And
Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for
Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read
the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament,
these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,”
the
latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the
apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)
^
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran,
these
included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their
library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old
Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for
an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special
parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed
as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd ^
▀ Council
of Jamnia
Many refer to a
Council of Jamnia as authoritatively setting the Hebrew canon
around 100 A.D., but modern research research no longer considers
that to be the case, or that there even was a council, while some
scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the
Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.). —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
Robert C. Newman
writes,
Among
those who believe the Old Testament to be a revelation from the
Creator, it has traditionally been maintained that the books
composing this collection were in themselves sacred writings from
the moment of their completion, that they were quickly recognized
as such, and that the latest of these were written several
centuries before the beginning of our era.
The
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest
extant witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti-
Semite Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he says:
“We
do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with
each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited,
are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....”
— Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)
On
the basis of later Christian testimony, the twenty-two books
mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as our
thirty-nine,2 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being
counted as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a
unit, and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamentations
each being taken as one book. This agrees with the impression
conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the Pharisees, and
the Palestinian Jewish community in general seem to understand by
the term "Scripture" some definite body of sacred
writings."
"...the
pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D.
1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated
publicly since Ezra's time."
Newman concludes,
"In
this paper we have attempted to study the rabbinical activity at
Jamnia in view of liberal theories regarding its importance in
the formation of the Old Testament canon. I believe the following
conclusions are defensible in the light of this study. The city
of Jamnia had both a rabbinical school (Beth ha- Midrash) and
court (Beth Din, Sanhedrin) during the period A.D. 70-135, if not
earlier. There is no conclusive evidence for any other rabbinical
convocations there. The extent of the sacred Scriptures was one
of many topics discussed at Jamnia, probably both in the school
and in the court, and probably more than once. However, this
subject was also discussed by the rabbis at least once a
generation earlier and also several times long after the Jamnia
period. No books are mentioned in these discussions except those
now considered canonical. None of these are treated as candidates
for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be
testing a status quo which has existed beyond memory. None of the
discussions hint at recent vintage of the works under
consideration or deny them traditional authorship. Instead it
appears that the rabbis are troubled by purely internal problems,
such as theology, apparent contradictions, or seemingly
unsuitable content...
But
no text of any specific decision has come down to us (nor,
apparently, even to Akiba and his students). Rather, it appears
that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of
the category called Scripture, so that even the author of 4 Ezra,
though desiring to add one of his own, was obliged to recognize
this consensus in his distinction between public and hidden
Scripture." — Robert
C. Newman, "THE
COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON,"
Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348. ^
▀
When was the first
“infallible” Roman Catholic definition of the
Biblical canon?
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states
(emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),
► “The
Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result
of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes
with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded
by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which
did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the
Tridentine Council.
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
►
"The Tridentine decrees from
which the above list is extracted was the first
infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on
the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ”
(Catholic Encyclopedia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;
►
“Catholic hold that the
proximate criterion of
the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.”
“The Council of
Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this
had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty
that persisted up to the time of Trent."
(New
Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003,
Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
►
The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford
University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The
final definitive list of biblical books (including
the seven additional Old Testament books) was only
drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546.
“Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included
the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them,
had always had his defenders." (Joseph
Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville,
Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
►
"...an official,
definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the
Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves
Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition
and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).
►
As
Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400
page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert
Jedin (1900-1980)
observes,
it also put
a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical
canon
(History
of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond
Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical
scholar, in The New
Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)
►The
question of the “deutero-canonical”
books
will not be settled before the sixteenth
century.
As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used
as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses,
whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical
value. (George
H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant
Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17)
►It
may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,”
or official list of books of the Bible, was
not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century
though
there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century.
(Leonard
Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the
Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p.
21)
►
"For
the first
fifteen centuries of
Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of
biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and
included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who
excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph
Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The
Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville,
Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
►
"in
the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New
Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is
worth noting that
no
ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the
church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon."
(Harry
Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate
[Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291) ^
▀ Prior
lists were by councils that were not ecumenical/infallible.
►
“...at
the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the
decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of
the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the
canonical sense...” (The
Catholic encyclopedia,
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6099)
►
“Neither
Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize Rome or Carthage or Hippo as
Ecumenical in their list.”
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils#List_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils.
►
“The
Council of Florence (1442) contains a complete list of the books
received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly,
the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore
taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not
formally pass on their canonicity.”
