The Canon of Scripture

[PluniaZ]

Well what account is that?

That the Canon was fixed at the Council of Rome, as recorded by the Decretal of Gelasius.

 

[rcwitness]

This decree of Damasus(disputed only by protestants, BTW)

I can prove this is wrong all by myself!

Was merely a attempt to get the ball rolling. The pontiff wanted the Bishops of North Africa to give their (name removed by moderator)ut yay/nay and report their findings back to him.

I would like to believe this to be true, but it is only a speculation without solid documantation.

Damasus then turned this proposed canon over to the bishops of North Africa for analysis and debate. How does the author know this???

Trust me, my favorite Saints are St Irenaeus, St Pope Damasus, St Jerome, and St Augustine.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

That the Canon was fixed at the Council of Rome, as recorded by the Decretal of Gelasius.

Likely wasn’t fixed, only proposed/promoted by Damasus

 

[rcwitness]

Likely wasn’t fixed, only proposed/promoted by Damasus

That is possible, but only a speculation. As much as I’d like to believe it, I refrain from using this in apologetics.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I can prove this is wrong all by myself!

I would like to believe this to be true, but it is only a speculation without solid documantation.

Damasus then turned this proposed canon over to the bishops of North Africa for analysis and debate. How does the author know this???

Trust me, my favorite Saints are St Irenaeus, St Pope Damasus, St Jerome, and St Augustine.

What other explanation is there? Did the Bishops in North Africa just wake up one morning and decide to ratify the listing by their own accord?

Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church
catholicismhastheanswer.com/quotes-on-sacred-scripture/

And did Jerome act on his own in his initiation of the Vulgate?

At that point the NT was pretty much agreed upon less maybe the book of Revelation. We see that by Athanasius listing prior to Damasus decree… However, the OT is a different story. Clearly, plenty of dialogue has taken place prior to the canon of Carthage. And the Pontiff was overseeing this…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

That is possible, but only a speculation. As much as I’d like to believe it, I refrain from using this in apologetics.

Well, considering the office the Pope holds and how integral he has been throughout the ages on important matters… and all the facts present, it’s a very reasonable and likely explanation, imo…

And if we question the legitimacy of the decree of Damasus you can open up a pandora’s box with that and question many other Patristic writings.

 

[tm21]

One interesting historical tidbit: One reason the Jews of the 2nd Century (and later) gave for rejecting the deuterocannon was because they had no evidence of a Hebrew manuscript for those disputed books. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls (pre-Christian manuscripts discovered in the early 20th Century) included the deuterocannon texts written in Hebrew! So of course that is no longer a valid reason.

 

[rcwitness]

And if we question the legitimacy of the decree of Damasus you can open up a pandora’s box with that and question many other Patristic writings.

Just to be clear… I’m not questioning a Church affirmed Papal decree. I’m acknowledging that the documents are not very reliable.

I’m not arguing the Catholic Canon, or Papal authority. This particular document has possibly been forged. So, unless the Church officially affirms that Damasus provided this perfect list of Scripture, then we shouldn’t tout it as fact. That’s all.

 

[Duane1966]

He also mentions that scholars have said that the Council of Rome never took place. Is there anything that Catholics have written about this?

Any answers you can give would be great and would help me on my way back to the Church.

He is playing fast and loose with the facts. Many scholars do believe the Council of Rome never took place, but almost all of those scholars lived in the 19th century. I quote from Jurgens:

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, vol. 1, p. 404)

Now obviously from this passage we can see that some have called the authenticity of this document of the council into question. I think that Pope Innocent I letter hinders the reading of this document being a forgery, and in a way clearly points to it:

Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings 2 together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon, 3 and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra, 4 two of Chronicles. And of the New Testament: of the Gospels four. Epistles of the apostle Paul fourteen. 5 Epistles of John three. Epistles of Peter two. Epistle of Jude. Epistle of James. Acts of the Apostles. John’s Apocalypse. But the rest of the books, which appear under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (which were written by a certain Leucius), or under the name of Andrew (which were written by the philosophers Xenocharides and Leonidas), or under the name of Thomas, and whatever others there may be, you should know they are not only to be rejected but also condemned*.(Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse. (A.D. 405)*

Notice he says the canon of the bible was received, but received from whom? Either he is talking about Carthage, but that would not be binding on the Church of Rome, unless confirmed by the pope and made binding on the Roman Church. Nor does he reference Carthage. Or the obvious conclusion, is that Pope Innocent I was referring to the Decree of Damasus. I know of no scholar that has challenged the authenticity of this letter of Innocent’s.

