Protestant Canon

[Novocastrian]

So, in summary:

• Luther included the DC’s in his translation.
• The Original KJV included the DC’s.

And then… poof they were gone.

There’s theories that they were taken out because of lack of use and it was cheaper to print the Bible without them.

Houdini’s family had a printing press.

The DC’s included material that supported Catholic theology.

I mean, What happened? Where’s the beef?

Millions of Bishops throughout history were fine with those books and a few disagree and… let’s go for the underdog!!! The big 'ol bad establishment oppressed the little guys and we must stand up to defend them!!! Nah - no record of that either.

Why do we park the car on the driveway and drive the car on the parkway?

Why does Mickey Mouse wear pants and no shirt and Donald Duck wears a shirt and no pants?

What happened?

Do you think they have to be printed together? After all, full-Bible codices were very, very rare until the Reformation itself… Because the AV/KJV still contains the ‘Apocrypha’, it is simply the case that it is often printed without it.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper 17: Great post with a lot of info to boot!!! Kinda shows that Luther was asking for it.

 

[JonNC]

So, in summary:

• Luther included the DC’s in his translation.
• The Original KJV included the DC’s.

And then… poof they were gone.

There’s theories that they were taken out because of lack of use and it was cheaper to print the Bible without them.

Houdini’s family had a printing press.

The DC’s included material that supported Catholic theology.

I mean, What happened? Where’s the beef?

Millions of Bishops throughout history were fine with those books and a few disagree and… let’s go for the underdog!!! The big 'ol bad establishment oppressed the little guys and we must stand up to defend them!!! Nah - no record of that either.

Why do we park the car on the driveway and drive the car on the parkway?

Why does Mickey Mouse wear pants and no shirt and Donald Duck wears a shirt and no pants?

What happened?

Hi Jose,
Couple of thoughts, prefaced with the disclaimer that I won’t speak for other communions.
They can speak for themselves on the matter

1. We can’t narrow our vision of the issue of inclusion of the DC’s to simply the English. As I mentioned earlier, Lutheran Bibles in Germany and AFAIK in other parts of Europe have always contained the DC’s. I have a fairly new Die Bibel and it has them. So, the “poof” thing is English. The mistake of American Lutherans has been a complacency of accepting 66 book English Bibles, when that is not our tradition of scripture.
   
   I personally haven’t seen much in the DC’s that drive a wedge between Lutheran and Catholic belief, but even if there were, one would have to find something in ***each ***
   of the 7 books for that to qualify as the reason. The fact is that the dispute regarding the DC’s is historic far before the Reformation or Luther. Some bishops were not fine with them, and from a Lutheran perspective, that’s the point. Some disputed, many approved, and we take both views into consideration.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Jose,
Some disputed, many approved, and we take both views into consideration.

Jon

At the same time, Jon, some bishops, many, in fact, followed Arius and denied the divinity of Christ. Should we take their views into consideration?

As far as the canon of Scripture is concerned, what is the Lutheran view as to how it was determined? Was it through the guidance of the Holy Spirit or was it not? If the Catholic Church is wrong about the DC’s how can one place any confidence in any of the other books which are not disputed?

Now I understand that you are not necessarily saying that the Church was wrong, but the fact that there is even a question as to the inspired nature of the DC’s brings into question the rest of the Bible as well, does it not? My point is that we either believe that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in determining the canon of Sacred Scripture or it was not. If it erred in including the DC’s, then we must conclude that it was not.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Do you think they have to be printed together? After all, full-Bible codices were very, very rare until the Reformation itself… Because the AV/KJV still contains the ‘Apocrypha’, it is simply the case that it is often printed without it.

Well, of course Sherlock (j/k).

I expect that, since the printing press came about just before the Reformation.

But that still doesn’t answer my question.

What happened to the DC’s? Who, When, Where, Why, and How determined to take them out?

Hi Jose,
Couple of thoughts, prefaced with the disclaimer that I won’t speak for other communions.
They can speak for themselves on the matter

1. We can’t narrow our vision of the issue of inclusion of the DC’s to simply the English. As I mentioned earlier, Lutheran Bibles in Germany and AFAIK in other parts of Europe have always contained the DC’s. I have a fairly new Die Bibel and it has them. So, the “poof” thing is English. The mistake of American Lutherans has been a complacency of accepting 66 book English Bibles, when that is not our tradition of scripture.
   
