II Nicea and the Canon

[Guardian]

According to this article, found here, it states that II Nicea ratified the decision of the previous councils on the books in the canon.

“At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).”

But, looking here, I could not find such a ratification.

Is Jason Evert wrong or am I missing something?

 

[Janet_S]

There was also a reference about II Nicea and the Canon on the Second Exodus website. I have looked through these council documents, too, and could not see where they addressed the canon of Scripture. I did find documents from the Council of Carthage in 419 AD (local council in union with the Bishop of Rome):

newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

the Council of Florence from 1431-1445 AD (ecumenical council):

dailycatholic.org/history/17ecum11.htm

and the Council of Trent from 1545-1563 (ecumenical council):

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM

What I noticed: All these councils have canons which include the 27 NT books we now have in our Bibles. Regarding the OT canons in these councils, the Council of Carthage has 44 OT books (Baruch and Lamentations is missing). Florence and Trent have 45 OT books (Lamentations is missing). Catholic Bibles today have 46 OT books. I believe Lamentations was included in the book of Jeremiah at the time of these councils, but I am not sure about this. If anyone knows for sure, please comment.

In summary, the council of Carthage (419 AD) had the same OT canon Catholics ratified at the council of Trent minus the book of Baruch. The Council of Florence has the identical OT canon ratified at the Council of Trent. Still, I hear many Protestants insist that Catholics added 7 books to the OT canon (Judith, I & II Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch) at the Council of Trent. I know that the Catholic Church did not speak definitively on the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent, but there is clear evidence that she did accept these 7 books before the Council of Trent. The Church closed the canon at the Council of Trent, but she had long ago accepted the books included in the canon. Protestants, please look at the facts.

I know this has gotten off the track of the original question, but I have looked through these documents, and this is what I have found.

 

[David_Zampino]

According to this article, found here, it states that II Nicea ratified the decision of the previous councils on the books in the canon.

“At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).”

But, looking here, I could not find such a ratification.

Is Jason Evert wrong or am I missing something?

II Nicea did not comment on the Canon.

Also, it is important to note that the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage were NOT Ecumenical Councils. It is also interesting to note that Carthage 419 sent its deliberations and decisions to Rome for ratification.

 

[David_Zampino]

What I noticed: All these councils have canons which include the 27 NT books we now have in our Bibles. Regarding the OT canons in these councils, the Council of Carthage has 44 OT books (Baruch and Lamentations is missing). Florence and Trent have 45 OT books (Lamentations is missing). Catholic Bibles today have 46 OT books. I believe Lamentations was included in the book of Jeremiah at the time of these councils, but I am not sure about this. If anyone knows for sure, please comment.

This is correct. At various times and in various combinations, Baruch, Lamentations, Jeremiah, and the Letter of Jeremiah have been listed differently then they are today – but as far as my research can tell, none of the Early Church Fathers had any doubts about the canonicity of these books. (As a point of interest, Athanasius didn’t seem to regard Esther as canonical.)

 

[Guardian]

II Nicea did not comment on the Canon.

Also, it is important to note that the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage were NOT Ecumenical Councils. It is also interesting to note that Carthage 419 sent its deliberations and decisions to Rome for ratification.

This may get a bit confusing. Note the difference between Council Canons and Canon of Scripture.

I’ve been looking more into it and it seems that II Nicea affirmed prior council canons.

“Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers.” - Canon I of II Nicea

Thus, in essence, what this is stating is that II Nicea affirmed previous council canons, even local ones, if they were promulgated by Ecumenical Councils or by the Pope. Prior to II Nicea, the only Council Canon which addressed the Canon of Scripture was Carthage in 419 AD, a local council, that backed up the decree of Pope Damasus I stating the Canon of Scripture at the Council of Rome in 382 AD.

So, yes, II Nicea did affirm, indirectly, the Canon of Scripture.

I solved it!! Woo-hoo!!!

 

[Genesis315]

I believe Lamentations was included in the book of Jeremiah at the time of these councils, but I am not sure about this. If anyone knows for sure, please comment.

Both Lamentations and Baruch are often included in Jeremiah (Baruch because he was basically Jeremiah’s secretary/sidekick).

 

[David_Zampino]

This may get a bit confusing. Note the difference between Council Canons and Canon of Scripture.

I’ve been looking more into it and it seems that II Nicea affirmed prior council canons.

“Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers.” - Canon I of II Nicea

Thus, in essence, what this is stating is that II Nicea affirmed previous council canons, even local ones, if they were promulgated by Ecumenical Councils or by the Pope. Prior to II Nicea, the only Council Canon which addressed the Canon of Scripture was Carthage in 419 AD, a local council, that backed up the decree of Pope Damasus I stating the Canon of Scripture at the Council of Rome in 382 AD.

So, yes, II Nicea did affirm, indirectly, the Canon of Scripture.

I solved it!! Woo-hoo!!!

With respect, not necessarily.

1. One has to distinguish between the canonical statements of Ecumenical Councils – and the disciplinary canons of the same Councils. The disciplinary canons have not – and are not now – considered defining statements, as they refer to disciplinary matters specific to particular points in history.
2. While it is strongly suspected – and I firmly believe – that the **REGIONAL **council of Rome in 382 did discuss the Canon of Scripture – such is NOT universally held. Those (like me) who hold to the authority of the council of Rome believe that the Decretum Gelasianum dated **NOT **to Pope Gelasius, but rather to Pope St. Damasus I. However, this is not a universally accepted point, and therefore, the council of Carthage (419) – the statements of which **WERE **universally promulgated by Pope St. Boniface I are more universally accepted as being the definitive statement concerning the New Testament Canon.

Please don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe – and have stated in public documents – that the regional council of Rome in AD 382 – DID functionally – if not actually – close the NT Canon, and that the later statement by Carthage was only a re-affirmation of what had already gone before.

BUT the above quoted statement suggesting that Nicaea II settled the matter is, in my professional opinion, not warrented.

Blessings,

 

[Guardian]

David:

Are you saying that some people believe Pope Damasus I did NOT say this at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.?

“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 Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave [Joshua], one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings [1 & 2 Kings; 1 & 2 Samuel], four books; Paralipomenon [1 & 2 Chronicles], two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles [Song of Solomon], one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias [Jeremiah & Baruch], one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee [Hosea], one book; Amos, one book; Micheas [Micah], one book; Joel, one book; Abdias [Obadiah], one book; Jonas [Jonah], one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc [Habakkuk], one book; Sophonias [Zephaniah], one book; Aggeus [Haggai], one book; Zacharias [Zechariah], one book; Malachias [Malachi], one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias [Tobit], one book; Esdras [Ezra; Nehemiah], two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, 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 [Revelation]. 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.’”

 

[David_Zampino]

David:

Are you saying that some people believe Pope Damasus I did NOT say this at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.?

Forgive my saying so – but yes.

The statement you quote is attributed by some (maybe most) NOT to Pope St. Damasus I, but rather to Pope Gelasius I, who reigned more than 100 years later.

This is not me being “liberal” but rather presenting a widely respected (and possibly majority) opinion. (Even though I disagree with it.)

For the record, I do not share it. I firnly believe that Pope St. Damasus I (whose feast day is upcoming) DID write/authorize/promulgate the document. Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to identify the Decretum Gelasium with the Decretum Damasi.

Nevertheless, because of the fact that we just do not know the argument from Carthage AD 419 (which WAS sent to Rome for official approval) has better intact documentation.

Sorry to pontificate – this was the subject – the exact subject – of my Master’s Thesis some 8 years ago, before I converted. (The title of my thesis was The Problem of the Final Acceptance and Promulgation of the New Testament Canon in the Patristic Church.

Somehow, I despair of its eventual publication!

Blessings,

 

[Guardian]

Wait a second wait a second wait a second…

This isn’t some Bible verse that everyone interprets differently. This should be able to be objectively proven (or disproven). Where is the data for that quotation I gave? Who found it? What does it say? Does it attribute it to Pope Damasus I or Gelasius I? Do any ECF’s reference such a statement prior to Gelasius I?

Nevertheless, because of the fact that we just do not know the argument from Carthage AD 419 (which WAS sent to Rome for official approval) has better intact documentation.

What argument are we having about Carthage?

Moreover, what difference does this make if Nicea confirmed the local canons of Carthage that was stamped by Boniface?

 

[Guardian]

By the way, wasn’t the “Decretum Gelasianum” a list of forbidden books by the Church? What’s that have to do with the Canon of Scripture?

