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

[Duane1966]

Sorry for the delay in responding, hope you are well.

Hi Duane1966,

I’ve been waiting for you to actually post something in response to something I posted specifically. I appreciate you commenting on the Esdras problem. In response, I would suggest you reference Gary Michuta’s book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007). See page 238-243. See specifically the last paragraph on page 240 on the Capita Dubitationum (2007 edition).

Thanks.

Edited to add: Your article from the Catholic Legate by John Betts was written in response to William Webster. Have you read Webster’s response to Betts?

Yes. Did you read Betts response to Webster’s response?

I’m trying to avoid cut-and-pastes. while I appreciate your efforts, I’m good with just a summary statement from you and a link to what you think is meaningful.** I’d rather interact with you, not an excessive amount of cut-and-pasted text**.

Could not the same be said of this post by you? Why didn’t you just give us the link?

Another fascinating tidbit is a closer look at the Bible available to Auguistine, Hippo, and Carthage. It included 1 and 2 Esdras. 1 Esdras was the spurious additions to Ezra and Nehemiah. 2 Esdras was the Jewish (or regular, familiar) version of Ezra-Nehemiah that we’re used to. Jerome then separated Ezra and Nehemiah, calling them 1 and 2 Esdras, dumping the original 1 Esdras out of the doctrine-establishing canon. Fast forward to Trent: Trent declares Jerome’s version of 1 & 2 Esdras to be canonical, and disregards the original 1 Esdras that Augustine, Hippo, and Carthage had. So in essence, Hippo, Carthage, and Augustine had a different canon than Trent.

Gary Michuta Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007)], resolves this dilemma by asserting Trent “passed over in silence” the spurious book of Esdras in question. I’m not completely sure if Michuta’s assertion is correct, but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant it is. He’s solved one problem and created another. The possibility now exists that the book in question is canonical, but not in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. It would also mean, the canon is still theoretically open. Michuta notes that 42 people at Trent voted to pass over the book in silence. If Michuta is correct on his interpretation of Trent, these 42 people solved the problem of the contradiction between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, but created the problem of an unclosed canon, and uncertainty in regard to the canon.

The Catholic Catechism says, “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament…”

If Michuta is correct, is the Catechism is wrong?

No. Recall that the part of Esdras in question was in the Latin Vulgate but clearly delineated as apocryphal. By passing over in silence, Trent allowed it to stay in the Vulgate as is. Meaning, it was okay to be read, but not to be viewed as canonical (canonical meaning read in the liturgy). If Trent had rejected that part, then it would have been taken out of the Vulgate, something that Trent felt was unnecessary.

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.

Already been answered in my earlier post. Every reason to believe that the 1 Esdras in question at Hippo and Carthage is actually Ezra.

So this statement from Damasus didn’t actually come from Damasus.

Actually your quote from F. F. Bruce said it appears that Damasus didn’t make the statement. Bruce did not definitively say that it did not come from Damasus.

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.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/did_nicea_II_confirm_the_canon_of_Carthage.php

 

[brandonmorris]

Dido on that Prod also check out the early church fathers and there statements on the Catholic canon of Scriptures. The canon that we have now has always been the same since the time it was first canonized.

 

[JonNC]

Dido on that Prod also check out the early church fathers and there statements on the Catholic canon of Scriptures. The canon that we have now has always been the same since the time it was first canonized.

The ECF’s had varying views of what was and what wasn’t canon.

Jon

Note: The link is just one of many online. Marlowe is not Lutheran, and I don’t necessarily endorse all of what he says.

 

[rcwitness]

The ECF’s had varying views of what was and what wasn’t canon.

Jon

Hey Jon,

That’s true, but there was a point of fixation, correct?

I’m not really sure what was lacking in the councils which dealt with determining what books were to be regarded as Sacred Scripture.

We should all agree that in many issues the father’s sometimes had various interpretations. Whether this was always flat out contradictions or just expressing multiple meanings over things is something to consider.