   I personally haven’t seen much in the DC’s that drive a wedge between Lutheran and Catholic belief, but even if there were, one would have to find something in ***each ***
   of the 7 books for that to qualify as the reason. The fact is that the dispute regarding the DC’s is historic far before the Reformation or Luther. Some bishops were not fine with them, and from a Lutheran perspective, that’s the point. Some disputed, many approved, and we take both views into consideration.

Jon

Still, the Church as a Whole did accept them. There is no significant opposition to the DC’s. Some did raise their opinion but really, there was no big movement to take them out.

Was there an ecumenical movement? Something?

Or just not caring enough…

 

[JonNC]

=SteveVH;11606744]At the same time, Jon, some bishops, many, in fact, followed Arius and denied the divinity of Christ. Should we take their views into consideration?

No, in large part because an ecumenical council solved that issue. That isn’t the case with the canon, from our POV as to what determines “ecumenical council”.

As far as the canon of Scripture is concerned, what is the Lutheran view as to how it was determined? Was it through the guidance of the Holy Spirit or was it not? If the Catholic Church is wrong about the DC’s how can one place any confidence in any of the other books which are not disputed?

If which art of the Catholic Church is wrong? That part of the CC that regarded them as apocryphal? Or that part that did not? From our view, the Church has done a marvelous job of giving us His word, and providing us the guidelines that diverse opinion provides.

Now I understand that you are not necessarily saying that the Church was wrong, but the fact that there is even a question as to the inspired nature of the DC’s brings into question the rest of the Bible as well, does it not? My point is that we either believe that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in determining the canon of Sacred Scripture or it was not. If it erred in including the DC’s, then we must conclude that it was not.

Where I think the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is wrong is, 1500 years later, trying to do with the canon that was completely unnecessary. That is, dogmatically defining the canon without the rest of the Church.
I think the Church has been well-guided by men on both sides of the disputes regarding certain books. Eusebius and his view, Jerome and his, and the views of so many other Fathers, bishops both east and west, and popes. Like I said, the error is not the view of the DC’s that Rome holds.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Well, of course Sherlock (j/k).

I expect that, since the printing press came about just before the Reformation.

But that still doesn’t answer my question.

What happened to the DC’s? Who, When, Where, Why, and How determined to take them out?

From the Church of England’s point of view, nobody. They’re still part of the Authorized Version appointed to be read in Churches, and they still feature in both the Prayer Book lectionary (think our EF) and the common lectionary which we share with the Roman Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From the Church of England’s point of view, nobody. They’re still part of the Authorized Version appointed to be read in Churches, and they still feature in both the Prayer Book lectionary (think our EF) and the common lectionary which we share with the Roman Church.

to that!!!

 

[SteveVH]

If which art of the Catholic Church is wrong? That part of the CC that regarded them as apocryphal? Or that part that did not?

Since the Church has always included the DC’s (we have never been without them), I would say that those who believe them to apocryphal were wrong. The decision of the Councils; Rome, Hippo, Carthage… were never challenged in subsequent councils, even ecumenical councils, which means that the magisterium (the body of bishops of the whole Church) accepted their decisions.

Where I think the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is wrong is, 1500 years later, trying to do with the canon that was completely unnecessary. That is, dogmatically defining the canon without the rest of the Church.

And who is “the rest of the Church” to which you refer? Are you saying that the Catholic Church should have sought advice from those who rejected her authority before dogmatically defining the canon? It was only necessary to dogmatically define the canon because what the Church had accepted as the canon for roughly 1100 years was now being challenged. Otherwise, I agree, it was not necessary. The “Reformers” made it necessary, just as they made it necessary to define the true presence as “Transubstantiation”. As is the case with nearly all councils, no definition was necessary until what the Church had always believed was challenged.

Anyway, I appreciate your response.

Blessings.

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

From the Church of England’s point of view, nobody. They’re still part of the Authorized Version appointed to be read in Churches, and they still feature in both the Prayer Book lectionary (think our EF) and the common lectionary which we share with the Roman Church.

While I understand that they are “officially” included, there was a reason that publishing companies felt comfortable in omitting them without incurring the wrath of the Reformers. If it meant that they would not have been able to sell Bibles they would never have omitted them. It was the wide-spread attitude among the Reformers that they were something less than inspired that allowed the publishing companies the latitude to either include them or not. Since they could save money by not including them, they obviously chose “not”.