Now as you can see this letter is from 405 A.D. So for well over a thousand years before Cajetan and Luther, the canon was settled in the Latin Church.

 

[PluniaZ]

He is playing fast and loose with the facts. Many scholars do believe the Council of Rome never took place, but almost all of those scholars lived in the 19th century. I quote from Jurgens:Now obviously from this passage we can see that some have called the authenticity of this document of the council into question. I think that Pope Innocent I letter hinders the reading of this document being a forgery, and in a way clearly points to it:
Notice he says the canon of the bible was received, but received from whom? Either he is talking about Carthage, but that would not be binding on the Church of Rome, unless confirmed by the pope and made binding on the Roman Church. Nor does he reference Carthage. Or the obvious conclusion, is that Pope Innocent I was referring to the Decree of Damasus. I know of no scholar that has challenged the authenticity of this letter of Innocent’s.

Now as you can see this letter is from 405 A.D. So for well over a thousand years before Cajetan and Luther, the canon was settled in the Latin Church.

 

[rcwitness]

Notice he says the canon of the bible was received, but received from whom? Either he is talking about Carthage, but that would not be binding on the Church of Rome, unless confirmed by the pope and made binding on the Roman Church. Nor does he reference Carthage. Or the obvious conclusion, is that Pope Innocent I was referring to the Decree of Damasus. I know of no scholar that has challenged the authenticity of this letter of Innocent’s.

It says nothing about Pope St. Damasus.

You are speculating. Also, the issue isn’t if Rome received the Canon which Hippo and Carthage agreed, but if Damascus had PREVIOUSLY and ALREADY decreed a Canon before Hippo and Carthage.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

He is playing fast and loose with the facts. Many scholars do believe the Council of Rome never took place, but almost all of those scholars lived in the 19th century. I quote from Jurgens:Now obviously from this passage we can see that some have called the authenticity of this document of the council into question. I think that Pope Innocent I letter hinders the reading of this document being a forgery, and in a way clearly points to it:
Notice he says the canon of the bible was received, but received from whom? Either he is talking about Carthage, but that would not be binding on the Church of Rome, unless confirmed by the pope and made binding on the Roman Church. Nor does he reference Carthage. Or the obvious conclusion, is that Pope Innocent I was referring to the Decree of Damasus. I know of no scholar that has challenged the authenticity of this letter of Innocent’s.

Now as you can see this letter is from 405 A.D. So for well over a thousand years before Cajetan and Luther, the canon was settled in the Latin Church.

Excellent

Even if the “Decree of Damasus” didn’t exist, one would have to logically surmise something like this actually took place, based on the chronology of the events in question.

If not Damasus, then who initiated all this stuff, the tooth fairy?

I understand protestants of the last few centuries are faced with the harsh reality that nothing was actually added at Trent, THEY are the ones removing books. So they want to poke holes in Rome’s timeline, but they just cant win this battle. No evidence of a 66 book Canon until Luther became a Church unto himself.

 

[rcwitness]

If not Damasus, then who initiated all this stuff, the tooth fairy?

So either Damascus initiated a Canon or nobody did? Come on, I love St. Damasus and because he was a good leader and loved Scripture, but this doesn’t need to be true just because a centuries later document which is possibly tampered with says so.

There are things that don’t add up. But Damasus may have come up with a list. We just don’t know for sure. What we do know, is that he commissioned St Jerome to translate the Gospels (and maybe other NT books) into a common and updated Latin version called the Vulgate. We know that he was a significant participant in the formation of the Bible.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

So either Damascus initiated a Canon or nobody did? Come on, I love St. Damasus and because he was a good leader and loved Scripture, but this doesn’t need to be true just because a centuries later document which is possibly tampered with says so.

There are things that don’t add up. But Damasus may have come up with a list. We just don’t know for sure. What we do know, is that he commissioned St Jerome to translate the Gospels (and maybe other NT books) into a common and updated Latin version called the Vulgate. We know that he was a significant participant in the formation of the Bible.

