Who did the Protestant reformers think they were to take books out of the Bible?

[TertiumQuid]

The final Canon of Bible was ratified at the councils of Hippo and Carthage around 400 ad. All Trent did in regards to Biblical Canon was to denounce Luther’s edition with it’s modified Table of Contents. The documents are all available on the Vatican website. You might enjoy reading them.

I’ve been around the block a few times on this issue over the years. I’m simply going on information like the following:

1. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, and therefore didn’t speak for the entire church.
2. The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”
3. Then there’s the 1 & 2 Esdras problem, in which Hippo & Carthage canonized a different 1 Esdras than the council of Trent. Gary Michuta solves this problem by in essence arguing the canon is still open.

A few years back I heard Tim staples say the canon was closed officially in 1442, so at this point, I think a definitive answer from an official source, would best document your view.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

these are local councils, and not ecumenical. If they were ecumenical, and binding on the whole church, there would be not variances of the canon in EO churches.

It doesn’t make them wrong, either. It only confirms their Catholic liberty to do so at that time.

Actually, it doesn’t. People can and will debate things regardless of if they’ve been finally ratified or not. This is true in all aspects of life. Consider the Holocaust. We know, unequivocally, that it occurred. Despite the finality and absolute nature of this knowledge, there are people who still argue that it didn’t. The individuals arguing against the canon of the Bible are similar to the people who deny the reality of the holocaust.

The difference is that the canon had not been defined by an ecumenical council.

Then what, exactly, do you call Hippo and Carthage. You can’t simply say they weren’t official councils of the Church to circumvent the fact that Biblical Canon was finalized at them.

Armstrong’s article is valuable to me, because in many ways, I disagree with Luther on the canon, but I recognize his liberty to dispute books, a liberty that extends back to the early Church.

Jon

A liberty which ended with the final pronouncement at Hippo and Carthage. The fact that people do things doesn’t mean that they are doing it legitimately or that there is any validity to their actions or claims. I really don’t know how to state this any plainer than I already have.

 

[TertiumQuid]

His original edit of the bible did include the full set of books held in the Catholic Bible, but several Old Testament book, such as Second Maccabees and even the Gospel of Luke, were relegated to an appendix and noted by Luther as not having the same authoritative force as the “actual” Biblical cannon and he saw it.

Documentation on your claim about 'the gospel of Luke" in regard to Luther?

Thanks.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’ve been around the block a few times on this issue over the years. I’m simply going on information like the following:

1. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, and therefore didn’t speak for the entire church.

After the councils, the Pope at the time ratified their declarations, with minor revision, making them binding for the whole of the Church.

1. The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

Please cite a specific location in the Encyclopedia for this.

1. Then there’s the 1 & 2 Esdras problem, in which Hippo & Carthage canonized a different 1 Esdras than the council of Trent. Gary Michuta solves this problem by in essence arguing the canon is still open.

Again, please cite sources for this assertion.

A few years back I heard Tim staples say the canon was closed officially in 1442, so at this point, I think a definitive answer from an official source, would best document your view.

Sorry, but this is a hearsay assertion, so I can’t really place any faith in it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Documentation on your claim about 'the gospel of Luke" in regard to Luther?

Thanks.

My apologies, it was James’ Gospel, not Luke’s.

here is a non-Catholic writer (I think) discussing it: bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Here is a short response from EWTN: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=438095

I believe that Catholic Answers has a tract or two on the subject as well.

A final thought about your, and others’, assertion that the Council of Trent finalized the Biblical Canon. Trent reaffirmed the Canon which had been finalized at Hippo and Carthage, and which had been earlier reaffirmed at the Council of Florence. A reaffirmation is not equivalent to a finalization, and instead indicates that the list had been previously finalized and required a restatement of fact.

Unfortunately, I have to bow out of the discussion for the day. I highly suggest you pick up a copy of Where we Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. I linked to it earlier in the topic. It was written by an Anglican Reverend as a result of his historical research into the original of the Biblical Canon. I think Barnes and Nobles sells it for $2. It’s not super thick, but is very informative.

God Bless!

 

[TertiumQuid]

The Oxford Annotated Bible w Apocrypha, which I love because it has discussion in the beginning of each book, the status, where it is in the bible, and Esther it said Luther said “he’d wished the book was never written”

If “The Oxford Annotated Bible w Apocrypha” is using the quote I think they are, it’s actually a mis-translation of a Table Talk with the unfortunate insertion of the word “Esther.” I’d have to see the documentation.