 

[Novocastrian]

While I understand that they are “officially” included, there was a reason that publishing companies felt comfortable in omitting them without incurring the wrath of the Reformers. If it meant that they would not have been able to sell Bibles they would never have omitted them. It was the wide-spread attitude among the Reformers that they were something less than inspired that allowed the publishing companies the latitude to either include them or not. Since they could save money by not including them, they obviously chose “not”.

Nothing to do with the Reformers; we’re talking 300-400 years later!

 

[Novocastrian]

Since the Church has always included the DC’s (we have never been without them), I would say that those who believe them to apocryphal were wrong. The decision of the Councils; Rome, Hippo, Carthage… were never challenged in subsequent councils, even ecumenical councils, which means that the magisterium (the body of bishops of the whole Church) accepted their decisions.

And who is “the rest of the Church” to which you refer? Are you saying that the Catholic Church should have sought advice from those who rejected her authority before dogmatically defining the canon? It was only necessary to dogmatically define the canon because what the Church had accepted as the canon for roughly 1100 years was now being challenged. Otherwise, I agree, it was not necessary. The “Reformers” made it necessary, just as they made it necessary to define the true presence as “Transubstantiation”. ** As is the case with nearly all councils, no definition was necessary until what the Church had always believed was challenged**.

Anyway, I appreciate your response.

Blessings.

Steve

You’re playing fast and loose with the historical evidence there, my friend. It’s nowhere near as clear cut as you’re making out. If the teaching of the Reformers on the canon made it necessary, why not that of Athanasius the Great, which was virtually identical?

C.f. Festal Letter 39.

 

[SteveVH]

Nothing to do with the Reformers; we’re talking 300-400 years later!

Well they didn’t sell their incomplete Bibles to Catholics, nor did they ever get the idea that they could from Catholics. They had a green light from somewhere that allowed them to do this.

 

[Novocastrian]

Well they didn’t sell their incomplete Bibles to Catholics, nor did they ever get the idea that they could from Catholics. They had a green light from somewhere that allowed them to do this.

Yep. I’m sure they did. Not sure how you’re going to lay that at my door…

 

[JonNC]

=SteveVH;11606933]Since the Church has always included the DC’s (we have never been without them), I would say that those who believe them to apocryphal were wrong. The decision of the Councils; Rome, Hippo, Carthage… were never challenged in subsequent councils, even ecumenical councils, which means that the magisterium (the body of bishops of the whole Church) accepted their decisions.

Never challenged doesn’t mean dogmatically approved, either. The existence of the canonical lists in Hippo, Carthage and Rome, while not ecumenical councils but local synods, are important sources which we as Lutherans should consider. But there is enough dispute of them through history that we consider that, as well.

And who is “the rest of the Church” to which you refer? Are you saying that the Catholic Church should have sought advice from those who rejected her authority before dogmatically defining the canon?

If, Steve, the authority claimed by one bishop is more than the early councils and scriptures provide, or even if it is not, it seems that it would be a very good idea to do just that, for lots of reasons.

It was only necessary to dogmatically define the canon because what the Church had accepted as the canon for roughly 1100 years was now being challenged. Otherwise, I agree, it was not necessary. The “Reformers” made it necessary, just as they made it necessary to define the true presence as “Transubstantiation”. As is the case with nearly all councils, no definition was necessary until what the Church had always believed was challenged.

I thought transubstantiation was affirmed at the 4th Lateran Council. Sometime in the 1200’s, well before the Reformation. Regardless, they church may have felt they needed to define the canon because of the Reformers, but I would say that it was of because of what Luther and others said, but the fact that it was the Reformers that said them. Luther at least, said very little that hadn’t been said before, or wasn’t being said at the time by others.

Anyway, I appreciate your response.

And Steve, I always appreciate the way you present your position. You always seem to present a positive view of the Catholic Church, instead of resorting to attacks on others. I hope I mirror that approach.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yep. I’m sure they did. Not sure how you’re going to lay that at my door…

He can lay it at the door of American Lutherans. Sadly.
I think we are slowly fixing that.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

He can lay it at the door of American Lutherans. Sadly.
I think we are slowly fixing that.

