The Canon of Scripture

[steve_b]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[rcwitness]

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.

Pope St Damasus commissioned St Jerome to translate the gospels, no? Anything else he did was above and beyond. In fact, Jerome was asked to translate old testament books by friends, long after the death of Damasus.

 

[steve_b]

Pope St Damasus commissioned St Jerome to translate the gospels, no? Anything else he did was above and beyond. In fact, Jerome was asked to translate old testament books by friends, long after the death of Damasus.

Jerome completed the Vulgate in 405. Meaning, Jerome’s canon came from the decree of Damasus.

 

[PluniaZ]

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.

How is that a reasonable concern? You are accusing the church of tampering with documents? Why would that be your base assumption? Because some Protestants made the accusation? What evidence do you have? How could one make the “honest mistake” of inventing an entire decree of a church council?

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

How do we know anything from this period? They didn’t make time stamped laminated copies of documents on acid free paper and store them in a zero gravity vault after uploading them to the cloud. We rely on scribes who copied these documents. Nearly all the manuscripts for these and every other document from antiquity, rarely date back before the Middle Ages.

Trusting a document from centuries later

As we do with every document from this era.

Believing there was a normal reason for Hippo and Carthage not to mention it

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Hippo was in AD 393, Carthage was in AD 397, little more than a decade after the Council of Rome. Maybe news of the Council of Rome hadn’t reached Africa yet, or maybe details of the Council of Rome, such as the fact that the Biblical Canon was established? The Vatican didn’t have a website back then that everyone could look up church documents on.

Believing St Jerome questioned Pope St Damasus’ decree

Unless one is cynical enough to believe that the Holy Roman Catholic Church would dare to forge documents.

That even though you think Damasus submitted the list first - that Carthage then asked for Rome’s ratification.

Every council asked for ratification from Rome. It was standard procedure.

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

Unless you trust the Holy Roman Catholic Church to be an honest steward of the repository of faith that has been passed down to us from the beginning.

 

[Michael85]

Thanks for all the replies.

Yes, there was no “Council” of Protestants who determined that there were only 66 books in the Bible. Is is true that the Reformers used the Jewish Masoretic Text, which had been copied by Jewish scribes? That would mean they de facto accepted the Jewish canon rather than that of the Septuagint.

 

[rcwitness]

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Hippo was in AD 393, Carthage was in AD 397, little more than a decade after the Council of Rome. [Maybe news of the Council of Rome hadn’t reached Africa yet, or maybe details of the Council of Rome, such as the fact that the Biblical Canon was established? The Vatican didn’t have a website back then that everyone could look up church documents on.
**Ok, so the suggestion that Rome (Pope St. Damasus) initiated the Canon cannot be confirmed by St Jerome, Hippo, or Carthage? The only piece of evidence is a rather “displaced” reference that seems like it was written in the 6th century?

Btw, what does the Vatican have to say about the document?

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for all the replies.

Yes, there was no “Council” of Protestants who determined that there were only 66 books in the Bible. Is is true that the Reformers used the Jewish Masoretic Text, which had been copied by Jewish scribes? That would mean they de facto accepted the Jewish canon rather than that of the Septuagint.

Speaking of Jewish scribes as well as pharisees

• The Septuagint was already written and being used by Jews 2 centuries B.C.
• This was the OT of the day, translated into Greek. The NT Jews wrote the NT in Greek as well. Its usage (Greek) carried on into the time of Christ and the apostles…and beyond.
• It was the 2nd century Pharisees who changed what was acceptable for THEM. And they made their decision as to what books THEY accepted and what ones THEY rejected. But the main point, the books of the Septuagint (codex A) were already there and being used by 1st century Jews. Keep in mind, the pharisees of that day came from the same pharisees that Jesus earlier called blind guides, hipocryts and white washed tombs. And as rejectors of Jesus, they STILL got this (their canon) wrong as well. Does one really need to ask then, which Jews got it right?
  
  if one is to reject the Septuagint defined by the Catholic Church, then they have to answer these points raised.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

 

[Ernie07]

I am an ex-Catholic who has been attending a Reformed church for the last 4 years and is now seriously considering a return to the Catholic Church. During my time as a Reformed Christian, I have read quite a bit of anti-Catholic material. James White in particular has been a favourite of mine, and I have watched several of his debates with Catholics.

Here is one of his articles attacking Catholic teaching - it’s a fictional dialogue between a Catholic and a Protestant.

One of the things that he mentions is that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were local councils and therefore not binding on the whole Church. How does a Catholic answer this claim? I do know that the Second Council of Nicea in 787 did declare that the decrees of one of these Councils (I can’t remember which) are to be considered as decrees of an Ecumenical Council. But what about before then?

