Question about Catholic canon of scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter wed2catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wed2catholic

Guest
I have been reading Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers in order to learn the views of early church history. I am confused about one thing. I know that the Catholic councils approved the list of books to be used in as part of the canon in the 300’s. However before this time, some of the Fathers I have read came up with their own list of books. When they listed their books, most of them did not include all of the deuterocanonical (sp?) books as part of the Old Testament. Many of them listed the books of the current Protestant Old Testament with the addition of Baruch and the deletion of Esther. In their New Testament listing, many of them did not include Revelation. I know that Faith of the Early Fathers does not include all of the Fathers. Could someone clear this up for me? Why did the councils decide on the books that they did? I am really wanting to understand the Catholic perspective and not the Protestant perspecive, since I am already quite familiar with that.
 
The list of inspired books took some time to work out. There was a lot of discussion among ECF’s over several hundred years over which ones were inspired and which were good references. One book that does a good job of explaining it is, “Unabridged Christianity” by Fr. Mario Romero. It has a table that shows proposed lists of canonical writings, which were generally accepted and which were generally rejected. It is very interesting and informative!

BTW, the rest of the book is an excellent resource for apologetics. I use it all the time in my RCIA class!
 
I have been reading Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers in order to learn the views of early church history. I am confused about one thing. I know that the Catholic councils approved the list of books to be used in as part of the canon in the 300’s. However before this time, some of the Fathers I have read came up with their own list of books. When they listed their books, most of them did not include all of the deuterocanonical (sp?) books as part of the Old Testament. Many of them listed the books of the current Protestant Old Testament with the addition of Baruch and the deletion of Esther. In their New Testament listing, many of them did not include Revelation. I know that Faith of the Early Fathers does not include all of the Fathers. Could someone clear this up for me? Why did the councils decide on the books that they did? I am really wanting to understand the Catholic perspective and not the Protestant perspecive, since I am already quite familiar with that.
The councils you’re referring to weren’t ecumenical (i.e., with worldwide participation) but were, in effect, local bishops’ synods. The biblical canon that each each church came up with independently varied slightly–as is still the case today. You can compare some of them at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon (scroll down).
 
This may sound like a “cop out”, but from a Catholic perspective, it is accurate:

The Council of Trent was the first time ANY Church officially declared what was to be the canon of both the OT and NT.

Although earlier councils mentioned it and it seems to have been “accepted” over a long period of time, Trent was the first formal declaration regarding the canon.

As to what or who ultimately decided to be the canon of both testaments, this is an easy one: the Holy Spirit. 🙂
 
This may sound like a “cop out”, but from a Catholic perspective, it is accurate:

The Council of Trent was the first time ANY Church officially declared what was to be the canon of both the OT and NT.

Although earlier councils mentioned it and it seems to have been “accepted” over a long period of time, Trent was the first formal declaration regarding the canon.

As to what or who ultimately decided to be the canon of both testaments, this is an easy one: the Holy Spirit. 🙂
I guess my question is then, how would you show Protestants that the “extra” books have been there for many years before the 1500’s if the Council of Trent was the first place that the canon was “official.” I believe that the “extra” books were around for a long time before that, and I believe the Holy Spirit chose the canon, but how do you show proof?
 
I guess my question is then, how would you show Protestants that the “extra” books have been there for many years before the 1500’s if the Council of Trent was the first place that the canon was “official.” I believe that the “extra” books were around for a long time before that, and I believe the Holy Spirit chose the canon, but how do you show proof?
The fact that the “extra” books have been around long before Trent is quite indisputable. The simplest way to show this is to look at the oldest Bibles that we have and see what books they contain. One is Codex Sinaiticus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus) and another is Codex Vaticanus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus).

However the claim that the Holy Spirit chose an exact canon is a difficult one to prove since the various apostolic churches didn’t agree on one standard biblical canon (see the chart I referred to above) and neither the contents of Codex Vaticanus nor Codex Sinaiticus exactly match the Roman Catholic canon, nor do they agree with each other. (Nor did they probably even agree on their theology of a biblical canon.)

