Question about the Canon

[garysibio]

I’m interested into delving a little deeper into the history of the development of the biblical canon. A particular question has piqued my interest but I’m not sure there’s an answer to it. I thought I’d try here.

We point to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as evidence that the church used a canon identical with the canon defined as dogmatic at Trent. However, somewhere around 360 AD, the Council of Laodicea listed an OT canon identical with the Protestant canon with the exception of its inclusion of Baruch, a book which was often treated as an addition to Jeremiah. Neither Hippo, Carthage or Laodicea were ecumenical so they don’t carry the weight of Trent but how do we justify giving more weight to the latter two than the prior one?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Good question. I don’t know enough history to elaborate, but I’ll look forward to hearing responses.

I suspect the answer will lie in which list gradually came to be accepted by the Church. I have seen plenty of Church Fathers quote from and use deuterocanonical books…

I also remember that the New Testament canon wasn’t absolutely set for centuries, either - St. Jerome, I believe, firmly regarded Revelation as not Scriptural (though the pope corrected him and he assented, if I remember correctly).

 

[healonzo]

I’m interested into delving a little deeper into the history of the development of the biblical canon. A particular question has piqued my interest but I’m not sure there’s an answer to it. I thought I’d try here.

We point to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as evidence that the church used a canon identical with the canon defined as dogmatic at Trent. However, somewhere around 360 AD, the Council of Laodicea listed an OT canon identical with the Protestant canon with the exception of its inclusion of Baruch, a book which was often treated as an addition to Jeremiah. Neither Hippo, Carthage or Laodicea were ecumenical so they don’t carry the weight of Trent but how do we justify giving more weight to the latter two than the prior one?

My understanding of the canon is that it was debated in earlier times. Even Jerome and Origen argued for the adoption of the hebrew canon. I wouldn’t look at it as one council being more important than the other, but that the Spirit was working in the Church and the decision to certify the canon at Trent was made.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think it is of note that Carthage and Hippo were also preceded by Pope Damasus’ identical canon in 380 (sometimes called the council/synod of Rome.) The reason why Carthage and Hippo are good indicators of the closure of the canon is because of the continuity in subsequent councils. Nicea II in 787 (I think it was) affirmed Carthage, and other subsequent councils in union with the Pope demonstrated continuity with those. I tend to include Rome/Damasus when I discuss so-called “closure” of the canon (some argue that the canon has never been “closed” but that the 72 Catholic books have been affirmed as Scripture).

Also, do note that Laodicea not only included Baruch, but excluded the book of Revelation which certainly did not boast of continuity in Church history. Here is Laodicea’s text.

There are some links here if you want to see text or evidence of what these councils contained.

 

[jcrichton]

I’m interested into delving a little deeper into the history of the development of the biblical canon. A particular question has piqued my interest but I’m not sure there’s an answer to it. I thought I’d try here.

We point to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as evidence that the church used a canon identical with the canon defined as dogmatic at Trent. However, somewhere around 360 AD, the Council of Laodicea listed an OT canon identical with the Protestant canon with the exception of its inclusion of Baruch, a book which was often treated as an addition to Jeremiah. Neither Hippo, Carthage or Laodicea were ecumenical so they don’t carry the weight of Trent but how do we justify giving more weight to the latter two than the prior one?

…unless I am reading this wrong, there always existed one Canon for the Church:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

…the fact that Bishops and others can voice a different opinion about God, theology, the Bible, and the Church does not mean that the Church approves of every thought (Luther is the finest example of this); the collective body of Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined the actual Canon… (not canons)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think it is of note that Carthage and Hippo were also preceded by Pope Damasus’ identical canon in 380 (sometimes called the council/synod of Rome.) The reason why Carthage and Hippo are good indicators of the closure of the canon is because of the continuity in subsequent councils. Nicea II in 787 (I think it was) affirmed Carthage, and other subsequent councils in union with the Pope demonstrated continuity with those. I tend to include Rome/Damasus when I discuss so-called “closure” of the canon (some argue that the canon has never been “closed” but that the 72 Catholic books have been affirmed as Scripture).