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

Another thing that he mentions is that Cardinal Cajetan, in his commentary on the Old Testament, wrote that all the Deuterocanonical books (except Baruch) were counted by St Jerome as outside the Canon and were placed in the Apocrypha. Why would a cardinal write such a thing if the Canon of Scripture had been determined previously (at least by Nicea II)?

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

Hi Michael85,

First of all may the Holy Spirit be with you as you consider returning to the Catholic Church again! I nearly left the Church some years ago after being swayed by an anti-Catholic neighbor and writings from James White, James McCarthy, and Matt Slick. They can be quite persuasive.

You’ve received so much good advice and information so I’ll just provide my own perspective from someone who maybe didn’t leave the Catholic Church, but was darn close because of anti-Catholic teachings. I read the article you referred to and in fairness the portrayal of the Protestants in that story was very condescending. I don’t know why Catholics (or anyone else) have to do that as it undermines the main message they’re trying to deliver. But, I also believe that many Protestants like Mr. White try to use what I’ll term “diversions” to make their point and that is the case here with Councils. Let me explain.

I frequently hear the term “binding” from Protestants when it comes to Church Councils. But, I’m not as interested in whether the Council decrees were binding, but rather if they were ever renounced. Granted, “binding” is better because then it leaves no doubt that is what the Church believed, but just because a belief wasn’t “bound” to the faithful in a formal decree doesn’t mean The Church didn’t believe it. Some argue that the 73 book Bible wasn’t formally “binding” until the Council of Trent decreed the canon. However, the use of the 73 book Bible is evidenced by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. Are those Councils “binding”? I’ll let others decide that. But, it does show a belief in the 73 book Bible by a collective set of believers and no other Council after those renounced that belief. Also, when The Church desired to translate the Bible into Latin they commissioned Jerome. Although Jerome personally sided with the Hebrew speaking Jews who felt 39 books comprised the correct OT, he submitted to the authority of The Church who agreed with the Alexandrian Jews and translated the 46 book OT. Coupled with the 27 books in the NT that 73 book Bible became the “Bible of the Church” for the next 1000 years.

The above logic (binding vs. renouncing) can also be used for beliefs in the Eucharist, Mary Mother of God, Mary ever-virgin, authority of the Church, and infant baptism to name a few. Only the Catholic Church can say that what was universally believed by the early Church (say first 800 years) is believed by the Church today. No other church or set of believers today can prove an unbroken chain of beliefs, which is required to prove that Jesus kept His promise to protect His Church. It’s why I’m a Catholic.

God Bless!

-Ernie-

 

[rcwitness]

Speaking of Jewish scribes as well as pharisees

• The Septuagint was already written and being used by Jews 2 centuries B.C.
• This was the OT of the day, translated into Greek. The NT Jews wrote the NT in Greek as well. Its usage (Greek) carried on into the time of Christ and the apostles…and beyond.
• It was the 2nd century Pharisees who changed what was acceptable for THEM. And they made their decision as to what books THEY accepted and what ones THEY rejected. But the main point, the books of the Septuagint (codex A) were already there and being used by 1st century Jews. Keep in mind, the pharisees of that day came from the same pharisees that Jesus earlier called blind guides, hipocryts and white washed tombs. And as rejectors of Jesus, they STILL got this (their canon) wrong as well. Does one really need to ask then, which Jews got it right?
  
  if one is to reject the Septuagint defined by the Catholic Church, then they have to answer these points raised.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

Do we have evidence of the Priests, Pharasees, Scribes naming the Deuteros Scripture before Jamnia?

The date of Jamnia is even past the destruction of the Temple! Do any Protestants openly rely on Jamnia? Is the Council of Jamnia actually supported by modern Jews? What are the records of Jamnia?

 

[rcwitness]

… Also, when The Church desired to translate the Bible into Latin they commissioned Jerome. Although Jerome personally sided with the Hebrew speaking Jews who felt 39 books comprised the correct OT, he submitted to the authority of The Church who agreed with the Alexandrian Jews and translated the 46 book OT. Coupled with the 27 books in the NT that 73 book Bible became the “Bible of the Church” for the next 1000 years.

Are you able to give a source that records Jerome as translating the Deuteros, or all 46 OT books?

 

[steve_b]

Ok, so the suggestion that Rome (Pope St. Damasus) initiated the Canon cannot be confirmed by St Jerome, Hippo, or Carthage? The only piece of evidence is a rather “displaced” reference that seems like it was written in the 6th century?

Btw, what does the Vatican have to say about the document?