But with books considered Scripture, yes, there were some varience among individuals. That’s why eventually the Church chose to Confirm through council. But maybe the records of that council were lost and so in light of the reformation demanding Scripture to uphold Church leader’s behavior and to question it’s doctrine, the Church felt an official canon needed to be decreed.

So it was, and taken from the consensus of what was gathered from the councils, fathers, and most widely accepted I imagine.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon,

That’s true, but there was a point of fixation, correct?

I’m not really sure what was lacking in the councils which dealt with determining what books were to be regarded as Sacred Scripture.

We should all agree that in many issues the father’s sometimes had various interpretations. Whether this was always flat out contradictions or just expressing multiple meanings over things is something to consider.

But with books considered Scripture, yes, there were some varience among individuals. That’s why eventually the Church chose to Confirm through council. But maybe the records of that council were lost and so in light of the reformation demanding Scripture to uphold Church leader’s behavior and to question it’s doctrine, the Church felt an official canon needed to be decreed.

So it was, and taken from the consensus of what was gathered from the councils, fathers, and most widely accepted I imagine.

Hi Michael,
And yet there remained differences within the Church Catholic even prior to the Reformation.
I think you know I am rather positive about the DC books, but ISTM Brandon’s statement doesn’t square with the history of the canon.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

The ECF’s had varying views of what was and what wasn’t canon.

Jon

Note: The link is just one of many online. Marlowe is not Lutheran, and I don’t necessarily endorse all of what he says.

That’s true but the Church determines the Canon with guidance by the Holy Spirit unto all truth. That there are various opinions is to be expected.

Mary.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Michael,
And yet there remained differences within the Church Catholic even prior to the Reformation.
I think you know I am rather positive about the DC books, but ISTM Brandon’s statement doesn’t square with the history of the canon.

Jon

Right, and yes I know you approve of the Catholic canon.

What should be understood, is that prior to Trent (regardless of the reformation) there wasn’t an official canon. The Church generally accepted what was to be officially recognized as Scripture with veneration all along, but it was not binding to not have certain slight differences of opinion until Trent.

This is not as extreme a matter for Catholics because we never professed Sola Scriptura. So whether this book or that was debated before Trent authorative pronouncement, the Church always had the final say over interpretation anyway.

 

[brandonmorris]

Also one thing to consider the primacy of the Holy See of Rome to finalize the canon as we have it today to be followed by all the faithful. However I wonder what St.Peter would have agreed with most certainly the Septuagint .Hmmmmm (pondering on that thought )

 

[MaryT777]

Right, and yes I know you approve of the Catholic canon.

What should be understood, is that prior to Trent (regardless of the reformation) there wasn’t an official canon. The Church generally accepted what was to be officially recognized as Scripture with veneration all along, but it was not binding to have certain slight differences of opinion until Trent.

This is not as extreme a matter for Catholics because we never professed Sola Scriptura. So whether this book or that was debated before Trent authorative pronouncement, the Church always had the final say over interpretation anyway.

Yes, and also it doesn’t matter if a confessional Lutheran “approves” of the Catholic Canon or not or any other Protestant for that matter.

Mary.

 

[rcwitness]

But here is so thing I find interesting…

There was a significant change which did occur at the declaration of the complete canon of Scripture!

The accepting of non-Catholic Christians as brothers and sisters through the communion of the Written Word and Baptism.

Once the Canon was determined ed and set, it’s as though the body of Scripture was given more power, even from a Catholic perspective. The Church recognized a real (though imperfect) communion in genuine veneration of Scripture as a whole!

 

[rcwitness]

And on the other hand, the reformers tried to develop a doctrine which relied solely on the existence of a body of Scripture, yet didn’t have an undisputed canon to rely on.

So the Church gave one, and some rejected the DC’S from it.

Just funny business really.