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
►
“The
seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons
as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this
is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized
the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of
ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were
the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the
canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the
Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical
canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical
books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as
canonical in the West.101
Furthermore,
the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal
in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102
Thus
indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.”
(http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html)
The
claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon
is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent,
and depends upon the Decretum
Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's
themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical,
being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy
or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition
the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More:
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
Therefore
what can be said is that although the Roman Catholic canon was
largely settled by the time of Carthage, it was not infallibly
defined (thus disallowing dissent), and thus substantial
disagreement did exist even in the deliberations of Trent,
despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and
Florence. The canon of Trent was issued in reaction to Martin
Luther and the Reformation, apparently, as said, after a vote
of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to
whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on
those who dissent from it.
While
Roman Catholics often charge that Luther excluded some books as
being Scripture due to doctrinal reasons, Rome can be charged
with the same motivation for adding apocryphal books, while
Luther did have some scholarly reasons and concurrence in Rome
(see below) for his exclusions. ^
▀ Dissent
before and in Trent
Among
those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian
theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As
Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most
comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four
volumes) explained,
“he
was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding
for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.”
Jedin further writes:
►:
“Tobias,
Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus,
the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et
ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to
the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St.
Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they
are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma.
Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the
question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as
such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking
of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters
throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert
Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder
Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)
►“While
Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the
Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited
canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the
related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and
Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is
evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his
battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and
the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with
the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its
theological scholarship.” (ibid,
281-282;
https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)
Cardinal
Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who
was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had
reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books
based upon questionable apostolic authorship.
►"On
the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had
problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were
being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church.
Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following
Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews,
James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states,
"They are of less authority than those which are certainly
Holy Scripture."63
►The
Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed
more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning
the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship
of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III
John, Jude...”—
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm
►Erasmus
likewise
expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the
apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the
Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to
excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the
Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent
of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64
http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836
►Theologian
Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic
Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement
VII ):
"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
Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus 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.”
. ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by
William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A
Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258
and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament,
p. 475.)
►Following
Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the
Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety
but not the teaching of revealed doctrine. —
Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan
Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The
Catholic University Press of America, 1978). See also Cardinal
Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books
of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the
Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)
Cajetan
was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The
Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been
significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was
regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit
censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even
by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to
ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the
leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their
folly." And
that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that
had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal
throne.” — Catholic
Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan
In more detail,
►“This
question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics
and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion
even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great
authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish
canon of the Old Testament. The books of Judith, Esther, Tobias,
Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the
Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as
canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not
included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the
faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus,
dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract
drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider
canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch,
the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the
canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand,
he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as
authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees.
The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was
in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise
their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the
protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and
authentic", belong to the canon fidei, while the
deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical
books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly,
follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in
pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the
epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books,
yet to use it with certain restrictions.”
“Two
questions were to be debated, namely, should this conciliar
decision be simply taken over, without previous discussion of the
subject, as the jurists Del Monte and Pacheco opined, or should
the arguments recently advanced against the canonicity of certain
books of the Sacred Scriptures be examined and refuted by the
Council, as the other two legates, with Madruzzo and the Bishop
of Fano, desired? The second question was closely linked with the
first, namely should the Council meet the difficulties raised
both in former times and more recently, by distinguishing
different degrees of authority within the canon?
With
regard to the first question the legates themselves were not of
one mind. In the general congregation of 12 February, Del Monte,
taking the standpoint of formal Canon Law, declared that the
Florentine canon, since it was a decision of a General Council,
must be accepted without discussion. On the other hand Cervini
and Pole, supported by Madruzzo and a number of prelates familiar
with the writings of the reformers and the humanists, urged the
necessity of countering in advance the attacks that were to be
expected from the Protestants by consolidating their own
position, and of providing their own theologians with weapons for
the defence of the decree as well as for the instruction of the
faithful...The
discussion was so obstinate that there remained no other means to
ascertain the opinion of the Council than to put the matter to
the vote. The result was that twenty-four prelates were found to
be on Del Monte's side, and fifteen (sixteen) on the other. The
decision to accept the Florentine canon simpliciter, that is,
without further discussion, and as an article of faith, already
contained the answer to the second question.” —
Jedin,, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 55,56
►
The late (if liberal) British
bishop and Scripture scholar B.F.