For example Codex Vaticanus does not contain any of the books of Maccabees, while Codex Sinaiticus contains only two of the books of Maccabees (1 & 4), thus including one which the Roman Catholic church believes is canonical and omitting the other. You can read about all the other similarities and differences in the Wikipedia articles.
 
Dave,

But isn’t everything involving actions by God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, going to be impossible to prove from a scientific viewpoint?

I thought that was the point have making a leap of faith . . . ?

I have always been taught that the Holy Spirit not only inspired each book of sacred scripture, but also inspired the choosing of those books to be part of the bible. How could this be otherwise?
 
Dave,

But isn’t everything involving actions by God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, going to be impossible to prove from a scientific viewpoint?

I thought that was the point have making a leap of faith . . . ?

I have always been taught that the Holy Spirit not only inspired each book of sacred scripture, but also inspired the choosing of those books to be part of the bible. How could this be otherwise?
Yes, certainly that’s going to be impossible to prove scientifically.

But the problem with such a stance (i.e., the Holy Spirit inspiring those choosing the books) is that the historical diversity present in the various biblical canons would then necessarily lead one to argue that the Holy Spirit was only operating in one select corner of Christianity–leaving everyone else in the world–the majority of Christianity, in fact–to flounder. That doesn’t seem too logical to me.
 
Dave,

But isn’t everything involving actions by God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, going to be impossible to prove from a scientific viewpoint?

I thought that was the point have making a leap of faith . . . ?

I have always been taught that the Holy Spirit not only inspired each book of sacred scripture, but also inspired the choosing of those books to be part of the bible. How could this be otherwise?
Alternatively, I GUESS you could argue that the Holy Spirit lead each church to chose the biblical canon that was right for them.
 
Dave,

I have simply chosen to view the matter like all other dogmas - the Holy Spirit will “announce” his will to man in due time. Just as it took until Trent for a formal declaration to occur regarding the canon of scripture (and I think that by definition, we MUST acknowledge the Holy Spirit “spoke” for all dogmas pronounced at Trent), it took time for formal dogmas to be proclaimed regarding the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Although the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption obviously occurred before the dogmatic declarations on them, I believe it is correct to say that the two issues were open to discussion until the dogmas were pronounced ex cathedra. Once that was/is done, the matter is no longer up for debate.
 
Though the Canon wasn’t defined dogmatically until the Council of Trent it was the teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church. In my opinion when Pope Innocent gave a list of the books that should be included in the bible to a bishop who asked in the year 405–that was the point at which the bible canon was completed.

I believe that one of the local bishop councils of North Africa said that the “transmarine church” should be consulted on the matter–meaning of course Rome,

When Pope Innocent spoke in 405–that was it!

See issues do not have to be dogmatically defined by Ecumenical Councils or defined by ex Cathedra statements to be already truths taught by the Catholic Church that the faithful are OBLIGATED to give their assent of faith to.
 
Dave,

I have simply chosen to view the matter like all other dogmas - the Holy Spirit will “announce” his will to man in due time. Just as it took until Trent for a formal declaration to occur regarding the canon of scripture (and I think that by definition, we MUST acknowledge the Holy Spirit “spoke” for all dogmas pronounced at Trent), it took time for formal dogmas to be proclaimed regarding the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Although the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption obviously occurred before the dogmatic declarations on them, I believe it is correct to say that the two issues were open to discussion until the dogmas were pronounced ex cathedra. Once that was/is done, the matter is no longer up for debate.
So then from your perspective, there really was no biblical canon until Trent. Of course we will have to disagree about the ability of Trent to teach authoritatively–but I understand where you are coming from.
 
Though the Canon wasn’t defined dogmatically until the Council of Trent it was the teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church. In my opinion when Pope Innocent gave a list of the books that should be included in the bible to a bishop who asked in the year 405–that was the point at which the bible canon was completed.

I believe that one of the local bishop councils of North Africa said that the “transmarine church” should be consulted on the matter–meaning of course Rome,

When Pope Innocent spoke in 405–that was it!

