When did the Canon of Scripture close?

[Salvatore123]

Regarding my statement earlier that I did not believe that the Council of Florence (and all “councils” between Constance and Florence) infallibly declared the canon of the OT and NT, I cite Henry Denziger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum as support for my contention.

Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” has long held a prominent position as being a “go to” book on the various Catholic Dogma promulgated by the Catholic Church. It cites bulls, encyclicals, letters, and of course, councils, as the various sources for dogma.

The Council of Florence is discussed for several pronouncements, but nothing regarding the canon of the OT or NT.

The Council of Trent is, however, discussed, and from Session IV, April 8, 1546, Denziger cites the provision entitled “The Sacred Books and the Traditions of the Apostles are Accepted”. It goes on to cite the Trent wording I quoted above.

So, again, I still respectfuly maintain that the canon of the OT and NT was not INFALLIBLY proclaimed by the Church until Trent.

*For those who do not own the Denziger book, I highly recommend getting it. It is not expensive, but is enormously helpful in zeroing in on certain dogma and for ascertaining when certain dogmas were first established and the manner in which they were established.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The Canon is closed when all the books in the Canon are completed. The decision on the contents of the Canon is not what closes the Canon. Scripture is Divine Revelation, so it is closed when that Revelation is complete.

Actually, this definition of a closed canon is not how I have understood it to mean. All inspired writers that are ever to be written can have been written, but the Canon can be not yet closed. Closing of the Canon means recognizing all the inspired writings that are inspired, and excluding those that aren’t.

 

[Salvatore123]

mackbrislawn,

You bring up an interesting point - and ironically one that has not been discussed at all in this thread: the process that goes on in determining the canon/closing the canon.

I have always viewed it as follows:

1. Many texts are written by various writters over several thousand years.
2. Some texts are “accepted” by tradition/practice - some are not.
3. As for the OT, the Jews were the first “authoritative body” that dictated what constituted their OT (obviously, they do not believe in the NT).
4. Two separate “sets” of books of the OT were used by the Jews: those books that came to be “defined” and “accepted” as the Masoretic texts, and those books that we refer to as the Septuagint, which were predominant in the vast majority of the Greek speaking Roman world, and was proven to be the version of the OT that was read and cited by Jesus himself, as well as the other writers of the NT. The thesis of Jesus quoting the Septuagint is no longer disputed.
5. Several writers in Christ’s time begin writing (we assume) after the death of Christ (look above to my theory that some Gospels COULD have been begun while Jesus was still alive) a series of books that number between 30 and 40.
6. The OT books, whether the Jewish “version” or the Septuagint, are eventually translated from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into “old Latin” (NOT to be confused with “the old Latin Vulgate” - St. Jerome’s bible).
7. The NT books are translated from Greek (except Matthew, which is believed to have been originally authored in Hebrew) into “old Latin”.
8. Gradually, Jewish Christians, and then Gentile Christians, begin reading various “old Latin” manuscripts of a loose confederation, and this continues for several hundred years.
9. Pope Damasus I, in 384/385 AD, commissions St. Jerome to take all extant “old Latin” manuscripts of a list of books he states should be considered the Bible for all Christians to use, and to translate them into one, cohesive compilation of books that will constitute “THE” Bible for use by the Catholic Church. In other words: compile A book, comprised of many “smaller” books, and at the same time, eliminate errors of translation and omissions/inclusions. As far as the OT is concerned, rely on the Septuagint for the LIST of “smaller” books to include. As far as the NT is concerned, rely on the tradition of the Church over the past several hundred years, for the list of “smaller” books to include.
10. The result of St. Jerome’s compilation of “old Latin”, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, is the “old Latin Vulgate”, which remained unchanged until validated/confirmed by Trent as being the official bible of the Catholic Church.
11. NO known original texts relied upon by St. Jerome exist. Thus, even St. Jerome’s old Latin Vulgate was a translation of earlier texts.
12. Following Trent, many “revisions” of the “old Latin Vulgate” were made to produce bibles in the vernacular of each country (as I mentioned earlier). In English speaking countries alone, we have the Duoay-Rheims, Challoner, Haydock, Knox, and von Peters (the last has not been recognized by the Catholic Church - but see description I cited above; I own all versions just mentioned).
13. In 1979/1986, the Vatican issued the “Nova Vulgata”, or New Vulgate. It is supposed to have replaced the St. Jerome old Latin Vulgate.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Since Protestants do not recognize Trent, nor infallible churches nor popes, for them, oddly enough, the question of the canon is still open. It was for Luther, when he eliminated the deuterocanonical OT books, and wanted to eliminate the NT books of James, Revelation, etc.

I have an excellent book on the canon written by a Baptist pastor, and in it he asks the question, “Why should the church today be bound by decisions about the canon made in the 4th century?”

Indeed, for Protestants, why should they be?

 

[Salvatore123]

macbrislawm,

The question raised by the Baptist minister that you repeat actually reflects the prime problem with Protestants: NONE of them can ever be assured that what they are being taught is both sacred and infallible.

And whenever one of their congregation “has had enough” of something being taught, he goes the protestant route: he leaves his church to start another.

And the same goes round and round ad infinitum . . .

Once you remove the Church as the final arbiter of things sacred, you automatically set yourself up for an unending stream of questions that will never fully satisfy.

 

[mackbrislawn]

macbrislawm,

The question raised by the Baptist minister that you repeat actually reflects the prime problem with Protestants: NONE of them can ever be assured that what they are being taught is both sacred and infallible.

And whenever one of their congregation “has had enough” of something being taught, he goes the protestant route: he leaves his church to start another.

And the same goes round and round ad infinitum . . .

Once you remove the Church as the final arbiter of things sacred, you automatically set yourself up for an unending stream of questions that will never fully satisfy.

Ain’t that the truth.

It seems that Protestantism is a system of reductionism. Over the centuries they realize that more and more things are residues of Catholicism to be rid of. And now, with modern liberalism, they realize that the Bible itself is one of those Catholic residues.

They keep reducing and purifying until there is nothing left.