There is only one vague comment from Luther negative towards Esther, found in his book The Bondage of the Will. Luther’s relevant opinions about the canon are found in his Bible prefaces. He translated Esther and included it with the canonical books, and offered no negative criticism in his preface. In one place in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular noncanonical parts of Esther, and places them with the other apocryphal writings:

“Preface to Parts of Esther and Daniel.Here follow several pieces which we did not wish to translate [and include] in the prophet Daniel and in the book of Esther. We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel and Esther)” [LW 35:353].

 

[TertiumQuid]

After the councils, the Pope at the time ratified their declarations, with minor revision, making them binding for the whole of the Church.

Thanks, I’d like some further documentation for that when you have a chance. No hurry.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states also, “only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.”

Please cite a specific location in the Encyclopedia for this.

It’s from the entry on the canon in the 1967 edition. I use the set in my local library.

Again, please cite sources for this assertion.

In regard to the Esdras problem, for both sides of the argument, see:

William Webster, Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. 2 (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001), 346-348.

Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), 240-241.

Sorry, but this is a hearsay assertion, so I can’t really place any faith in it.

I can appreciate this. I actually have the recording. Mr. Staples said it on the Bible Answer Man show in dialog with James White. It was from a 3 hour broadcast, and it is available online for free. I’d have to listen to all 3 hours again to locate the exact spot (and I don’t think I have the time to do this). On the other hand, I do have the clip isolated, and can send it as an e-mail to you if you’re interested.

Edited to add: OK, here is the snippet from the BAM show.

 

[TertiumQuid]

in many ways, I disagree with Luther on the canon, but I recognize his liberty to dispute books, a liberty that extends back to the early Church.
Jon

Great point. I would likewise say this.

The issue when Luther is brought up in venues like this on this sort of issue is that Luther is often presented as simply arriving at the positions he did by mere personal whim. One thing that’s needed in these historical discussions is to always check ourselves for anachronism. That’s why Cajetan, Erasmus, and even Cardinal Seripando and his group are so relevant.

I just said it in two other posts, but the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, around 400 AD. The fact that some individuals, even Cardinals, disputed the inclusion of certain books doesn’t mean that they were right to do so, or that the issue was not considered closed by the Church.

Seripando was part of group at Trent who spoke against including the deuterocanon. For those interested in Seripando’s views at Trent, track down,

Hubert Jedin, *Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent *(St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947).

If everything was as tidy as some in this discussion posit, the existence of a group of scholars at Trent arguing against the deuterocanon is quite strange.

 

[benjohnson]

The final Canon of Bible was ratified at the councils of Hippo and Carthage around 400 ad. All Trent did in regards to Biblical Canon was to denounce Luther’s edition with it’s modified Table of Contents. The documents are all available on the Vatican website. You might enjoy reading them.

If this is true that why do our Orthodox friends typically have more (or different) books than the western church? I think the Orthodox church in Ethiopia has us all beat with 81 books.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

The Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church, and no-one has the authority to add or remove anything to it.

Ummm, I think you’re forgetting that the Jews had something to do with it.

 

[benjohnson]

Here’s the weird bit - I’ve given several of my Baptists friends a copy of the the Lutheran Apocrypha with Study Notes and they all loved it.

The correct approach to this problem is “Hey! I heard you love the Bible… guess what… there’s more Bible!”

If Catholic keep presenting the Protestant world with the treasure that’s in thees books, I think the problem would be solved rather quickly.

 

[MaryT777]

That can only get you so far, especially when the other people, who suppossedly love Christ, support things in direct opposition to his teachings.

I’m sorry, but this is simply not true. The Canon of Scripture was finalized at the councils of Hippo and Carthage, in ~ 393 / 413 BC. The Catholic Bible has not changed since that day. While certain Catholics certainly have argued against inclusion of certain books, we have bishops today arguing in favor of rejecting Catholic dogmas like the indissolubility of Marriage, and the nature of Marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The fact that people chose to reject Catholic dogma doesn’t somehow mean that that dogma is in question. It just means that they’re too prideful to acknowledge that they are wrong.

His original edit of the bible did include the full set of books held in the Catholic Bible, but several Old Testament book, such as Second Maccabees and even the Gospel of Luke, were relegated to an appendix and noted by Luther as not having the same authoritative force as the “actual” Biblical cannon and he saw it. Later, with the printing of the King James’ version of the Bible, that appendix was removed, resulting in the Protestant edition of the Bible that exists today. (I think he may have relented on Luke and included it as an authoritative book in his initial print, I can’t remember offhand.)

The Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church, and no-one has the authority to add or remove anything to it. What is authoritative doesn’t magically change over the course of history, that is the nature of absolute Truth.

This is simply wrong. There is not a single piece of historical evidence which supports this viewpoint.

If you’re interested in learning about the actual history of the Bible and its compilation, then this book is excellent:

Where we got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church

It was written by an Anglican Reverend, Henry Graham, whom I believe converted to Catholicism as a result of his historical study on the origin of Biblical texts. I’m not sure if the book was finalized prior to his conversion, but I believe it was started before it. You can pick this book up for two bucks from Barnes and Noble.

God Bless

Well said,
Mary.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I was doing a Bible study in college that was non denominational, and I must say I felt like an outcast a lot of the time, because it was mainly Protestants there. I had my Catholic Bible and whenever I would ask about a line from say the Book of Tobit, they would look at me like I was crazy because it isn’t in their Bibles. So I did research and learned that the original Greek Septuagint contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible along with 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and Prayer of Manessah. According to tradition the Latin Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint however the copy Jerome had was missing the books which are in Orthodox Bibles but not in Catholic Bibles. That isn’t the point though, I read that Luther took these books out because he didn’t like them, and wanted to remove Esther, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation as well. Who did he think he was to say “Oh these books aren’t inspired because I say they aren’t” and shove them in the back of the Bible and call the Apocrypha. 2 Maccabees has the doctrine of purgatory in it. And I always thought the irony was that the story of Hanukah is in 1 Maccabees yet the Hebrew Bible doesn’t even accept it as canon.

Actually Luther’s translation had one MORE book than modern day RC bibles. He omitted nothing.

 

[JustaServant]

I was doing a Bible study in college that was non denominational, and I must say I felt like an outcast a lot of the time, because it was mainly Protestants there. I had my Catholic Bible and whenever I would ask about a line from say the Book of Tobit, they would look at me like I was crazy because it isn’t in their Bibles. So I did research and learned that the original Greek Septuagint contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible along with 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and Prayer of Manessah. According to tradition the Latin Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint however the copy Jerome had was missing the books which are in Orthodox Bibles but not in Catholic Bibles. That isn’t the point though, I read that Luther took these books out because he didn’t like them, and wanted to remove Esther, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation as well. Who did he think he was to say “Oh these books aren’t inspired because I say they aren’t” and shove them in the back of the Bible and call the Apocrypha. 2 Maccabees has the doctrine of purgatory in it. And I always thought the irony was that the story of Hanukah is in 1 Maccabees yet the Hebrew Bible doesn’t even accept it as canon.

You really know how to swing that baseball bat at the hornet’s nest, don’tcha?

 

[eazyduzit]

Here’s the weird bit - I’ve given several of my Baptists friends a copy of the the Lutheran Apocrypha with Study Notes and they all loved it.

The correct approach to this problem is “Hey! I heard you love the Bible… guess what… there’s more Bible!”

If Catholic keep presenting the Protestant world with the treasure that’s in thees books, I think the problem would be solved rather quickly.

I think not. We cannot add anything to the Bible even if other churches do. The last prophet was Malachi. There is much good and pius writing in apocryphal literature but it isn’t scripture. It adds no doctrines to scripture. All the authentic scriptures speak of Christ and things to come. The apocryphal literature contains no prophecy and doesn’t speak of Christ.

 

[benhur]

I was doing a Bible study in college that was non denominational, and I must say I felt like an outcast a lot of the time, because it was mainly Protestants there. I had my Catholic Bible and whenever I would ask about a line from say the Book of Tobit, they would look at me like I was crazy because it isn’t in their Bibles. So I did research and learned that the original Greek Septuagint contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible along with 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and Prayer of Manessah. According to tradition the Latin Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint however the copy Jerome had was missing the books which are in Orthodox Bibles but not in Catholic Bibles. That isn’t the point though, I read that Luther took these books out because he didn’t like them, and wanted to remove Esther, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation as well. Who did he think he was to say “Oh these books aren’t inspired because I say they aren’t” and shove them in the back of the Bible and call the Apocrypha. 2 Maccabees has the doctrine of purgatory in it. And I always thought the irony was that the story of Hanukah is in 1 Maccabees yet the Hebrew Bible doesn’t even accept it as canon.

