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

[JonNC]

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

The authority (even in the western Church)in Luther’s time and before, before Trent, allowed for dispute regarding these books.
Do you believe Luther was disobedient to Church authority when he included the Prayer of Manasseh in his translation?
Are the EO and OO churches disobedient to church authority when they include other books?

When there is a truly ecumenical council (as these hold the true Church authority) that establishes and defines the canon for the Universal Church, I will accept that authoritative canon.
Jon

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The authority (even in the western Church)in Luther’s time and before, before Trent, allowed for dispute regarding these books.

… I really don’t know how many times I’m going to have to repeat myself… I think this may be the last time I’m willing to.

No.

It.

Didn’t.

There was dispute; but that is a far cry from the Church allowing it, or entertaining the notion that Biblical Canon was in error.

[quyote]
Do you believe Luther was disobedient to Church authority when he included the Prayer of Manasseh in his translation?

Um… yes. Why wouldn’t we? He was in schism with the Church, which means that he is not obedient to Her. What point are you trying to make?

Are the EO and OO churches disobedient to church authority when they include other books?

Same question as above. The Orthodox churches are in schism with Catholicism, which implies disobedience… You’re basically asking if we think the people who disagree with us disagree with us. The question is answered by the premise.

When there is a truly ecumenical council (as these hold the true Church authority) that establishes and defines the canon for the Universal Church, I will accept that authoritative canon.
Jon

The ecumenical councils still require ratification by the Pope. If that ratification is not received, the council is not held as binding. On the other side, a regional council which does receive ratification by the Pope (such as Hippo / Carthage) is binding. Also, Florence was an ecumenical council, and it reaffirmed the Canon prior to the second reaffirmation at Trent.

 

[Kmon23]

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.)

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.

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.

Regarding the Eastern Churches, it would be an incorrect assumption to say we changed our biblical canon after rejecting the authority of the pope since we have used the same canon since the beginning (mainly based on the Septuagint). So even before the schism, we have always held to a different canon. The councils of Hippo and Carthage did not concern the eastern churches but were probably seen by the Eastern churches at the time as regional councils that were only binding on the Western churches, and likewise the Western church were not bound by the eastern councils (except the 7 Eastern ecumenical councils which we agree are binding on us all).

And it’s not just the Byzantine and Roman church with the Septuagint vs. the western defined canon. The Syriac look toward the Peshetto and the Ethiopians have the largest Canon based on their Tradition. And the differences in the canons existed without much issue even before the schism. **Even in the Catholic Church today under the Pope, there are differing canons within the different Eastern sui iuris Catholic churches. **

I have heard that Trent’s declaration on the canon is somewhat open ended and thus does not exclude other books from possibly being in the canon, and only specified the minimum of what must be accepted. Likewise from a Catholic point of view, the Pope Damasus’s declaration and Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage only say what is scripture, and not what isn’t (if we really are applying the modern view of infallibility on the past). This definitely explains how Eastern Catholics have larger canons than their western counterparts.

However that doesn’t mean what Luther did isn’t problematic as it should be decided by the whole church (local or universal) as a conciliar matter. And until the church (local or universal) accepts something, we should not be unilaterally doing our own thing, which Luther did. So even from the Orthodox view, I do think what he did is improper/incorrect at best.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Upon further examination and reading, I’d like to make a post of clarification.

The Council of Trent: Definition of the Canon, 1546

I acknowledge that it was not until the Council of Trent that the official declaration of finality was made. However, as with pretty much all final declarations, this was only done because a shift in contemporary culture made it necessary. Trent upheld the Canon which was ratified after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and upheld at Florence.

I would like to point out, however, that the fact that an official declaration was not made prior to Trent is more indicative that there was a lack of need, rather than a lack of decision. Consider, as a more contemporary example, the Papal declaration of the Assumption of Mary. This has been a long standing tradition in the Church since the days of the Apostles (I believe it was spoken of by multiple Apostolic and Early Church Fathers); it was only when there was an exterior force which compelled action that an official declaration was made. (There was a widespread misunderstanding of the Church’s teachings on Mary which has, unfortunately, persisted to today in Protestant circles.) Similarly, while there was debate on the issue, Martin Luther was the first instance in which the Church leaders saw an actual need to make an official declaration.