Also, do note that Laodicea not only included Baruch, but excluded the book of Revelation which certainly did not boast of continuity in Church history. Here is Laodicea’s text.

There are some links here if you want to see text or evidence of what these councils contained.

…it is interesting that the heading includes a disclaimer:

Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 363).
The authenticity of paragraph 60 below has been doubted by many scholars because it is absent from various manuscripts containing the decrees of the regional (Galatian) Council of Laodicea. The list may have been added later. On the omission of Revelation see Cyril of Jerusalem. We give the Greek text according to B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. Edinburgh, 1881).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MarcoPolo]

True! I had forgotten about that disclaimer.

 

[inkaneer]

I’m interested into delving a little deeper into the history of the development of the biblical canon. A particular question has piqued my interest but I’m not sure there’s an answer to it. I thought I’d try here.

We point to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as evidence that the church used a canon identical with the canon defined as dogmatic at Trent. However, somewhere around 360 AD, the Council of Laodicea listed an OT canon identical with the Protestant canon with the exception of its inclusion of Baruch, a book which was often treated as an addition to Jeremiah. Neither Hippo, Carthage or Laodicea were ecumenical so they don’t carry the weight of Trent but how do we justify giving more weight to the latter two than the prior one?

Well it was not just Carthage and Hippo. In actuality there had been more than several canons put forth by various people. However in the late fourth century there appearred to be general agreement on the New Testament. The Old Testament was always generally accepted as the Septuagint version. In about 348 St. Athanasius put forth a canon identical to the one we have today. That same canon was approved at the synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage during the time frame of 380-397 AD. In 408 Pope Innocent I answered a question on the canon from a bishop in Gaul [France] giving the same books as Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Also about this time [400AD] Jerome translated the scriptures into Latin with His Vulgate. The Vulgate became the Bible for the next several centuries. Concil of Florence also verified the canon as in the Vulgate. However, the portion of the council of Florence where this occurred was not and is not considered to be an infallible statement because it was directed at only one Eastern church and not to the universal church. Trent then became the council to deal with the matter and to do so infallibly. Trent also verified the Vulgate canon.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

When Innocent I answered the question about the canon–that was the teaching of the magisterium.

In my opinion that is the date that the canon first became fixed.

I heard that it happened in 405 and not 408?

Does anyone know the date?

 

[BrianH]

Well it was not just Carthage and Hippo. In actuality there had been more than several canons put forth by various people. However in the late fourth century there appearred to be general agreement on the New Testament. The Old Testament was always generally accepted as the Septuagint version. In about 348 St. Athanasius put forth a canon identical to the one we have today. That same canon was approved at the synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage during the time frame of 380-397 AD. In 408 Pope Innocent I answered a question on the canon from a bishop in Gaul [France] giving the same books as Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Also about this time [400AD] Jerome translated the scriptures into Latin with His Vulgate. The Vulgate became the Bible for the next several centuries. Concil of Florence also verified the canon as in the Vulgate. However, the portion of the council of Florence where this occurred was not and is not considered to be an infallible statement because it was directed at only one Eastern church and not to the universal church. Trent then became the council to deal with the matter and to do so infallibly. Trent also verified the Vulgate canon.

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

 

[garysibio]

Several people have commented that the Catholic Church uses the Septuagint Canon. It does not. The Septuagint contains books plus a 151st Psalm which the RCC rejects as inspired.

 

[BrianH]

In a rather ironic way (I say that because I have been on this forum long enough to read a lot of threads), Catholics like to appeal to Athanasius for his NT canon but do not seem to think much of his OT canon?
Not to get off topic

 

[garysibio]

In a rather ironic way (I say that because I have been on this forum long enough to read a lot of threads), Catholics like to appeal to Athanasius for his NT canon but do not seem to think much of his OT canon?
Not to get off topic

That’s a good point and somewhat relevant to my original question. I still have not seen anything that would explain why the canon proposed by Laodicea was not given the same respect as that proposed by Carthage and Hippo.