Can you refute both Jurgens and Denzinger both referencing the decree of Damasus I ?

• From Jurgens “Faith of the Fathers”, scroll to pg 406 for this quote
• rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html , Denzinger’s *“Enchiridion Symbolorum” *quote

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Do we have evidence of the Priests, Pharasees, Scribes naming the Deuteros before Jamnia?

The date of Jamnia is even past the destruction of the Temple! Do any Protestants openly rely on Jamnia? Is the Council of Jamnia actually supported by modern Jews? What are the records of Jamnia?

Been argued that the council of Jamnia never happened. And that the Jews sort of privately trashed the Septuagint over time in the 2nd and 3rd centuries…

Possible considering the way Jesus was arrested and tried in the dead of the night.

Also makes sense because Rabbis were still quoting from it centuries later as if it were scripture. This demonstrates the likelihood that their rejection of Septuagint was more so word of mouth over the ages rather than a officially binding council…

 

[rcwitness]

Can you refute both Jurgens and Denzinger both referencing the decree of Damasus I ?

• From Jurgens “Faith of the Fathers”, scroll to pg 406 for this quote
• rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html , Denzinger’s *“Enchiridion Symbolorum” *quote

Refute that they rely on the Decretum Gelasianum? No, I cant. Nor do I want or need to. I just find it strange that the only reference to the Decree of Damascus is added to another Document two centuries later. And that neither St Jerome, Pope Innocent I, the Synods of Hippo or Carthage make mention of His Decree, despite their attention to the matter of a Canon.

 

[steve_b]

Refute that they rely on the Decretum Gelasianum? No, I cant. Nor do I want or need to. I just find it strange that the only reference to the Decree of Damascus is added to another Document two centuries later. And that neither St Jerome, Pope Innocent I, the Synods of Hippo or Carthage make mention of His Decree, despite their attention to the matter of a Canon.

Hippo and Carthage validated the canon of pope Damasus

 

[rcwitness]

Hippo and Carthage validated the canon of pope Damasus

Circles…

You keep asserting your speculation as fact. But the only evidence is a document from a much later Council, which contains parts that are believed to have been added even later.

Show me one reference to the Canon of Damasus outside the Gelasian Decree. If Damasus actually decreed a canon, then it’s not merely a “proposal” to initiate a debate. Jerome had huge respect for Damasus (and his office). Yet Jerome never mentions this very significant decree? And then Hippo and Carthage make literally no mention of it, but rather make mention of a pending ratification from Rome?

I’m not saying it’s impossible guys. Just saying it’s not unreasonable to question the legitimacy of that document.

I can’t keep repeating myself. Please provide an actual Church document that supports the Decree of Damasus. I would love to see it, so I can have greater confidence in an actual “Damasus List”.

 

[steve_b]

Circles…

You keep asserting your speculation as fact. But the only evidence is a document from a much later Council, which contains parts that are believed to have been added even later.

Show me one reference to the Canon of Damasus outside the Gelasian Decree.

Here is the explanation.

catholicvoyager.com/2012/09/the-canon-of-scripture-damasus-and.html

 

[Ernie07]

Are you able to give a source that records Jerome as translating the Deuteros, or all 46 OT books?

Admittedly the Internet can be a dangerous place in trying to uncover truthful sources, but here are two of the links I found:
christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-28/405-jerome-completes-vulgate.html
ministers-best-friend.com/CHRISTIPEDIA-tm-Jerome-and-Latin-Vulgate-Bible.html

One states that, “Although Jerome preferred the books of the Hebrew Bible, he deferred to church authority in accepting as scripture not only the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, but also an extra five ‘apocryphal’ books in Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees (reckoned as a single book)”. And the other that “Jerome was compelled by the Church to include them”.

I guess what I’m having trouble understanding about this thread is the debate about the decree of Pope Damascus. Why is that so important? The bottom line is that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage clearly listed 73 books as the canon (whether Damascus decreed it or not), no other Council renounced this decree (fact), and the Vulgate included the 73 books and was used by the Church for 1000+ years (whether Jerome agreed with the deuterocanonicals or not). Everything else is a distraction. Keep it simple.

What am I missing?

-Ernie-

 

[rcwitness]

Admittedly the Internet can be a dangerous place in trying to uncover truthful sources, but here are two of the links I found:
christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-28/405-jerome-completes-vulgate.html
ministers-best-friend.com/CHRISTIPEDIA-tm-Jerome-and-Latin-Vulgate-Bible.html

Thanks. I will finish reading the second link, which seems to be more detailed than most. I realize that it’s hard to gather just how many books he translated, because it means searching out all his correspondence letters. I’m not sure we know if he interpreted even all of the 27 NT books. But probably a majority. What I try to distinguish there, is that Pope St Damasus commissioned him to translate the 4 Gospels. He accomplished that before Damasus died. After that, he translated various other books on his own accord, and at the request of friends.