I apologize for any misstatements I made on this issue, but would again like to reiterate that the lack of an official declaration in not paramount to a lack of cohesion or finality.

From the linked article:

To meet this radical departure of the Protestants, and as well define clearly the inspired sources from which the Catholic Faith draws its defense, the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as “sacred and canonical” all the books of the Old and New Testaments “with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition”. During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scriptures. Neither—and this is remarkable—in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition.

I would also direct you to this portion of the article: The Period of Fixation: c. A.D. 367-405 which outlines the finalization of New Testament Canon, along with the inclusion of OT Canon.

 

[steido01]

Upon further examination and reading, I’d like to make a post of clarification.
I acknowledge that it was not until the Council of Trent that the official declaration of finality was made.

There you go.

However, as with pretty much all final declarations, this was only done because a shift in contemporary culture made it necessary. Trent upheld the Canon which was **ratified **after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and upheld at Florence.

I think it’s important that we don’t use words like “ratified” to describe these local councils. Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that these local synods were not, in fact, ecumenical councils.

I would like to point out, however, that the fact that an official declaration was not made prior to Trent is more indicative that there was a lack of need, rather than a lack of decision.

Precisely. Luther, and other Catholics of the time, were free to disagree - though the matter had generally reached consensus. Their personal views were neither “wrong,” nor the cause of the 66-book canon used by many (not all!) of today’s Protestants.

Consider, as a more contemporary example, the Papal declaration of the Assumption of Mary. This has been a long standing tradition in the Church since the days of the Apostles (I believe it was spoken of by multiple Apostolic and Early Church Fathers); it was only when there was an exterior force which compelled action that an official declaration was made.

That’s not entirely true; our Orthodox friends’ understanding of the Dormition is somewhat different from Catholic understanding of the Assumption. Some would say that the Orthodox view predates the Latin one.

(There was a widespread misunderstanding of the Church’s teachings on Mary which has, unfortunately, persisted to today in Protestant circles.)

Of that, there is no doubt.

Similarly, while there was debate on the issue, Martin Luther was the first instance in which the Church leaders saw an actual need to make an official declaration.

Let’s not overstep here, either. Luther was certainly not the first to dispute these books, and the local councils you mentioned earlier wouldn’t have made their local rulings if they didn’t have reason to do so. It’s easy to blame all Christian issues on a little German monk, but it is also quite silly.

I apologize for any misstatements I made on this issue, but would again like to reiterate that the lack of an official declaration in not paramount to a lack of cohesion or finality.

I understand the general gist of what you mean very well. In fact, this is precisely how Lutherans can identify what the bible is, without ever listing which books belong. I’d only caution you, again, about adding that portion I bolded - general cohesion is not the same as finality. And regarding the Roman Catholic Canon, that did not happen until Trent.

From the linked article:
To meet this radical departure of the Protestants, and as well define clearly the inspired sources from which the Catholic Faith draws its defense, the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as “sacred and canonical” all the books of the Old and New Testaments “with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition”. During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scriptures. Neither—and this is remarkable—in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition.

Virtually. Not “finally” or “officially.” That is significant. I was “virtually” married when I was engaged to my now-wife. But I wasn’t finally and officially married until we said our vows and did what married people do. History, like marriage, is a deep and wonderful thing; it deserves a full, honest, and true effort.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There you go.

I know you didn’t mean it, but this comes off as incredibly condescending >_>

I think it’s important that we don’t use words like “ratified” to describe these local councils. Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that these local synods were not, in fact, ecumenical councils.

No, but when they were completed, the Pope supported their decision, which is paramount to ratification.

Precisely. Luther, and other Catholics of the time, were free to disagree - though the matter had generally reached consensus. Their personal views were neither “wrong,” nor the cause of the 66-book canon used by many (not all!) of today’s Protestants.

An arguable point. I would say that he was wrong to pronounce certain books as no longer binding and authoritative, despite lacking the authority to do so, and heavily based on a misunderstanding of historical Jewish Canon and personal view on theological matters.

That’s not entirely true; our Orthodox friends’ understanding of the Dormition is somewhat different from Catholic understanding of the Assumption. Some would say that the Orthodox view predates the Latin one.

