Q's for Non-Catholics about Bible Canon

[tws]

These issues I bring up were some of the reasons I became a Catholic.

The earliest lists of the complete NT canon as we know it today were recognized as scriptural at the Council of Rome in 382, Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 A.D. I’ve never heard of any Protestant churches challenge the NT list. However, these same councils were in agreement about the authoritative books of the OT. These lists include seven books in the Old Testament that Protestant Reformers began to question and now practically reject as authoritative (Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees).

The problem as I see it is the SAME PEOPLE who finalized the list of NT and OT books for Christians. I don’t understand how one can question the early church choices of OT books, but not the NT books, too. I have a number of questions and wonder how Protestants responds to these:

What guarantee do we have the early church got ANY of the canon right, if Protestants are correct that they got PART of it wrong?

If the early church mistakenly accepted some OT books, could they have also have have mistakenly accepted some NT books? The writings of the early church fathers show there were disputes about admitting 1st and 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Revelation. 2nd Peter, for example, is regarded by many scholars as not written by Peter and authored some years after the last of the apostles died.

On the flip side, could the early church have mistakenly left out some NT books that should have been included? We have writings from other hearers of apostles, like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, or Clement of Rome. At least one of these letters was written while the Apostle John was still alive. 1 Clement was included alongside the NT books in an early copy of the Bible called the Codex Alexandrinus, which was compiled during the same time frame as the councils mentioned above.

Why would God wait over 1000 years before enlightening people like Martin Luther that the Church was mistaken about what is the Word of God?

Are there books or papers written by the Reformers, or later sources, explaining the criteria for declaring a book as scripture or not? Or maybe the question could be phrased as, who has the authority to make the call on what belongs in the Bible?

Thanks

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

 

[NHInsider]

These issues I bring up were some of the reasons I became a Catholic.
[snipped for length]
Why would God wait over 1000 years before enlightening people like Martin Luther that the Church was mistaken about what is the Word of God?

Are there books or papers written by the Reformers, or later sources, explaining the criteria for declaring a book as scripture or not? Or maybe the question could be phrased as, who has the authority to make the call on what belongs in the Bible?

Thanks

Most Protestants know nothing of the history of the book they accept as the inspired Word of God. Most believe that the Catholic church added (and possibly invented) the deuterocanonical books in the middle ages, for the sole purpose of providing a Scriptural basis for the various pagan practices she had already introduced.

This is why the path you have followed into the Church is so well-worn. The reality of the debate and ultimate determination of the canon points to the whole question of authority. The need (for doctrinal reasons) to reject some teachings of those early councils while accepting others (especially the need to insist that the book they promulgated has absolute authority but those who promulgated it had none) has led to some very creative linguistic acrobatics. (“An infallible book written by fallible men” being a particular favorite, and nevermind that it confuses the meanings of infallible and inerrant.)

To your express question about the early Reformers, they essentially granted to the medieval rabbis the authority they denied to the Church, declaring that the Masoretic Text adopted by the Jews in the tenth century to be the authentic, inspired Word of God. Since the Jewish scholars had previously decided that only books originally written in Hebrew could be inspired, and on that basis eliminated the books of the deuterocanon, the Reformers were in effect embracing a canon that had been formed largely as an reaction against the use (beginning with St. Paul and St. Luke) of the Greek LLX translation to support Christian doctrine.

Luther, furthermore, accorded to himself the infallible gift of determining that some of the books approved by the Church for the New Testament were also uninspired, but those who followed him (or who blazed their own alternative trails) rejected those decisions.

Sally

 

[eggsbenedictine]

These issues I bring up were some of the reasons I became a Catholic.

The earliest lists of the complete NT canon as we know it today were recognized as scriptural at the Council of Rome in 382, Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 A.D. I’ve never heard of any Protestant churches challenge the NT list. However, these same councils were in agreement about the authoritative books of the OT. These lists include seven books in the Old Testament that Protestant Reformers began to question and now practically reject as authoritative (Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees).

The problem as I see it is the SAME PEOPLE who finalized the list of NT and OT books for Christians. I don’t understand how one can question the early church choices of OT books, but not the NT books, too. I have a number of questions and wonder how Protestants responds to these:

What guarantee do we have the early church got ANY of the canon right, if Protestants are correct that they got PART of it wrong?