We don’t have video evidence of Damasus writing the list; I’ll give you that, but based on the preponderance of evidence in that 23 year timeline, we can be reasonably convinced of it.

 

[rcwitness]

We don’t have video evidence of Damasus writing the list; I’ll give you that…

Ahh ha!! So you admit it!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Ahh ha!! So you admit it!

:console:

 

[Duane1966]

It says nothing about Pope St. Damasus.

You are speculating. Also, the issue isn’t if Rome received the Canon which Hippo and Carthage agreed, but if Damascus had PREVIOUSLY and ALREADY decreed a Canon before Hippo and Carthage.

As I posted from Jurgens, most scholars believe the decree of Damasus is genuine.

Now as far as my speculation goes, you need to think logically. Innocent clearly gives a canonical listing of books, and says this canonical list has been received. But received from whom? By stating they are canonical, it means it is the rule for the Latin Church. There are only a few ways to establish books as canonical on the Latin Church.

1.) An ecumenical council can elevate books, making them canonical on the whole church. There is no evidence of this happening before the time of Innocent.

2.) A regional council can elevate books, making them canonical on the region that said council represents. This is what happened at Hippo. Notice though, Hippo would only be binding on North Africa,** unless Innocent made it binding on the Roman Church.** There is no evidence of him doing so. Yet we know he states that the present canon was received.

So whence did that canon that Innocent says was received, originate? Not Nicaea. Nor Hippo. By simple deductive reasoning, only Damasus, and the Council of Rome.

 

[rcwitness]

:console:

 

[rcwitness]

As I posted from Jurgens, most scholars believe the decree of Damasus is genuine.

Now as far as my speculation goes, you need to think logically. Innocent clearly gives a canonical listing of books, and says this canonical list has been received. But received from whom? By stating they are canonical, it means it is the rule for the Latin Church. There are only a few ways to establish books as canonical on the Latin Church.

1.) An ecumenical council can elevate books, making them canonical on the whole church. There is no evidence of this happening before the time of Innocent.

2.) A regional council can elevate books, making them canonical on the region that said council represents. This is what happened at Hippo. Notice though, Hippo would only be binding on North Africa,** unless Innocent made it binding on the Roman Church.** There is no evidence of him doing so. Yet we know he states that the present canon was received.

So whence did that canon that Innocent says was received, originate? Not Nicaea. Nor Hippo. By simple deductive reasoning, only Damasus, and the Council of Rome.

No matter how “logical” you think it is, it is still a speculation, and trusting that the record of Pope Gelasius was not tampered with (and even an honest mistake). It’s actually a reasonable concern, to question it’s accuracy.

But once again, I’m not saying that it’s wrong to believe it’s a reasonable possibility that Pope St Damasus wrote a correct Canon. We just don’t know through an accurate and sound document. It requires

• Trusting a document from centuries later
• Believing there was a normal reason for Hippo and Carthage not to mention it
• Believing St Jerome questioned Pope St Damasus’ decree
• That even though you think Damasus submitted the list first - that Carthage then asked for Rome’s ratification.

To me, it just seems less than a solid, reliable certainty.

 

[steve_b]

I won’t argue that Hippo and Carthage were binding on the Whole Church. But what Council did provide Reformed (or Protestant) acceptance of a 66 book Canon?

We regard Hippo and Carthage as fixing the Canon, and relying on Sacred Tradition. Their authority was no small thing. Was it Infallible? Probably not. That’s why Trent affirmed this same Canon (and all its parts) again.

In the end, I am convicted of the belief that, in order for us to have confidence in a “body of Scripture” as a definite Rule of Faith, we must also rely on tradition and Church authority. The Catholic faith calls these Sacred Tradition and Magisterium.

When, where, and who are churches claiming they determined their Canon? And what was the “Rule of Faith” prior to this? But don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe the Catholic faith diminishes the “Rule of Scripture”. In fact, I believe it applies it more accurately. However, there have been times in history when many in the Church neglected Scripture. And that always has a negative consequence!

As for the Council of Rome, 382, I’m not convinced that decree, with its Canon, is legitimate. I don’t think that Damasus declared a Canon.

The canon (the written tradition) was decreed by Pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome, 382 a.d. here is that decree. rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html properly referenced (from Denzinger). Count the books. It’s 73 books by name. The same canon OT and NT we have today.

This is the decree that Jerome used in writing the Vulgate.