See issues do not have to be dogmatically defined by Ecumenical Councils or defined by ex Cathedra statements to be already truths taught by the Catholic Church that the faithful are OBLIGATED to give their assent of faith to.
Of course the other apostolic churches didn’t and don’t agree with Pope Innocent’s pronouncement (if they were even aware of it). But I agree that the Pope’s pronouncement would be binding in the Latinate church.
 
Church Militant, you must have a hyperlink for everything! Thanks!
 
I’ve read some things about the canon of Jewish scriptures. Strictly, Judaism is not sure how things got firmed up. I think they have been long aware of the Septuagint and its list of books.

They seem to value the Septuagint and even the KJV when they study their Hebrew scriptures. They seem to have given arbitrary favoritism to the Masoretic text which is all in Hebrew and has what the Masoretes intended, guides to pronunciation and maybe even the vowels that were missing in classic Hebrew writing.

They admit of no formal process of canonization.

So, for Luther to use that as a springboard for his bible, is really a matter of preference.

The Reformation was chiefly about politics and a whole lot of mental back peddling was involved to justify their position – in my humble opinion. For example, Protestantism enshrined personal interpretation of the Bible – except for Catholics (of course), Catholics were murdered and kicked out of the UK en masse because they were Catholics.

I do not find that this is an elegant, clean, rational subject. And, that explains why it comes up over and over again.

This whole subject is a partial version of the more general issue of inerrancy. Scott Hahn’s organization has recently published Vol 6 of Letter and Spirit (a journal, I guess) and this has quite a discussion of the inerrancy subject, which, you have to admit, essentially includes the issue of canonicity. One of the articles expands on the ‘political’ remark I made above.
 
Church Militant, you must have a hyperlink for everything! Thanks!
😃 Well, I try…It’s impossible to do better than what some better folks than I can write, and then there’s little point in rewriting a whole article on here when it saves bandwidth and time to simply share the links. 🤷
 
Dave, you said: “So then from your perspective, there really was no biblical canon until Trent.”

I apologize for sounding legalistic, but that is how I think.

This is akin to a declaration of nullity of a marriage (more often than not, called an “annulment”).

With a decree of nullity, a Church tribunal finds that a valid marriage was never formed at the time of the wedding. The Church is NOT invalidating a valid marriage - it is declaring that a valid marriage never occurred.

The same occurred regarding the canon of Scripture, and the ex cathedra pronouncements regarding the Immaculate Conception and Assumption: All of these things factually occurred, and no one, now disputes them. But one was free to disagree with individual statements and positions on these matters until the Church, through the Holy Spirit, declared them to be free from error. That is the nature of a dogmatic statement - a statement on faith or morals that is free from error and guaranteed such by God through the Holy Spirit.

The canon of Scripture was determined BEFORE it was formed - in the mind of an omniscient God.

MAN, however, did not learn of that decision until God delivered it to him via the Holy Spirit.
 
The Council of Trent was the first time ANY Church officially declared what was to be the canon of both the OT and NT.

Although earlier councils mentioned it and it seems to have been “accepted” over a long period of time, Trent was the first formal declaration regarding the canon.
Hmmm…consider:

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

*Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible. *

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter: After St. Jerome became the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha, there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas between 266-523 that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that the letter of Pope Innocent I on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.
 
Randy,

Believe it or not, we are saying the same thing 🙂

I am not disputing that the Church correctly recognized the canon of scripture long before Trent.

I am simply saying that Trent FOREVER removed ANY doubt that may have lingered anywhere in Christendom (regardless of what Protestants claim).

Look at my examples of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Didn’t those two events occur? Yes. Did they occur at the time they occurred? I know that sounds like a silly question, but it has validity - the answer is yes. But did people HAVE to recognize these events as dogmatic BEFORE they occurred? No. But did the absence of a dogmatic teaching and absence of universal acceptance by all Catholics change the fact that they did occur? Again, no.

Same thing regarding the canon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top