One states that, “Although Jerome preferred the books of the Hebrew Bible, he deferred to church authority in accepting as scripture not only the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, but also an extra five ‘apocryphal’ books in Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees (reckoned as a single book)”. And the other that “Jerome was compelled by the Church to include them”.

And I think this is probably verifiable.

I guess what I’m having trouble understanding about this thread is the debate about the decree of Pope Damascus. Why is that so important? The bottom line is that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage clearly listed 73 books as the canon (whether Damascus decreed it or not), no other Council renounced this decree (fact), and the Vulgate included the 73 books and was used by the Church for 1000+ years (whether Jerome agreed with the deuterocanonicals or not). Everything else is a distraction. Keep it simple.

It’s not so important to accepting the Catholic Canon. But I am just sharing that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question the one source, we know of, that acknowledges a Decree from Damasus. The record of the Decree is found in a separate record of a different Pope’s decree. And is also thought to have been edited by a later scholar. When did St Jerome finally accept the Dueteros? It seems that he debated their canonicity with St Augustine, but does Augustin mention St Damasus’ decree? Do either of them, ever? Does any of the Councils mention Damasus’ decree? I think if Rome issued a decree, it isn’t taken so lightly, and especially by St Jerome, who admired St Damasus greatly and respected the office of Chief Bishop. These things just don’t support the Decree as genuine. But I’m not saying it is a lie, or forgery. I’m not coming from an extreme Protestant point of view. I would use the Damasus Decree in my defense of the Canon, but I don’t think we should, because it’s not certain enough. It doesn’t have enough credibility. It could have happened, and I’d like to think it did, but I think it requires something else that connects it to the age of St Jerome, St Augustine, and the synod that addressed the canon.

 

[rcwitness]

Here is the explanation.

catholicvoyager.com/2012/09/the-canon-of-scripture-damasus-and.html

Thanks. I’ve read this. It is an argument against an extreme Protestant position. I don’t reject the Catholic Canon, and I don’t think the Damasus Decree should be regarded as “worthless”. I just think, if we are to use it as a strong case for a Roman Decree of the Canon, then it should be supported by at least one other reference. As it is, it is possible, but i can’t be very confident.

 

[Ernie07]

It’s not so important to accepting the Catholic Canon. But I am just sharing that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question the one source, we know of, that acknowledges a Decree from Damasus. The record of the Decree is found in a separate record of a different Pope’s decree. And is also thought to have been edited by a later scholar. When did St Jerome finally accept the Dueteros? It seems that he debated their canonicity with St Augustine, but does Augustin mention St Damasus’ decree? Do either of them, ever? Does any of the Councils mention Damasus’ decree? I think if Rome issued a decree, it isn’t taken so lightly, and especially by St Jerome, who admired St Damasus greatly and respected the office of Chief Bishop. These things just don’t support the Decree as genuine. But I’m not saying it is a lie, or forgery. I’m not coming from an extreme Protestant point of view. I would use the Damasus Decree in my defense of the Canon, but I don’t think we should, because it’s not certain enough. It doesn’t have enough credibility. It could have happened, and I’d like to think it did, but I think it requires something else that connects it to the age of St Jerome, St Augustine, and the synod that addressed the canon.

I see where you’re going from an academic standpoint. I just wonder if we as Catholics sometimes dig too deep when trying to defend our faith when a more simplistic approach may be more effective. In this thread it seems like we’re debating amongst ourselves, but I see that many times we allow Protestants to get us caught in the weeds. Whether it’s that a belief “isn’t binding” or that a particular church father used the word “symbol” when describing the Eucharist or that a certain belief like Purgatory or the Eucharist was “invented” at the time of a formal Church Council decree.

I’d just like us to keep it simple and say look, here’s my evidence of collective belief per a Church Council, sometimes it’s an ecumenical decree and sometimes it’s more regional, but the statement of faith decreed was NEVER renounced. Therefore the Church believed it. Now what better evidence do you have other than a hidden church or that it took the Church 1500 years to figure out the truth (and oh by the way if that’s your argument than you basically believe that Jesus wasn’t able to protect His Church from teaching error)? Sometimes common sense and rationale thought is more persuasive and effective than the “my interpretation is better than yours” dialogue.

Yet I digress…anyway, I’ll get off my soap box now!! Haha!

-Ernie-