Not to be rude, but you can say it all you want, that doesn’t make it true. That is of little consequence though. Dormition is the belief that Mary died a natural death, and her body was assumed into Heaven. This differs from Catholic theology in that they explicitly claim she died prior to her assumption, whereas the Catholic Church has not taken a stance on the position either way. We are free to believe that she died prior to her assumption, or we are free to believe that she was assumed just prior to her death.

Let’s not overstep here, either. Luther was certainly not the first to dispute these books, and the local councils you mentioned earlier wouldn’t have made their local rulings if they didn’t have reason to do so. It’s easy to blame all Christian issues on a little German monk, but it is also quite silly.

I am not blaming Luther for everything, simply noting him as the final catalyst that resulted in action. The straw the broke the camel’s back, if you will. AS for the earlier councils, you are correct. There was a great deal of question about which book held authority and which didn’t in the early Church. The councils of Hippo and Carthage sought to address this issue, and did so. Their efforts and conclusions were blessed by the Pope, and the final edition of the Bible we know today was compiled. (Excluding translations, of course. I’m referring specifically to the table of contents) This finalized version is what was read from shortly after the councils (to account for dissemination of the text and a margin of time to correct misunderstandings about the use of the now-non-Biblical texts), up through the Protestant Reformation with the King James version of the Bible. It is what is still read by Catholics today.

I understand the general gist of what you mean very well. In fact, this is precisely how Lutherans can identify what the bible is, without ever listing which books belong. I’d only caution you, again, about adding that portion I bolded - general cohesion is not the same as finality. And regarding the Roman Catholic Canon, that did not happen until Trent.

The canon was ratified by the Pope in the 400’s. It would depend on the specific manner in which he ratified it, I’m not familiar enough with the actual texts to say either way; but generally the ratification of a council, local or otherwise, gives binding authority to the decisions of that council. This would mean that it was a declaration of finality, not open to change.

Virtually. Not “finally” or “officially.” That is significant. I was “virtually” married when I was engaged to my now-wife. But I wasn’t finally and officially married until we said our vows and did what married people do. History, like marriage, is a deep and wonderful thing; it deserves a full, honest, and true effort.

Quite true.

---

I’m afraid I have to drop out of this debate. It’s taking up a bit too much of my focus, and I’m at work >_>

It has been fun discussing this with everyone, I’ve learned quite a bit on both sides of the issue.

God Bless!

 

[TertiumQuid]

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.)

No, your not coming off as offensive. Here’s the thing to try and help you understand my point of view: you are an anonymous person on the Internet (which is OK, as far it goes, I get that). You have your own interpretation of history. I get that also- but I would say your interpretation is anachronistic. The historical evidence shows that the status of the deuterocanon was not dogmatically settled for the Catholic church until Trent.

Earlier you asked me for documentation about my citation from 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.

Now, given the choice of accepting the opinion of anonymous person’s interpretation of history posted on a discussion forum, or believing a document with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which is more reasonable to trust as an accurate interpretation of history?

This quote come from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III Can to Col (New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1967), 29.

Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen, M.A., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur: Patrick O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 5, 1966

See the document for yourself:

The “Canon” entry on page 29.

, from vol. IIINihil Obstat**Imprimatur.

What I find fascinating in discussions like these is that Catholics appear to be much more interested in attacking Luther on the canon than following and adhering to the authority paradigm of the Catholic church. If the church speaks dogmatically, then it’s settled. Till then, it’s not.

Is it so hard to let the “Luther / canon” issue go and simply say, “Trent settled it, and that’s good enough”?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Upon further examination and reading, I’d like to make a post of clarification.

The Council of Trent: Definition of the Canon, 1546

OK, I posted my last comment before I saw your retraction.

I acknowledge that it was not until the Council of Trent that the official declaration of finality was made. However, as with pretty much all final declarations, this was only done because a shift in contemporary culture made it necessary. Trent upheld the Canon which was ratified after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and upheld at Florence.

Once again, I think your interpretation is anachronistic. As I understand the historicity and canonicity of the deuterocanon, there were two traditions concurrent in the church, and one tradition finally won over the other at Trent.

 

[TertiumQuid]

(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.).