“The so-called ‘Decretum Gelasianum’ contains many more, not only apocryphal,but also heretical, or otherwise objectionable writings. It is not without reason that this catalog has been called the first “Roman Index” of forbidden books.”

newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

 

[David_Zampino]

Wait a second wait a second wait a second…

This isn’t some Bible verse that everyone interprets differently. This should be able to be objectively proven (or disproven). Where is the data for that quotation I gave? Who found it? What does it say? Does it attribute it to Pope Damasus I or Gelasius I? Do any ECF’s reference such a statement prior to Gelasius I?

What argument are we having about Carthage?

Moreover, what difference does this make if Nicea confirmed the local canons of Carthage that was stamped by Boniface?

Guardian,

1. I am not suggesting that Nicaea II confirmed the local canons of Carthage, and
2. We’re NOT talking about a “Bible verse which everyone interprets differently”.

Allow me to elaborate:

"The document known as the Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis or simply the Decretum Gelasianum, is a five-part document dealing with Christ and the Holy Spirit; the Canonical Scriptures; the Roman Church (and demendant sees); orthodox Councils and Fathers; and finally, books to be received, as well as apocryphal and patristic writings. Some extant manuscripts ascribe the work to Damasus, and thus some scholars date this work not tot he reign of Gelasuis, pope from 492-496), but more than a century earlier to the reighn of Damasus, specifically to the seventh Roman synod held by him in 382.

This is not a view held universally by scholars. T. Zahn and E. G. Weltin accept that the Decretum Gelasianum date from the 382 synod, while E. von Dobschutz dated the work to Italy in the early 6th century, and aruged that it was not papal, but rather the work of a layman. If this is indeed a late 5th or early 6th century work, or if indeed it is the work of a layman, no more needs to be said in this context, other than to note the document’s existence as yet another testimony to late Patristic consensus on the New Testament Canon. If, however, (as I believe) this document does in fact date to the reign of Damasus I, it becomes rather more important. In such a context, it would pre-date the canonical lists of Hippo and Carthage, and the codification of the North African canons. If this document can be authentically traced to Damasus I, then in 382 a situation existed in which both a regional synod and a Bishop of Rome promulgated a New Testament Canon.

THIS IS MY BELIEF!!! HOWEVER!!!

This is not an issue in which scholarly conseusns has been reached.

In other words, we don’t know when the statement concerning the council of Rome was actually published – within 100 years. We have a good idea – and I have a VERY conservative opinion on the subject – but we don’t know for sure – and there are no documents to prove the point – absolutely.

If you are interested in more material, please PM me. You are one of the first to actually express an interest in what I spent ages researching! I’m not even convinced that my Second Reader actually READ my Thesis!!!

Blessings,

 

[Guardian]

Okay, I was looking up the Decretum Gelasianum and the Decretum Damasi. It seems to me that the reason people reject the appended part of Decretum Gelasianum (which people think came from the Council of Rome: Decretum Damasi) is because it quotes Augustine. However, logically thinking, how do we know that Augustine did not quote Decretum Damasi instead? Secondly, didn’t the Vulgate come out under Pope Damasus I? To me, it seems fit that he would have stated what books to be in the canon.

 

[David_Zampino]

Okay, I was looking up the Decretum Gelasianum and the Decretum Damasi. It seems to me that the reason people reject the appended part of Decretum Gelasianum (which people think came from the Council of Rome: Decretum Damasi) is because it quotes Augustine. However, logically thinking, how do we know that Augustine did not quote Decretum Damasi instead? Secondly, didn’t the Vulgate come out under Pope Damasus I? To me, it seems fit that he would have stated what books to be in the canon.

Good points. Consider this, though:

1. Yes, the Vulgate (1st edition) did come out under Damasus I, translated and/or edited by St. Jerome. However, St. Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books, and did his translation work on those books in protest, under obedience to the Pope.
2. St. Augustine was present at Carthage and Hippo, and did promulgate his own Canon of Scripture in his work “On Christian Doctrine”. However, the first three sections of “On Christian Doctrine” were written circa AD 396/397, and the section which deals with the Canon was written circa AD 426 – years after all the regional councils under consideration.

Blessings,

 

[Guardian]

Good points. Consider this, though:

1. Yes, the Vulgate (1st edition) did come out under Damasus I, translated and/or edited by St. Jerome. However, St. Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books, and did his translation work on those books in protest, under obedience to the Pope.

Still, it seems fit that Damasus would have gave a list. Even if Jerome rejected them but still put them in, what’s that really mean?

Secondly, Jerome was a translator, was he that great of a Bible scholar? Seems to me you have to know a ton more than just the original languages of the Bible to determine if they are valid or not.