 

[rcwitness]

Maybe a good question is how did Sola Scripturists come up with their official canon? Was it a council? Who participated in this council?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

But here is so thing I find interesting…

There was a significant change which did occur at the declaration of the complete canon of Scripture!

The accepting of non-Catholic Christians as brothers and sisters through the communion of the Written Word and Baptism.

Once the Canon was determined ed and set, it’s as though the body of Scripture was given more power, even from a Catholic perspective. The Church recognized a real (though imperfect) communion in genuine veneration of Scripture as a whole!

Would you say then that these decisions hastened the split between the Western and Byzantine Churches, since they agree neither on the theology nor content of the canon? Were the Byzantine and other Eastern Churches at that point set outside this “real communion” (that only furthered division)?

 

[JonNC]

That’s true but the Church determines the Canon with guidance by the Holy Spirit unto all truth. That there are various opinions is to be expected.

Mary.

And even now, the Church has differing canons of scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes, and also it doesn’t matter if a confessional Lutheran “approves” of the Catholic Canon or not or any other Protestant for that matter.

Mary.

I don’t believe that that was the intent of Michael’s comment. And I certainly didn’t make such a claim.
It also doesn’t matter if an individual Catholic approves of a confessional Lutheran 's view

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Maybe a good question is how did Sola Scripturists come up with their official canon? Was it a council? Who participated in this council?

The Lutherans use the 73-74 book canon because we value tradition , and the church fathers.
The Reformeds , Adventists , Anabaptists use a 66 book canon because of the fact that the church fathers disagree on the canon .

The Anglicans and Weslyans are somewhere in between , holding to a canon of 66 books plus “secondary books”

 

[MaryT777]

I don’t believe that that was the intent of Michael’s comment. And I certainly didn’t make such a claim.
It also doesn’t matter if an individual Catholic approves of a confessional Lutheran 's view

Jon

It SHOULD matter to a confessional Lutheran spending a huge amount of time on a Catholic forum when there are obviously Lutheran forums to post and fellowship on.
We don’t have any other confessional Lutherans with thousands of posts here.

The Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth regarding the Canon and also all matters of faith and morals.

Take off your Lutheran hat and listen and learn and be led to the truth.

There comes a moment when one is visiting and one is proselytizing but noting every time it ALSO DOESN"T MATTER IF A CATHOLIC BELIEVES IN CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANISM>

This isn’t a Lutheran site.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

It SHOULD matter to a confessional Lutheran spending a huge amount of time on a Catholic forum when there are obviously Lutheran forums to post and fellowship on.
We don’t have any other confessional Lutherans with thousands of posts here.

The Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth regarding the Canon and also all matters of faith and morals.

Take off your Lutheran hat and listen and learn and be led to the truth.

There comes a moment when one is visiting and one is proselytizing but noting every time it ALSO DOESN"T MATTER IF A CATHOLIC BELIEVES IN CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANISM>

This isn’t a Lutheran site.

Mary.

No, Mary. This is the Non Catholic Religions forum where we are welcome to share are various faiths. Check with Eric to see if I am wrong.
If you think I am proselytizing I insist you click that little red and white triangle. I haven’t tried to convince anyone here to become Lutheran- ever.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

I haven’t tried to convince anyone here to become Lutheran- ever.

Jon

I agree with Jon on this point.

Jon, my question here…after lurking a bit : since the Lutheran canon is formally open, do you know if Lutheran - Catholic dialogue is discussing the number of inspired books in the canon?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I agree with Jon on this point.

Jon, my question here…after lurking a bit : since the Lutheran canon is formally open, do you know if Lutheran - Catholic dialogue is discussing the number of inspired books in the canon?

I will try to answer the question although I’m nowhere near as good at this as Jon is , there is currently no not official dialogue on the subject of the canon ( that I know of ) , however some Lutherans like myself accept the deuterocanonical books , and I pray that there would be fruitful dialogue grounded in the truth on the matter.