One last comment- and that in regard to Pope Damasus. In the decree on the Canon, Damasus is reported as saying:

“…the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Here we can infer that the statement on the Canon issued by Damasus is infallible because the Church and Pope speak infallibly. But here is a rarely cited fact- the statement above, and indeed, the entire statement from Damasus listing the Canonical books, probably didn’t come from Damasus. F.F. Bruce notes,

“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 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. (Source: F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988], p. 97)

So this statement from Damasus didn’t actually come from Damasus. In fact, as far as I know, there isn’t a written formal record of the proceedings at the Council of Rome to have certainty exactly what was said or decreed. Much historical speculation then surrounds the decree of the Canon by Damasus.

 

[pablope]

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. n 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.

Well…look at this statement from one of the posters…“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.”

The general protestant mindset is that they are their own popes…though they do not realize it.

 

[pablope]

Which ecumenical council, then, did declare the canon prior to Luther’s era, because Cardinal Cajetan did not understand the case to be closed. He says:

If we deny Luther his liberty to dispute certain books, as had been done throughout the history of the Church, then we must deny many Catholics theirs, including Cardinal Cajetan.
I personally see no need to do so, as at the time, the Church did not deny this liberty.

Jon

Well…Jon…from your quote from Cardinal Cajetan…he seems to be saying he agrees with Augustine at Carthage…he is not disputing the DCs:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

He is stating these books are “canonical”…so where does he says he is disputing the canon here in the quote you provided?

 

[pablope]

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.

So what if these were local councils…does this make these councils of no value at all then?

Seems to be that the canons done at Rome and Hippo and Carthage were based on the canons of Rome and Alexandria:

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

To “start the ball rolling” on this, Pope Damasus promoted a Biblical canon which was a synthesis of the canon of the city-church of Rome and that of the city-church of Alexandria --the two leading city-churches of the universal Church. Damasus then turned this proposed canon over to the bishops of North Africa for analysis and debate. And he did this for four reasons:

North Africa was not part of the theology schools of either Alexandria or Antioch, which were the two intellectual factions that had caused the Arian controversy.
North Africa had the most bishops per capita of anywhere in the universal Church at the time, so they would reflect a good sample of universal opinion among the bishops.
The North African Church had a traditional custom of meeting in council (either at Carthage or at Hippo) every two years, which would give them the ability to hash things out effectively; and
Many of the North African bishops were renowned scholars, such as St. Augustine of Hippo, who participated in the debate and helped to formulate the canon.

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

 

[pablope]

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.

view.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397).

Looks like Nicea II took care of the issue of an ecumenical council.

 

[pablope]

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.

It depends on what you understand by “canonical”…you have a different understanding of what is canonical from what an orthodox means by canonical:

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a “canonical book” should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is “not canonical.” …because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, “canonical” does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is “not inspired” and/or “not binding” on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.

 

[TertiumQuid]

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

*Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), *both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397).

Looks like Nicea II took care of the issue of an ecumenical council.

In which was was it recognized? Are there statements from Nicea II, in regard to the canon? I have Gary Michuta’s book in front on me right now, he addresses Nicea II on page 192, and he does not mention this, which is quite odd since he has the most complete current book on the Catholic canon.

 

[rnmvrck]

I think this is the wrong question as the Catholic Church added these books as authoritative, inspired canon at the Council of Trent. These books among other lost writings were never part of the inspired canon by the early Church, either Jews or Christians. Jerome, who wrote the Vulgate, among many other theologians of that time rejected the scriptural inspiration of these books. In fact, these books did not appear the Septuagint until the 4th century and there was much controversy and arguing with the Church as to these books being part of the inspired Cannon. They were kept on the list because they were considered good reading, but never added to catholic Bible as inspired Canon until the Council of Trent.

If you want to hear the objections to including these as official inspired scriptural Canon, here is a reference (rr-bb.com/showthread.php?80420-The-book-of-Tobit) to non-catholic view as Lutherans are not the only ones who elected not to make it part of the Canon. Not sure about Martin Luther, but the reason the books were dropped was because many felt these books would confuse many who might think they are inspired.
Because they are not Scripture it is wrong to have them bound in a single volume with Holy Scripture. Doing so will only mislead believers. The Bible ought to contain only those books that were authoritative, inspired and inerrant.