If the early church mistakenly accepted some OT books, could they have also have have mistakenly accepted some NT books? The writings of the early church fathers show there were disputes about admitting 1st and 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Revelation. 2nd Peter, for example, is regarded by many scholars as not written by Peter and authored some years after the last of the apostles died.

On the flip side, could the early church have mistakenly left out some NT books that should have been included? We have writings from other hearers of apostles, like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, or Clement of Rome. At least one of these letters was written while the Apostle John was still alive. 1 Clement was included alongside the NT books in an early copy of the Bible called the Codex Alexandrinus, which was compiled during the same time frame as the councils mentioned above.

Why would God wait over 1000 years before enlightening people like Martin Luther that the Church was mistaken about what is the Word of God?

Are there books or papers written by the Reformers, or later sources, explaining the criteria for declaring a book as scripture or not? Or maybe the question could be phrased as, who has the authority to make the call on what belongs in the Bible?

Thanks

This was big for me also. How an infallible book could be compiled by, and made canonical by a fallible church. Or somehow until the early 1500’s it was all wrong. The reformers then came around, polished it up and it was now true canon. Also, I’m pretty sure Luther wanted to get rid of Hebrews and another epistle in the NT.

 

[JonNC]

Ok, bait, but that’s fine.

=tws;11004781]These issues I bring up were some of the reasons I became a Catholic.

The earliest lists of the complete NT canon as we know it today were recognized as scriptural at the Council of Rome in 382, Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 A.D. I’ve never heard of any Protestant churches challenge the NT list. However, these same councils were in agreement about the authoritative books of the OT. These lists include seven books in the Old Testament that Protestant Reformers began to question and now practically reject as authoritative (Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees).

Yes these local synods, not ecumenical councils, were in agreement, but that in no way means the early Church was in agreement about the canon of scripture. From Eusebius and St. Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan during the Reformation era, the dueterocanonical books have been disputed. and until Trent, Catholics were permitted to question them.

The problem as I see it is the SAME PEOPLE who finalized the list of NT and OT books for Christians. I don’t understand how one can question the early church choices of OT books, but not the NT books, too.

Historically, there are NT books that have been questioned. Known as the Antilegomena, they have been disputed, primarily due to a question of authorship, since the early Church.
Revelation, James, Hebrews, and Jude.

I have a number of questions and wonder how Protestants responds to these:

What guarantee do we have the early church got ANY of the canon right, if Protestants are correct that they got PART of it wrong?

Not speaking for protestants, but as a Lutheran, we don’t say they got some of it wrong. The Lutheran confessions, as a result, do not stipulate a canon, or rule, about the books. Instead, we recognize the history of the books, some being universally attested, some being disputed, some being rejected, and consider them in light of Church history.

If the early church mistakenly accepted some OT books, could they have also have have mistakenly accepted some NT books? The writings of the early church fathers show there were disputes about admitting 1st and 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Revelation. 2nd Peter, for example, is regarded by many scholars as not written by Peter and authored some years after the last of the apostles died.

Exactly! Now you’ve identified the information Lutheranism uses.

On the flip side, could the early church have mistakenly left out some NT books that should have been included? We have writings from other hearers of apostles, like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, or Clement of Rome. At least one of these letters was written while the Apostle John was still alive. 1 Clement was included alongside the NT books in an early copy of the Bible called the Codex Alexandrinus, which was compiled during the same time frame as the councils mentioned above.

Which of these is universally attested?

Why would God wait over 1000 years before enlightening people like Martin Luther that the Church was mistaken about what is the Word of God?

Are there books or papers written by the Reformers, or later sources, explaining the criteria for declaring a book as scripture or not? Or maybe the question could be phrased as, who has the authority to make the call on what belongs in the Bible?

And this is the part that caused me to comment that this is a bait thread. By your own words, you recognize that Luther was not the origin of the disputes regarding certain OT and NT books, so why would you phrase the question that “Why did God wait…” when you know that the disputes are far older than Luther?

I am not aware of Reformation era new documents. Luther used the historic writings and disputes within the history of the Church.

