s always the same. When sources are used to refute the Catholic viewpoint, the sources then are accused of being skewed, biased or flat out false.

But of course. You don’t think we feel different now do ya?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Um, and when Catholic sources are put forth to demonstrate something exactly what do you claim about the CATHOLIC sources, eh?

 

[qui_est_ce]

It’s always the same. When sources are used to refute the Catholic viewpoint, the sources then are accused of being skewed, biased or flat out false.

Brian did not provide a link to his source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

 

[BrianH]

Brian did not provide a link to his source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

I have read about it but nothing to indepth. Links appear almost nonexistent. It is of interest to the extend that it involves a Pope I suppose; but I cannot think of any other reason. It would be one of many such lists. This link explains more. It might even be one of the Wikipedia sources possibly
mountainman.com.au/essenes/Decretum%20Gelasianum.htm

 

[Canto]

Please correct - but the Gelasian Decree is a compliation. So it has the ruling from the Council of Rome and then others things too. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed the Gelasian decree in the early sixth century.

There may be various recensions but aren’t there with say Mark’s Gospel for example.

wiki says… In surviving manuscripts the Decretal exists on its own and also appended to a list of books of Scripture titled as attested as canonical by a Council of RomeCouncil of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383. **Since that list contains a **quotation from Augustine, writing about 416, it is evident that the title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, **is of no historical value **although the canon presented herein represents the same canon as shown in the council of carthage Canon 24, 415 AD

The only references to Augustine however is in chapter 3 (the Canon is chapter 2) which notes his writings are recieved within the Church.

wiki notes in another article that the Council of Rome decree was appended to some manuscripts of the Decretum Gelasianum and given separately (without Ch 3 Augustine etc) in others, at this council wiki says the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal

 

[qui_est_ce]

Please correct - but the Gelasian Decree is a compliation. So it has the ruling from the Council of Rome and then others things too. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed the Gelasian decree in the early sixth century.

There may be various recensions but aren’t there with say Mark’s Gospel for example.

wiki says… In surviving manuscripts the Decretal exists on its own and also appended to a list of books of Scripture titled as attested as canonical by a Council of RomeCouncil of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383. **Since that list contains a **quotation from Augustine, writing about 416, it is evident that the title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, **is of no historical value **although the canon presented herein represents the same canon as shown in the council of carthage Canon 24, 415 AD

The only references to Augustine however is in chapter 3 (the Canon is chapter 2) which notes his writings are recieved within the Church.

wiki notes in another article that the Council of Rome decree was appended to some manuscripts of the Decretum Gelasianum and given separately (without Ch 3 Augustine etc) in others, at this council wiki says the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal

ntcanon.org/Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml

The Decretum Gelasianum

The so-called Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE. However, upon the whole it is probably of South Gallic origin (6th century), but several parts can be traced back to Pope Damasus and reflect Roman tradition. The 2nd part is a canon catalogue, and the 5th part is a catalogue of the ‘apocrypha’ and other writings which are to be rejected. The canon catalogue gives all 27 books of the New Testament. Parts 1, 3, and 4 are not relevant to the canon, but a complete Latin edition and a complete English translation are available.

Part 2 – A catalogue of the canon.

Likewise it was said:

Now indeed the issue of the divine scriptures must be discussed, which the universal Catholic church receives or which it is required to avoid.

1. THIS IS THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:
Genesis 	one book
Exodus 	one book
Leviticus 	one book
Numbers 	one book
Deuteronomy 	one book
Joshua 	one book
Judges 	one book
Ruth 	one book
Kings 	four books
Chronicles 	two books
150 Psalms 	one book
Three books of Solomon 	 

    proverbs 

	one book

    ecclesiastes 

	one book

    song of songs 

	one book
The same of Wisdom 	one book

    ecclesiasticus 

	one book

2. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE PROPHETS:
Isaiah 	one book
Jeremiah 	one book
with Cinoth i.e. his lamentations 	 
Ezechiel 	one book
Daniel 	one book
Hosea 	one book
Amos 	one book
Micah 	one book
Joel 	one book
Obadiah 	one book
Jonah 	one book
Nahum 	one book
Habbakuk 	one book
Zephaniah 	one book
Haggai 	one book
Zechariah 	one book
Malachi 	one book

3. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE HISTORIES:
Job 	one book
Tobit 	one book
Esdras 	two books
Ester 	one book
Judith 	one book
Maccabees 	two books

4. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT which the holy and catholic Roman church upholds and is venerated:
Four books of the Gospels 	 

    according to Mathew 

	one book

    according to Mark 

	one book

    according to Luke 

	one book

    according to John 

	one book
Likewise the acts of the apostles 	one book
The letters of the apostle Paul in number fourteen 	 

    to the Romans 

	one letter

    to the Corinthians 

	one letter

    to the Ephesians 

	one letter

    to the Thesalonians 

	two letters

    to the Galatians 

	one letter

    to the Philippians 

	one letter

    to the Colossians 

	one letter

    to Timothy 

	two letters

    to Titus 

	one letter

    to the Philemon 

	one letter

    to the Hebrews 

	one letter
Likewise the apocalypse of John 	one book
Likewise the canonical letters in number seven 	 
of the apostle Peter 	two letters
of the apostle James 	one letter
of the apostle John 	one letter
of the other John the elder 	two letters
of the apostle Judas the Zealot 	one letter

HERE ENDS THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

I reject the conclusion that because the Decretum Gelasianum was compiled in the 6th Century that it is of no historical value.