1. Jesus nor any of the apostles ever taught from an old testament Bible that contained these books. There are no direct quotes, references to these books in the NT.
2. The Old Testament was complete in the first century. Jesus put His stamp of approval on the books of the Hebrew Old Testament but said nothing concerning the Apocrypha. Jesus did say that the Scriptures were the inerrant, inspired, and authoritative Word of God and they could not be broken. Any adding to that which God has revealed is denounced in the strongest of terms. See Rev 22:18-19, Duet: 4-12, matt 15:3, matt 5:18, matt 12:32, Gal 1: 9-10, Proverbs 30:5-6, Luke 24:25,27 I am sure there are other places.
   .
3. The Bible is an integrated message system that authentic itself by writing history in advance. There is no evidence of these Apocryphal books are inspired and part of that message system where Jesus is concealed in the OT, and revealed in the NT. You take these books out and they add nothing of value to the message of the old or new testament. Two thirds of the Bible is prophetic, and these books contain nothing to make them the inspired word of God. They have historical value, but not scriptural value. Just look at the historical errors alone in these books.
4. These books were never accepted by Jews in either Jerusalem nor is there any evidence any other Jews accepted these books as inspired “Old testament” scripture, i.e., Jews in Alexandria for example.
5. Words of Jesus himself MATT 23:34:36 … Abel and Zechariah are the first and last messengers of God … etc. Also, Matt 15:3 Word of God could not be broken.

 

[JonNC]

=rnmvrck;13180985]I think this is the wrong question as the Catholic Church added these books as authoritative, inspired canon at the Council of Trent. These books among other lost writings were never part of the inspired canon by the early Church, either Jews or Christians. Jerome, who wrote the Vulgate, among many other theologians of that time rejected the scriptural inspiration of these books. In fact, these books did not appear the Septuagint until the 4th century and there was much controversy and arguing with the Church as to these books being part of the inspired Cannon. They were kept on the list because they were considered good reading, but never added to catholic Bible as inspired Canon until the Council of Trent.

If you want to hear the objections to including these as official inspired scriptural Canon, here is a reference (rr-bb.com/showthread.php?80420-The-book-of-Tobit) to non-catholic view **as Lutherans are not the only ones who elected not to make it part of the Canon. Not sure about Martin Luther, but the reason the books were dropped was because many felt these books would confuse many who might think they are inspired. **
Because they are not Scripture it is wrong to have them bound in a single volume with Holy Scripture. Doing so will only mislead believers. The Bible ought to contain only those books that were authoritative, inspired and inerrant.

I see an inconsistency in your argument, which I have bolded. You claim on the first that the CC “added” and were never part of the canon, and yet in the second paragraph you say that Luther “dropped” them.

That means Luther dropped them before Trent added them.

This is the problem with the language of added and dropped. I don’t believe either to be the case. The DC books have been part of the scriptural history of the Christian religion since the early Church. They are in all of the EO canons, as well as the Catholic Church.
Further, they have also been in dispute since the early Church, though the majority view has always held them as part of the canon.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well…Jon…from your quote from Cardinal Cajetan…he seems to be saying he agrees with Augustine at Carthage…he is not disputing the DCs:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

He is stating these books are “canonical”…so where does he says he is disputing the canon here in the quote you provided?

If one uses Cajetan’s definition of canon that you’ve highlighted, Lutherans can view them as canonical, as well. Historically, we have read from in liturgy, used them in our hymnody, and we should be using them to teach from, as even Luther reminds us.

So the question becomes what do we mean by canon? If we accept Cajetan’s point here, then Catholics and Lutherans can agree on their place in the canon.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;13180735]

So what if these were local councils…does this make these councils of no value at all then?

Oh, absolutely not! They are of great value, and those non-Catholics who claim that the Catholic Church “added” books at Trent need to reread these councils, and recognize their historical significance.
But they were not binding on the whole Church even at that time. They were not ecumenical.

Jon

 

[jas84173]

Well…look at this statement from one of the posters…“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.”

The general protestant mindset is that they are their own popes…though they do not realize it.

The book of Judges and Chronicles doesn’t speak of prophesy, they are historical books, that is what the Maccabees books are. Also there are Psalms that are definitely post Malachi, speaking about longing for the temple to be rebuilt, so if those are scripture there is no reason why they can’t be. If Ruth and Esther can be scripture there is no reason Tobit and Judith can’t be.