Jon

Thanks

 

[JonNC]

Luther, furthermore, accorded to himself the infallible gift of determining that some of the books approved by the Church for the New Testament were also uninspired, but those who followed him (or who blazed their own alternative trails) rejected those decisions.

Sally

If you are going to make such an accusation, I assume you have proof that Luther accorded himself an infallible gift. A link in his own words would suffice. And please do not site Luther’s sarcasm in his letter on translation to Melanchthon.
The fact is that Luther accorded himself no such thing. He is clear in his prefaces that he speaking his own opinions, mentions that no one else is held to them. This is the same right to question the canon that every Catholic had before Trent.

You know, I have heard this allegation that Luther wanted to exclude the Antilegomena, but was talked out of it, but I’ve never seen substantiation. I guess it is possible, though I am dubious because not only are they included in his first NT translation, but also because it was Luther who went out of his way to make sure that his translation included all of the D-C’s and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Ok, bait, but that’s fine.

Yes these local synods, not ecumenical councils, were in agreement, but that in no way means the early Church was in agreement about the canon of scripture. From Eusebius and St. Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan during the Reformation era, the dueterocanonical books have been disputed. and until Trent, Catholics were permitted to question them.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, at some point, St. Jerome stopped questioning them, even considered it sinful to continue to do so…and submitted to the judgement of the Church on the DCs.

 

[pablope]

pablope;11006811:

This seems to be Luther’s view, as well, “good and useful to read”. It isn’t unheard of for Lutherans to use them liturgically - in the lectionary, and in our hymnody. So, assuming I understand what Cajetan means here, I do agree. It is true, though, that Cajetan makes a clear distinction between them and the universally attested OT books.

Jon

How do you define this statement to mean…Jon:

**
in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, **

Edification of the faithful…I take this to mean to include instructions to the faithful…these are useful for the spiritual, moral and intellectual enrichment or enlightenment of the faithful…not just for liturgy.

With that said…I don’t think Cajetan ever doubted their being in the canon.

Another quote from 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.

He is not offering his own…but just cites Jerome’s?

 

[Nicea325]

Yes these local synods, not ecumenical councils, were in agreement, but that in no way means the early Church was in agreement about the canon of scripture. From Eusebius and St. Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan during the Reformation era, the dueterocanonical books have been disputed. and until Trent, Catholics were permitted to question them.

Okay,but questioning does not equate into falsehood. Doctrines were questioned all the time, but does not mean they were false or in error.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Those councils were not indivcative of the entire church even in the time of the sixth century Saint John Damascus would have a 67 book bible.

 

[JonNC]

Okay,but questioning does not equate into falsehood. Doctrines were questioned all the time, but does not mean they were false or in error.

I don’t think there is any falsehood here, just historic differing views regarding a few books, and the number of books in question goes up when we look east, as IgnatianPhilo points out.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

How do you define this statement to mean…Jon:

**
in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, **

Edification of the faithful…I take this to mean to include instructions to the faithful…these are useful for the spiritual, moral and intellectual enrichment or enlightenment of the faithful…not just for liturgy.

With that said…I don’t think Cajetan ever doubted their being in the canon.

Another quote from 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.

He is not offering his own…but just cites Jerome’s?

No, I think this is his opinion, and even at Trent itself, there were those who argued against the DC’s.

Above, I agree with what you say about the use of the DC’s. American Lutherans need to recover this important aspect of scripture, as I think the publication of a companion commentary on the “Apocrypha” by the LCMS is intended to address.

Jon

PS Notice I emphasized part of the quoted in red. Funny how we look at the same quote and want to emphasize different parts.

 

[concretecamper]

it is clear that which books belonged in the bible was decided before Trent.

FOURTH SESSION COUNCIL OF TRENT

celebrated on the eighth day of April, 1546

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.

It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Let all understand, therefore, in what order and manner the council, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and who are the chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in conforming dogmas and in restoring morals in the Church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[concretecamper]

I wonder if the problem/answer is much more simple than what is presented in the previous posts.

Could it have been that Luther took advantage of the early controversy about certain books to remove the Church’s teaching on purgatory, praying for the dead, angel interceding for us, the Mass, etc…just a thought.