Jon

And a lot of English Anglicans. My point is that neither of those facts entail it being laid at the door of Lutheranism or Anglicanism per se.

 

[spina1953]

The issue I see with what you say here, spina, is that we are automatically colored by our own personal biases when it comes to evaluating Luther’s submission to the papacy, or lack thereof (myself no less than you). Athanasius refused to submit to “the church” when he opposed the Arian bishops and was deposed five times for doing so. Yet would you call him wrong for refusing to submit to theological error?

I agree with you up to a point. However, as for Athanasius he was fighting Araism, and it was not the Church per say but Bishops as we’ll as the emperor who kept deposing him. The Catholic Church as far as I understand it supported him when they found that he was in the right as per orthodoxy.

 

[Topper17]

You keep referring to justification by Faith Alone as a radical theory.

Jon, I am not sure I understand how you can claim that Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone was not radical. Alister McGrath, who is my favorite Protestant scholar claims (over and over again) that SBFA IS radical.

“Yet even more dangerous was the idea that Luther developed over the period 1513 to 1516 as he wrestled with the text of the Bible, anxiously trying to discern what it really says about salvation. There are few ideas with the capacity to dismantle great institutions and invert the judgments of previous generations……By developing his doctrine of justification by faith, however, would dismantle such ideas and offer such a radical, alluring alternative……More radically still, Luther insisted that the believer is ‘at one and the same time a righteous person and a sinner’……….Perhaps the most radical aspect of Luther’s doctrine of justification is its conceptualization of the relationship between humanity and God……The most radical element of Luther’s doctrine of justification is its concept of salvation as a matter affecting God and the individual.” McGrath, Dangerous, pg. 42-43

For the record, the definition of ‘radical’ is as follows: “very different from the usual or traditional: extreme”. So when I say that Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA) was radical, there is no question that this is true. And in fact, no less a Scholar than Alister McGrath mentions SBFA as being ‘radical’ 4 times in the two pages I quoted.

If it wasn’t ‘radical’, as you seem to suggest, then, specifically and exactly, who had taught it prior to Luther? And if nobody did, then how can we possibly believe that it is clearly expounded in Scripture, when nobody ever ‘noticed’ it there before?

The fact is that Luther judged the canon and the apostolicity of various books, on, among other things, how well they agreed or disagreed with his radical theory of Salvation by Faith Alone. That is very much putting the cart before horse.

Furthermore, we have no choice but to see Luther as being the source of the Lutheran concepts of the NT homologoumena and antilegomena. Those books which Luther judged to be of secondary rank are Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. You explain, repeatedly, how the Lutheran church has done this in because of the judgments of the ancient Church.

“Luther knew that those books had been disputed in earlier days: that, however, is not his main reason for relegating them to a secondary status. He appears to have had no difficulty with 2 Peter or 2 or 3 John, which had also been disputed. His main reason is that in the four relegated books he could not find that clear promotion of Christ which was the principle note of holy scripture. (Protestant) F. F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture”, pg 244, from a Dave Armstrong article

So why didn’t Luther and why don’t Lutherans question the canonicity of 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John? After all, if they “follow” the ancient Fathers, then they would have to place these three books in the Antilegomena. To not do so is to be very subjective, which of course is a charge that Protestantism is used to dealing with (but not successfully).

Jon, I would like to know if you can explain how the Lutheran church divided up the NT into the homologoumena and the antilegomena. In addition, I would like to understand how 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John were not cordoned off from the ‘better part’ of the NT with the books that Luther judged to be ‘lesser’. Also, I would like to know who, specifically and exactly, it was that made this decision for Lutheranism. Where were these people from? Did they represent Christianity from across the whole world, or were they a small group of extremely like minded people from a very small geography?

God Bless You Jon, Tim

 

[Novocastrian]

Jon, I would like to know if you can explain how the Lutheran church divided up the NT into the homologoumena and the antilegomena. In addition, I would like to understand how 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John were not cordoned off from the ‘better part’ of the NT with the books that Luther judged to be ‘lesser’. Also, I would like to know who, specifically and exactly, it was that made this decision for Lutheranism. Where were these people from? Did they represent Christianity from across the whole world, or were they a small group of extremely like minded people from a very small geography?

Athanasius did this, more radically (actually denying the canonicity of much of the deuterocanon, placing it on a par with the Shepherd and the Didache), with what you consider the OT. Just something to mull over.