Westcott reported,
“Some proposed to follow the judgment of Cardinal Caietan
[as sometimes spelled] and distinguish two classes of books, as,
it was argued, had been the intention of Augustine. Others wished
to draw the line of distinction yet more exactly, and form three
classes, (1) the Acknowledged Books, (2) the Disputed Books of
the New Testament, as having been afterwards generally received,
(3) the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.
(B.F. Westcott, The Bible In The Church, p. 256)
Another
argument for the canonicity of the apocryphal books is that some
were used by some early church leaders, yet some of the books of
the Pseudepigrapha
were also invoked by some church “fathers,” and found
their way into other
canons of various Eastern churches. And since Jude 1:14
evidently quotes from the Book of Enoch 1:9, then according to
the logic of this argument that book would be Scripture also,
even though Enoch also states in section 7:1-4 (in a section of
the Book of Enoch dated to about 250 B.C.B.) that the "giants"
mentioned in Genesis 6:4 were 300 cubits (or about 450 feet,
though i think i read somewhere that an Egyptian manuscripts
makes it more like 40 feet). The apostle Paul even quoted truth
uttered by a pagan prophet, (Acts 17:29) but such does not
sanction the whole source.
While
some ancients reference texts from (what we call) the apocryphal
books, texts from books of the Pseudepigrapha and otherwise
non-canonical
books (as per Trent) were also referenced or alluded to by some
church “fathers”, and books which also found their
way into other
canons of various Eastern churches.
As
Jerome explains,
“In
his famous ‘Prologus Galeatus’, or Preface to his
translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not
Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says
that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the
Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the
edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of
revealed doctrine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old
Testament)
The
distinction then is that while “good,” they were not
for doctrinal use. As the above source states regarding St.
Athanasius, “Following the precedent of Origen and the
Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other
formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also,
faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the
deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his
general usage.
An
excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria (an assembly of
“glosses,” that of brief notations of the meaning of
a word or wording in the margins of the Vulgate Bible) expresses
this distinction:
The
canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of
the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by
which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were
produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and
nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books,
the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful
for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not
considered adequate for proving those things which come into
doubt or contention,or for confirming the authority of
ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to
Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are
of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to
be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is
clearly demonstrated from them. (note 124, written in AD 1498,
and also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the
tenth century...
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphaendnotes3.html)
►
Also,
among other authorities, different canons were sanctioned by the
Council in Trullo (Quinisext Council) in 692 and the seventh
Ecumenical Council (787)
And just prior to
Trent, The Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated
the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and soon
received papal sanction.
In addition,
►“Luther's
translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther also
translated and included the Apocrypha, saying, "These books
are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to
read." He expressed his thoughts on the canon in prefaces
placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. In these
prefaces, he either questioned or doubted the canonicity of
Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (his Catholic
contemporaries, Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, likewise questioned
the canonicity of certain New Testament books). Of his opinion,
he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his
conclusions. Of the four books, it is possible Luther's opinion
fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Luther was of the
opinion that the writers of James and Jude were not apostles,
therefore these books were not canonical. Still, he used them and
preached from them.” (Five
More Luther Myths;
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2089)
►
Regarding James and
Hebrews,
“Most
writing from before 200 do not mention the Epistle of James. One
significant text does quote James: The Shepherd of Hermas,
written before 140 M66.
The
theologian and biblical scholar, Origen, quotes James extensively
between 230 and 250. He mentions that James was Jesus' brother,
but does not make it clear if the letter is scripture M138.
Hippolytus and Tertullian, from early in the third century, do
not mention or quote James. Cyprian of Carthage, in the middle of
the third century, also makes no mention. The "Muratorian
Canon," from around 200, lists and comments on New Testament
books, but fails to mention James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter.
Yet by 340 Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Christian historian,
acknowledges that James is both canonical and orthodox, and
widely read. However, he categorizes it, along with the other
catholic epistles, as "disputed texts" M203. Two Greek
New Testaments from that time each include James, along with the
other catholic epistles M207. In 367 Athanasius lists the 27 New
Testament books we presently use as the definitive canon M212.
But the battle for James was not won. Bishops in 428 and 466
rejected all the catholic epistles M215. Early bibles from
Lebanon, Egypt, Armenia, India and China do not include James
before the sixth century M219. A ninth century manuscript from
Mount Sinai leaves out the catholic epistles and the Syriac
Church, headquartered in Kerala, India, continues to use a
lectionary without them still today M220. (James
and Canon: The Early Evidence:
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/Canon.htm
Another
researcher states,
“He
[Luther] had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the
Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he
placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews,
which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point
we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the
New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had
a different reputation."'
