Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_Jericho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@lanman87 and @mcq72,

After doing some more research into the Council of Rome of 382, here’s my thoughts.

The Council was called, including three Eastern bishops; ( It was a general council; not a local synod. ) to settle three matters; of which one was:

• The canon of Scripture

The opening of the Decree’s section on the canon was:

Which books the Church is to accept and which to shun.

• This states unequivocally that the council had to deal with people/churches including other books.
• That there was contention over certain books of whether or not they were to be accepted or not.

It’s pretty clear that your contention less consensus hypothesis doesn’t bear out.
 
Last edited:
It’s obvious only in hindsight that a New Testament ought to exist at all.
Before any group sat asked “what books do you think we should include in our NT”?, Some recognized visible human authority determined:
  1. There needs to be a New Testament.
  2. The Old Testament is still inspired.
This must have been controversial!
(“If Jesus wanted a second Testament he would have said so”!)

Some thought the OT was no longer inspired, others that only the OT was inspired, others took the position that was determined. It may not have been the majority view.

Some will argue “we know the biblical canon was rightly reopened, because God inspired this”. But that argument can be used by the Mormons, or" A New New Testament", etc.

Reopening the biblical canon for these 27 looks like the kind of drastic decision made by a magisterium, not at all like any consensus I ever saw.
 
Last edited:
@lanman87,

Check out the Wikipedia article on the Council of Rome. At home, I have a copy of the three volume set “ Faith of the Fathers “. That’s where I paraphrased from. If you don’t want Wikipedia, just google Decree of Damasus.
 
Last edited:
Okay, is the Decree of Damasus the same thing as the Gelasian decree? I keep finding sources saying the are the same thing.

If so, it seems that our Catholics Historians and Protestant Historian are divided over the authenticity of the Gelasian Decree being an accurate representation of the Council of Rome.

One the one had you have this:

The first part of this decree has long been known as the Decree of Damasus, and concerns the Holy Spirit and the seven-fold gifts. The second part of the decree is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis. It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. and that Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, the apocrypha. It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers)

on the other hand you have this:

What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate , with the Apocrypha [sic] interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century . (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 97)

The Encyclopedia Britannica of all things, seems to favor Bruce.

The Decretum Gelasianum , a Latin document of uncertain authorship but recognized as reflecting the views of the Roman church at the beginning of the 6th century,
 
@lanman87,

You have the right decree.

Between Jurgens and the Encyclopedia Britannica, I trust Jurgens as the better source.

Personally, I can’t see why Protestants accept this Council’s decree on the NT, but consider the deuterocanonical books as “ apocrypha “.

The Protestant OT canon is based on the Jewish Council of Jamnia’s canon from 90 AD. I knew a non denom pastor who said anything Jewish after Jesus is non authoritative for Christians.
 
Last edited:
I’m a retired social worker for a government agency. I reviewed proposals made by us and private agencies.

Proposals made by consensus tend to show evidence of compromises, try to be very inclusive, hesitant to reject any (name removed by moderator)ut. They are long, with little closure.

Proposals by hierarchical systems may not be better but are different. They tend to be short (like the NT canon) they bluntly reject whole groups of (name removed by moderator)uts, and they are willing to close some doors ( such as “no more NT books” )a consensus never would.
 
Last edited:
I think some of the details being discussed here (specific councils, specific persons’ decisions, etc) have become a red herring. You don’t need to know all of the intricacies of how the decision was made to know that it flies in the face of Evangelical ideas about the bible.
 
Wasn’t just the See of Rome. There’s only ONE bishop in Rome. The other bishops came from other sees, @mcq72. 😁
 
Maccabaeus2165 said:
Between Jurgens and the Encyclopedia Britannica, I trust Jurgens as the better source.
Click to expand...
Well, it certainly refutes Jurgens on this,

It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D.

If it was “almost universally accepted” then I would think the Encyclopedia Britannica (who has no dog in this hunt) would agree.
 
@lanman87,

How does “ almost universally accepted “ refute Jurgens? He’s quoting a historically verified document as well as he’s an actual churchman. I’d trust a churchman over a secular encyclopedia ( And reading your quote from it, it’s certainly Protestant leaning. )

Are you going to seriously argue that a near certainty is grounds for reasonable doubt?
 
Last edited:
Maccabaeus2165 said:
Personally, I can’t see why Protestants accept this Council’s decree on the NT, but consider the deuterocanonical books as “ apocrypha “.
Click to expand...
It is pretty simple.
  • We see no reason to think the New Testament books and are not God Breathed Scripture.
  • We see no reason to believe any of the other writings that were thought to might be scripture for a short while, such as the Didache or 1 Clement rise to the level of Scripture.
  • We believe in the sovereignty of God. That is that God willed these particular 27 books to be Scripture and that is the ultimate reason they are considered Scripture.
  • We see no ongoing dispute over the New Testament Scriptures that lasted past the 5th Century, with John’s Revelation being the last book accepted by the East.
As for the Deuterocanonical books we see
  • Jerome writing a preface to the Vulgate that says “This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed among the apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon”
  • We see the Glossa Ordinaria, the running Bible commentary in the Middle Ages and used as in middle ages for training Theologians as separating the Canonical books and the Apocrypha books in the same way Jerome did.
  • We see Gregory the Great state that 1 Macabees is not canonical in his commentary on Job. Which according to Jurgens, he wrote while he was the Bishop of Rome. William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume III page 313
    "With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46)." (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)
  • There are a huge number of middle age Theologians who site the number of Old Testament Books as the Hebrew Canon , which indicates the Hebrew Bible without the Deuterocanoical books. Those include the Venerable Bede, Agobard of Lyons, Haymo of Halberstadt, Ambrose of Autpert,
  • We see Hugh of St. Victor write “There are also in the Old Testament certain other books which are indeed read [in the church] but are not inscribed in the body of the text or in the canon of authority: such are the books of Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.”(Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis. Prologue, Cap. VII. PL 176:185D-186D. Translation by Catherine Kavanaugh, University of Notre Dame).
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
 
Last edited:
@lanman87,

I looked up my copy of volume 3, page 313 and it’s not there. As for medieval theologians:

I know for a fact in my copy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Vol 1; The Person and His Work, that Saint Thomas quoted from the deuterocanonical books in his teaching.