BTW…there is no evidence of widespread controversy over the books after Carthage in the early 5th century.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I wonder if the problem/answer is much more simple than what is presented in the previous posts.

Could it have been that Luther took advantage of the early controversy about certain books to remove the Church’s teaching on purgatory, praying for the dead, angel interceding for us, the Mass, etc…just a thought.

Actually, the question of the Biblical canon is pretty complicated. Since Luther didn’t remove any books from his translation of the Bible, it doesn’t seem to me that what you’ve described could be the case.

BTW…there is no evidence of widespread controversy over the books after Carthage in the early 5th century.

Since the canon spelled out at Carthage was never adopted by the universal church (the Eastern churches have their own biblical canons that differ to this day) I don’t see how this one particular canon could be considered an infallible, or even an authoritative teaching outside of Western Christianity.

 

[pablope]

No, I think this is his opinion, and even at Trent itself, there were those who argued against the DC’s.

Above, I agree with what you say about the use of the DC’s. American Lutherans need to recover this important aspect of scripture, as I think the publication of a companion commentary on the “Apocrypha” by the LCMS is intended to address.

Jon

PS Notice I emphasized part of the quoted in red. Funny how we look at the same quote and want to emphasize different parts.

Jon…this what you highlighted:

"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.

Maybe my eyes deceive me…where does the Cardinal offer his opinion above?

From what I read and bolded or enlarged…Cajetan is describing what St. Jerome did.

This his opinion, from what I understand:

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.

And here further…he is describing what St. Jerome did:

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.

And here…he then says what he thinks or his opinion:

…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

 

[concretecamper]

Actually, the question of the Biblical canon is pretty complicated. Since Luther didn’t remove any books from his translation of the Bible, it doesn’t seem to me that what you’ve described could be the case.

Since the canon spelled out at Carthage was never adopted by the universal church (the Eastern churches have their own biblical canons that differ to this day) I don’t see how this one particular canon could be considered an infallible, or even an authoritative teaching outside of Western Christianity.

1. You are according them same authority to the Eastern Churches which is a mistake.
2. Luther did removed books from the cannon decided on at Carthage.

 

[tws]

Ok, bait, but that’s fine.

Yes these local synods, not ecumenical councils, were in agreement, but that in no way means the early Church was in agreement about the canon of scripture. From Eusebius and St. Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan during the Reformation era, the dueterocanonical books have been disputed. and until Trent, Catholics were permitted to question them.

Historically, there are NT books that have been questioned. Known as the Antilegomena, they have been disputed, primarily due to a question of authorship, since the early Church.
Revelation, James, Hebrews, and Jude.

Not speaking for protestants, but as a Lutheran, we don’t say they got some of it wrong. The Lutheran confessions, as a result, do not stipulate a canon, or rule, about the books. Instead, we recognize the history of the books, some being universally attested, some being disputed, some being rejected, and consider them in light of Church history.

Exactly! Now you’ve identified the information Lutheranism uses.

Which of these is universally attested?

And this is the part that caused me to comment that this is a bait thread. By your own words, you recognize that Luther was not the origin of the disputes regarding certain OT and NT books, so why would you phrase the question that “Why did God wait…” when you know that the disputes are far older than Luther?

I am not aware of Reformation era new documents. Luther used the historic writings and disputes within the history of the Church.

Jon

Thanks

Jon, thank for writing back. I latched onto one sentence and wanted to follow-up.

“The Lutheran confessions, as a result, do not stipulate a canon, or rule, about the books. Instead, we recognize the history of the books, some being universally attested, some being disputed, some being rejected, and consider them in light of Church history.”

This intrigues me. If i understand what you are saying, then the Lutheran confessions stop short of what saying is the Word of God and what is not. Do I have that right?

Do they have something like a sliding scale for inspiration and authority? Like, some books are definitely the word of God, and others may or may not be in whole or part?

Or to put it in binary terms, how can one be sure any book is the Word of God, or is not?

 

[adf417]

Since the canon spelled out at Carthage was never adopted by the universal church

OR-
Maybe it was and the Eastern churches decided not to adapt it.

I don’t see how this one particular canon could be considered an infallible, or even an authoritative teaching outside of Western Christianity.

Except for the period of time between 382 and 1054 right?

Peace!!!