Luther thought what other Catholics of his time thought , and even Jerome about some of the books. Regardless, Luther included all the NT books so what is the big deal, ? What he or Jerome prefaced each NT book with is insightful but not meant to be as “God-breathed” . Nice balance of conformity and freedom of thought.(though Jerome buckled to pressure and included other OT books)

As to the Hebrew bible, they never really canonized their bible at Jesus time or Septuagint time. Never thought of Septuagint as the “bible”, but a collection Jewish religious books, (as requested by a rich pagan “collector”, an Egyptian king for his Alexandrian library) most "God breathed’ but not all. Kind of like someone putting together a book of Christian writings, including the bible (before it’s canonization) but with Clements Letter and Shepherd of Hermas or epistle of Barnabus, the Didache etc etc. for a non believing “collector”.

Blessings

 

[mlz]

In my opinion the bottom line to this discussion is authority. Who has the authority to decide the canon of the Sacred Word (Bible)? It is and was the Holy Catholic Church and no person or group of persons (Luther and others) have authority on there own to decide what belongs in the Bible. To do so seems fairly arrogant and not respectful of the authority of the Church.(something quite evident in Luther)

mlz

 

[JonNC]

I think not. We cannot add anything to the Bible even if other churches do. The last prophet was Malachi. There is much good and pius writing in apocryphal literature but it isn’t scripture. It adds no doctrines to scripture. All the authentic scriptures speak of Christ and things to come. The apocryphal literature contains no prophecy and doesn’t speak of Christ.

Implied here is the idea that Catholics, EO, OO and others are adding to scripture. This is not supported by history, as the previously mentioned councils at Hippo, Carthage, and Rome show.
I agree with Ben, the value of the DC books is far greater than English speaking western nonCatholics, including Lutherans, have historically recognized.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Implied here is the idea that Catholics, EO, OO and others are adding to scripture. This is not supported by history, as the previously mentioned councils at Hippo, Carthage, and Rome show.
I agree with Ben, the value of the DC books is far greater than English speaking western nonCatholics, including Lutherans, have historically recognized.

Jon

One hastens to point out that the Church of England’s Prayer Book and the Authorised Version of the Bible do contain the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. The Articles say they are to be used by the Church but not to teach any doctrine (not found in the undisputed canon).

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Seripando was part of group at Trent who spoke against including the deuterocanon. For those interested in Seripando’s views at Trent, track down,

Hubert Jedin, *Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent *(St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947).

If everything was as tidy as some in this discussion posit, the existence of a group of scholars at Trent arguing against the deuterocanon is quite strange.

I don’t understand why you keep asserting that it’s strange. It’s really not. There has been dissension in the ranks for the entire history of the Church, right up to Jesus’s Apostles themselves. As I stated before, even today we have a group of Bishops actively promoting things which are 100% contrary to the defined and unchangeable Dogmas of the Church. That doesn’t make them right, nor does it mean that issue isn’t a closed one in the eyes of the Church.

I don’t mean to be offensive, but you really don’t seem to understand that just because someone is arguing about something doesn’t mean that it’s not a settled matter. (Refer to my previous example about Holocaust deniers.) The whole reason that Church was forced to reaffirm the canon was because there were people arguing about it. If there’s not argument about an issue the Church generally doesn’t take an official stand. If you review the documents from the Councils of Trent, Florence, and Carthage, you will find that all three asserted the same list of books for Biblical Canon; and that Florence and Trent were simply reaffirmations of a something which had already been defined, the inclusion of which was necessary due to either a contemporary misunderstanding, or outright rejection, of Church teachings. (Note, I admit that the Carthage list may have slight deviations which were corrected prior to official proclamation by Pope Damasus; I’m not sure if it does or not, and unfortunately do not know the name of the official document of proclamation made by the Pope. I’m sure you could find it on the Vatican website though.)

If this is true that why do our Orthodox friends typically have more (or different) books than the western church? I think the Orthodox church in Ethiopia has us all beat with 81 books.

To be honest, I know next to nothing about the development of the Orthodox Bible. However, I would posit that, upon rejecting the authority of the Pope they no longer felt any need to adhere to the Biblical Canon as defined by the Church, similar to Martin Luther. Without the core authority to draw from, they may have added in several books which had been more prominently circulated and read in the Eastern territories, but which had been rejected by the Councils.

Ummm, I think you’re forgetting that the Jews had something to do with it.

No I’m not. The Jewish Canon is not the Bible. As the fulfillment of the Judaic Covenant, we of course would continue to use the religious texts of Judaic, and we certainly owe them a great deal for that, but they did not give us the Biblical Canon, which is what I am referring to in this discussion.