1. St. Augustine was present at Carthage and Hippo, and did promulgate his own Canon of Scripture in his work “On Christian Doctrine”. However, the first three sections of “On Christian Doctrine” were written circa AD 396/397, and the section which deals with the Canon was written circa AD 426 – years after all the regional councils under consideration.

Okay, unless Augustine put in the dates, how do we know the sections of the book were that far spanned? Secondly, even if they were, what’s that mean? Does that give credence to the view that Augustine waited till after Carthage II to finish the canon section, since no list was given at Rome by the Pope in 382 AD? Hence helping out the less conservative theory that the Decretum Damasi is from Pope Gelasius I?

 

[David_Zampino]

Still, it seems fit that Damasus would have gave a list. Even if Jerome rejected them but still put them in, what’s that really mean?

Secondly, Jerome was a translator, was he that great of a Bible scholar? Seems to me you have to know a ton more than just the original languages of the Bible to determine if they are valid or not.

Yes, I suspect that Damasus did give a list. But we cannot PROVE it. It is an argument from silence.

Yes, Jerome was a great Biblical scholar! One of, if not, THE best of his era. His problem with the Deuterocanonical books had to do with those books not being written in Hebrew.

Okay, unless Augustine put in the dates, how do we know the sections of the book were that far spanned? Secondly, even if they were, what’s that mean? Does that give credence to the view that Augustine waited till after Carthage II to finish the canon section, since no list was given at Rome by the Pope in 382 AD? Hence helping out the less conservative theory that the Decretum Damasi is from Pope Gelasius I?

It would be difficult for me to answer in a paragraph or two what I’ve written dozens of pages (with dozens of footnotes) on.

Let me try to sum up, though:

1. I BELIEVE that the Decretum Damasi does date to the synod at Rome called by Damasus in AD 382.
2. This SEEMS to be the position taken by the Catechism – though not stated directly, rather by use of footnotes.
3. We KNOW that a) Carthage in AD 419 re-affirmed the previous decisions of Hippo and the earlier Carthage council and b) that a list of canonical books was promulgated and c) that the decisions of the council were submitted to Rome for the Pope’s approval.

The conclusion I tried to demonstrate was that while we cannot conclusively PROVE the AD 382 date, we CAN demonstrate that by AD 419 AT THE LATEST, there was a Papal declaration concerning the content of the Canon.

Regardless of whether the final date was 382 or 419, EITHER date demonstrates that the Church used its present canon for more than 1100 years before the Reformation – so that the Protestant claim that Rome “added” books is thoroughly debunked.

Blessings,

 

[Guardian]

Yes, I suspect that Damasus did give a list. But we cannot PROVE it. It is an argument from silence.

Yes, Jerome was a great Biblical scholar! One of, if not, THE best of his era. His problem with the Deuterocanonical books had to do with those books not being written in Hebrew.

But they were written in Hebrew, was this information not available at his time? Secondly, if the Deuts were written in the intertestimonial period when most Jews spoke Greek, why would he expect them to be in Hebrew?

It would be difficult for me to answer in a paragraph or two what I’ve written dozens of pages (with dozens of footnotes) on.

Let me try to sum up, though:

1. I BELIEVE that the Decretum Damasi does date to the synod at Rome called by Damasus in AD 382.

1. This SEEMS to be the position taken by the Catechism – though not stated directly, rather by use of footnotes.

1. We KNOW that a) Carthage in AD 419 re-affirmed the previous decisions of Hippo and the earlier Carthage council and b) that a list of canonical books was promulgated and c) that the decisions of the council were submitted to Rome for the Pope’s approval.

The conclusion I tried to demonstrate was that while we cannot conclusively PROVE the AD 382 date, we CAN demonstrate that by AD 419 AT THE LATEST, there was a Papal declaration concerning the content of the Canon.

Regardless of whether the final date was 382 or 419, EITHER date demonstrates that the Church used its present canon for more than 1100 years before the Reformation – so that the Protestant claim that Rome “added” books is thoroughly debunked.

Blessings,

I agree 100% with you. However, I still don’t see why some scholars disagree.

The thing is, if the Vulgate came out with the Deuts in 384 AD, especially against Jerome’s will, then obviously someone told him the list of what he had to translate, else the Deuts wouldn’t have been in there. Who else would Jerome have obeyed but the Pope? Granted, the Pope Damasus I may not have said that decree at the council of Rome in 382 AD, but he surely gave a list to Jerome of what he considered divine Scripture.