And
on James, he states in his preface,
“Though
this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients,1
I praise it and consider it a good
book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously
promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion
about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it
as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In
the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of
Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that
Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac;
though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham
was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had
offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15.”
“In
the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all
this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the
resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.”
(Antilegomena;
http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
)
But Luther's
rejection of these does not mean he did not include them in his
translation, and thus some may think he held them as inspired
Scripture, which he did not, and as he did also did with the
apocrypha (in a separate section as in ages past), but this not
make them inspired Scripture.
“In
terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in
Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of
their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New
Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to
the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these
four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which
he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they
still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively
from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which
he also listed the books of the Apocrypha
Likewise the
Apocrypha:
The
editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with
early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of
the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he
appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption,
‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are
useful and good to read.’
It also should be
understood that as with early church fathers, Luther was working
his way through his theology and the canonization of Scripture.
Also of note is that the words “canon” and
“Scripture” could be used less formally sometimes
than they would be later on. (And it would not be until the year
of Luther's death that Trent presented its finalized canon.) The
canon which Protestantism came to hold is that of the ancient 39
book Old Testament and the 27 book New Testament canon. Which,
like authoritative Old Testament writings by time of Christ, came
to be accepted due to their qualities and other Divine
attestation through the consensus of the faithful, without a
purportedly infallible conciliar decree.
Two
worthwhile pages to see on Luther and the canon are here and here.
Here
is information as regards Eastern Orthodox Acceptance Of The
Hebrew Canon
Information
on the formal criteria and processes of acceptance of books can
be seen here.
Webster
provides substantial works on the unsettled status of the
apocryphal books prior to Trent, such as seen here,
here
and here.
See
a list and basic summary of the 66 books of the Bible, and more
links on the exclusion of the apocrypha here.
^
▀ Is
the canon of Trent the same as that of Hippo
and Carthage?
Not
only was the canon not settled before Trent, with Trent arguably
following a weaker scholarly tradition in pronouncing the
apocryphal books to be inspired, but
it
is a matter of debate
whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of
Carthage and other councils:
“The
claim that Hippo & Carthage approved the same canonical list
as Trent is wrong. Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) received the
Septuagint version of 1 Esdras [Ezra in the Hebrew spelling] as
canonical Scripture, which Innocent I approved. However, the
Vulgate version of the canon that Trent approved was the first
Esdras that Jerome designated for the OT Book of Ezra, not the 1
Esdras of the Septuagint that Hippo and Carthage ( along with
Innocent I) received as canonical. Thus Trent rejected as
canonical the version of 1 Esdras that Hippo & Carthage
accepted as canonical. Trent rejected the apocryphal Septuagint
version of 1 Esdras (as received by Hippo and Carthage) as
canonical and called it 3 Esdras.”
More
Roman
Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, states,
►
"This
is a matter of record, not of interpretation. On March 29, 1546
the Council Fathers took up the fourth of fourteen questions
(Capita Dubitationum) on Scripture and Tradition. At issue was
whether those books that were not included in the official list,
but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras,
Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees), should be rejected by a
Conciliar decree, or be passed over in silence. Only three
Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the
status of these books should be passed over in silence.
It
is a historical fact." Responding to this, Protestant
apologist James Swan states,
►
“Let's
grant Michuta's assertion that Trent passed over in silence on
the book of Esdras in question. This means in the Roman system,
as interpreted by Michuta, the possibility exists that the book
in question is canonical, but not currently in the canon.
Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in
which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an
infallible list of all the infallible books. In which case, their
arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles. It would
also possibly mean, the canon is still 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 thrust Catholics into uncertainty.”
“It
was Jerome, who is considered the only Church father who was a
true Hebrew scholar, who was responsible for separating Ezra and
Nehemiah to be designated as 1 and 2 Esdras respectively as
separate books in an official Bible and who relegated 1 Esdras of
the Septuagint to a noncanonical status which later became
designated as III Esdras. He did this because he followed the
Hebrew canon.”
(http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1911)
The
New Catholic Encyclopedia states concerning the status of 1
Esdras among the fathers who followed the 'Septuagintial plus':
►
"The
origin of 3 Esdras cannot be adequately explained....Until the
5th century, Christians very frequently ranked 3 Esdras with the
Canonical books; it is found in many LXX MSS [Septuagint
manuscripts] and in the Latin Vulgate (Vulg) of St. Jerome.