I’m not certain that this is the reason but, if I were a betting man - I would say it had to do with the influence of Augustine of Hippo.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In a rather ironic way (I say that because I have been on this forum long enough to read a lot of threads), Catholics like to appeal to Athanasius for his NT canon but do not seem to think much of his OT canon?
Not to get off topic

Athanasius had a much more nuanced view of what constituted Scripture than what some people quote from his Letter 39. He explicitly called the book of Wisdom, for instance, Scripture elsewhere in his writings. See the article Did Athanasius reject the Deuterocanon? for source references.
One needs to read all of Letter 39 to understand his use of the term “canon” and the tiers of Scripture he recognized. There is also a lengthy treatment on the matter in Gary Michuta’s book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger regarding some ECFs referencing the “canon” the Jews passed on, but yet acknowledge the Spirit-inspired Scriptural quality of what is today known as the “Deuterocanon.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

I still have not seen anything that would explain why the canon proposed by Laodicea was not given the same respect as that proposed by Carthage and Hippo.

You were unimpressed with Pope Damasus’ canonical list or the explanation of continuity I mentioned?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Pope Innocent I tells a bishop what the books of the bible are–wouldn’t that teaching be binding?

 

[garysibio]

You were unimpressed with Pope Damasus’ canonical list or the explanation of continuity I mentioned?

Since it is not an infallible decree, not really. Unless he’s using his charism of infallibility, it’s just his opinion. My question has to do with why the decision of a council is being ignored while the decision of another council is used as evidence to support the Catholic canon. I like consistency.

 

[MarcoPolo]

why the decision of a council is being ignored while the decision of another council is used as evidence to support the Catholic canon. I like consistency.

Well, I think we’ve already answered the continuity evidence from Damasus, Carthage, & Hippo onward, so I think the problem is in the criteria you are demanding. And the issue of infallibility is a very misunderstood doctrine. A misunderstood version of the doctrine does not recognize the strength that still exists in the Pope’s teaching even when those teachings are not technically made using the charism of infallibility, especially when those teachings are in concert with other councils. The Church herself recognized in later councils the decisions of those earlier councils. In Acts 15, do we ask why some of the elders’ opinions were evidence of a truth versus the dissenting opinions? No, we trust the Spirit to discern the truth through the living tradition, and it’s no different here, as I think the evidence strongly shows. So if we believe the Spirit to have guided the Church in Acts 15 even though there were dissenting opinions, then why do we not trust the same Spirit to guide the Church to discern the truth on the canon? The only way is to deny that it is the same Spirit guiding the same Church.

 

[BrianH]

You were unimpressed with Pope Damasus’ canonical list or the explanation of continuity I mentioned?

Not to detract but is that list accepted as historical fact? I thought that it was not.
Google Damasine List.

 

[garysibio]

Well, I think we’ve already answered the continuity evidence from Damasus, Carthage, & Hippo onward, so I think the problem is in the criteria you are demanding. And the issue of infallibility is a very misunderstood doctrine. A misunderstood version of the doctrine does not recognize the strength that still exists in the Pope’s teaching even when those teachings are not technically made using the charism of infallibility, especially when those teachings are in concert with other councils. The Church herself recognized in later councils the decisions of those earlier councils. In Acts 15, do we ask why some of the elders’ opinions were evidence of a truth versus the dissenting opinions? No, we trust the Spirit to discern the truth through the living tradition, and it’s no different here, as I think the evidence strongly shows. So if we believe the Spirit to have guided the Church in Acts 15 even though there were dissenting opinions, then why do we not trust the same Spirit to guide the Church to discern the truth on the canon? The only way is to deny that it is the same Spirit guiding the same Church.

So the Holy Spirit was on vacation during the Council of Laodicea?

I’m not disputing the canon. I just want to know why the Council of Laodicea does not seem to be considered on a par with Carthage and Hippo. So no, your points about continuity are insufficient.