He’s a very thorough and honest theologian.

He is the one who made the statement: Go where the truth leads. My thinking is: If the deuterocanonical books weren’t canonical; he wouldn’t have taught theology from them.

Your justification for accepting the NT canon and rejecting the deuterocanonical books by quoting Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Jerome, some medieval saints and your use of the medieval theological training system that your own tradition views as corrupt; I don’t know how to charitably respond.

Respectfully, Ianman; I feel that I cannot have a reasonable discussion with you in light of these last two posts.

So, I do the only honorable and charitable thing that I can do: I walk away.

God bless and Mary keep you.
 
Last edited:
Maccabaeus2165 said:
So, I do the only honorable and charitable thing that I can do: I walk away.
Click to expand...
Sorry to see that…he cites a bunch of Catholic quotes and you dont like it, as if because we reject some of their points we then have no right to accept any.

Reminds me of a Jehovah witness who tore up all my excerpts and complete articles from watchtower tracts from 50 year span that contradicted his points…he tore up nothing but their own writings.

Anyways find your dialogue with lanman informative on all ends.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
Just curious, can you give evidence from the church fathers or any early list of canon writings that anything other than the current 27 books and the following were ever considered scripture?
Click to expand...
I have only couple direct reference of someone claiming another book as scripture but a few instances where a father references other father’s of having distorted canons. The references and refutation to these books as what the writer considers them to be is most compelling to me. Maybe someone else here has other direct claims.

The following quotes are not necessarly meant to show the unity of the 27 books of our NT. Some of these may or may not be unifying in this sense. The following is meant to show only the references to, or the listing of, a father’s canon that would include those books outside the 27 books.

The following quotes are from W.A. Jurgens - “Faith of the Early Fathers”

Eusebius v1 <656> “among the disputed books, which are neverless known to most there are extant the epistles said to be of James, and of Jude,…Among the spurious writings must be reckoned the Acts of Paul, the writing of The Shepherd, The Apocalypse of Peter,…

Athanasius v1<791> “for the sake of greater clarity i must necessarly add this remark also: there are other books besides the aforementioned, which, however, are not canonical. Yet they have been designated by the fathers to be read by those who join us and who wish to be instructed in the word of piety: The Wisdom of Solomon…(others)…and the Shepherd.”…”No mention whatever need be made of the Apocrypha, which are inventions of heretics…”

Cyril v1<819> “In the new testement there are four only gospels. The others are falsely written and harmful…”

Pseudo-Clement Apostolic Canons v2<1239> “In ours, that is, the new testament, there are four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; (continues list of NT books), Jude, two epistles of Clement; and the Constitution in eight books…”

Innocent I v3<2015b> “others, however, which are written under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, … and such others as may be are not only to be repudiated, but, as you know, are also to be condemned.”

John Damascene v3<2373> “The new testament contains four gospels, (continues list of NT books), and the Canon of the Holy Apostles, by Clement.”

Peace!!!
 
Maccabaeus2165 said:
I looked up my copy of volume 3, page 313 and it’s not there
Click to expand...
See if you can find this:

“When Gregory, while Apocrisarius in Constantinople, met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year 578, Leander asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job. Gregory’s response was his Moralia or Moralium libri or Expositio in librum Iob , at which he worked intermittently for many years, finally completing the work in thirty-five books about the year 595 A.D. The Moral Teachings is devoted mostly to discussions of questions in moral theology and of practical applications of Gregory’s solutions. In a sense it may be regarded as the first manual of moral and ascetic theology.”

This quote is from Gregory the Great’s Commentary of Job. The exact quote can be found here in paragraph 34.

The reason I quoted Jurgens is that some have argued that Gregory wrote this before he became the Bishop of Rome and therefore he didn’t write it when he was pope. What Jurgens shows is that this work was worked on for many years and completed and delivered after Gregory become Pope Gregory the Great. Gregory became Pope in 590 and completed the work in 595. So he either wrote while he was Pope or signed off on it and affirmed it after he was Pope.
 
The problem @lanman87 is that what a Pope writes is the Pope’s own personal opinion. Unless he invokes infallibility in faith and morals. Saint Gregory the Great did neither.
 
Last edited:
Maccabaeus2165 said:
know for a fact in my copy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Vol 1; The Person and His Work, that Saint Thomas quoted from the deuterocanonical books in his teaching.

He’s a very thorough and honest theologian.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that all medeival theologians didn’t considered the Deuterocanoncial books to be part of the Old Testament. What I’m pointing out is that it wasn’t universally accepted. There seems to have been two schools of thought among Theologians/Bishops in the middle ages.

One is the same of the Jerome. That the Deuterocanonical books don’t rise to the level of Scripture, and should not be used in determining doctrine, but are valuable material to study and reflect upon. All I did was quote Theologians (who were high ranking and revered Catholics) who held that view.

The other is the same as Augustine. Which is that the Deuterocanonical books are indeed Scripture. I could quote many who held that view as well.

The point is that there was still debate over the Deuterocanonical books all the way up to the Council of Trent.

Even New Advent admits this (but then tries to explain it away as merely academic)

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top