Protestants therefore include 3 Esdras with other apocrypha
(deuterocanonical) books such as Tobit or Judith. The Council of
Trent definitively removed it from the canon." (New
Catholic Encyclopedia; New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume II,
Bible, III,pp. 396-397.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407700673/apocrypha.html).
As
for the Vulgate, the apocrypha was included, apparently after
Jerome died, but not universally in all versions:
►
“At
the end of the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome,
the most learned biblical scholar of his day, to prepare a
standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). In
the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means
of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate
category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the
Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit
Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western
Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy
Scriptures.” (http://www.gnte.org/ecopub/apocrypha.htm)
►
"In
his famous 'Prologus Galeatus', or Preface to his translation of
Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew
should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon.
These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the
edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of
revealed doctrine" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old
Testament). http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1948
►
The
“Glossa ordinaria,” an assembly of glosses (brief
notations of the meaning of a word or wording in a text) in the
margins of the Vulgate Bible states in the Preface that the
Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for
devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no
authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It
prefixes an introduction to them all saying, 'Here begins the
book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of
Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for
Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees...”
(http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html)
^
▀ Essential
means of establishment of Scripture
Finally,
it is should be stated that, as helpful as they are,
ecclesiastical decrees themselves are not what established
writings as Scripture (much less can Rome declare that it is
assuredly infallible, whenever she speaks in accordance with her
supposedly infallibly defined formula), but as with true men of
God, writings which were wholly inspired of Him became
progressively established as being such due to their conflation
and complementarity to what was prior manifest as being from God,
and by unique enduring qualities, (Ps. 119) and the holy effects
and other supernatural Divine attestation which results from
trusting and obeying the Word of God. (1Thes. 2:13) In contrast,
the Sadducees erred, “not knowing the scriptures, nor the
power of God.” (Mt. 22:29)
To
reiterate what was expressed at the beginning of this section,
Abraham's faith and morality was supernaturally attested to by
God, as was that of Moses, whose writings further expanded and
defined the faith and morality which was of God, which became the
standard by which further revelation would be tested and
substantiated by. (Is. 8:20) The writing of the word of God being
normally written, immediately or afterward, and becoming the
authority for faith and doctrine, is a principal continuously
seen in Scripture for establishing truth claims as being of God.*
(Mt. 22; Jn. 5:36,39; 14:11; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2;11; 28:23;
Rm. 15:19) True men of God themselves, especially those who added
new teaching to to Scripture, were established as being of God by
a holiness and doctrine which conformed to that which was
written, and the effects of believing, which in turn affirmed the
veracity and Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. And to be the
church of living God so must we, in proportion to grace given and
our claims (and i sadly yet come much short of what I could be,
yet I look in faith to Ps. 138:8).
More on the canon and the apocrypha here and here. Here
is more in the formation of the canon, and here
as regards Luther overall.
*Partial
list of references to Divine written revelation being written
(Scripture) and references to it, substantiating the claim that
as they were written, the written word became the standard for
obedience and in establishing truth claims. The following rarely
includes simple allusions to Scripture, which are abundant, but
supplies a multiplicity of references to what was written or
quotes thereof: Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27;
35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13;
15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4;
17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26;
33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2;
22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3;
8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21;
1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8;
34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6;
8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8;
34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60;
Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat.
1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43;
8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35;
14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42;
22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56;
27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17;
12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24;
3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10;
10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43;
22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14;
5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,43,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26;
10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31;
21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26;
7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33;
10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28;
21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17;
2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36;
9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25,-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27;
12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor.
1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28;
14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13;
6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13;
4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31;
6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim.
3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7;
5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37;
11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet.
1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22;
3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19;
2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19
(Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is
not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, i
know of no place where the phrase “the word of God”
or “the word of the Lord” manifestly refers to
unwritten revelation that was not subsequently written down. Note
also that establishing truth claims is shown to be done both by
way of doctrinal conformity to what had been written, and
secondarily by the manner of effectual and often manifest
supernatural attestation by the power of God which Scripture
reveals the Truth of God being given (and most overtly to the
authority of those who added new teachings to Scripture), and
obedience to it, to the glory of God, though the many references
to this aspect, such as Josh. 3:7 (cf. Is. 63:12); 2Ki. 18:6,7;
Mk. 16:20; Jn. 5:36; 14:11,12; Acts 4:33; 15:7-18; Rm. 15:19;
Gal. 4:6; 1Thes. 1:3-10, Heb. 2:3,4, are not provided here).
