Posted on 03/18/2015 5:09:12 AM PDT by Gamecock
Follow the links to read the introduction and part one of this series.
"In forming a catalogue of Scripture," Calvin writes, "they [the Roman Catholic Council of Trent] mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others." Thus Calvin summarizes the second of the four points he discerns in Trent's teaching on Scripture. There is little need to repeat Trent's words in their entirety. The decree in question provides "a list of the Sacred Books" comprising those books that Protestants are accustomed to finding in their Bibles and some books, commonly called Apocryphal (or Deuterocanonical), that they are not -- namely, 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The decree concludes by anathematizing any and all who "shall not receive these entire Books, with all their parts ... as sacred and canonical," and in so doing shall "despise the foresaid traditions" -- a reference back to those "unwritten traditions" which, alongside of Scripture, has already been identified by Trent as a unique source of Christian doctrine.
Calvin offers a two-pronged response to Trent's "admitting" of "all [these] Books promiscuously into the Canon." The first prong advances his preceding argument from Christian tradition itself against recognition of tradition as an infallible source of unique Christian doctrine. Calvin now observes how un-traditional the inclusion of these Apocryphal books in the Canon is: "I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church."
In support of this claim, Calvin references the writings of two late-fourth/early-fifth century Church Fathers: Jerome and Tyrannius Rufinus. Oddly enough, Calvin doesn't seem all that interested in the opinions of Jerome and Rufinus per se regarding the Apocryphal books. He's interested, rather, in the testimony these Fathers provide in their writings to even earlier Christian judgments about the canonicity of the books in question. Thus he cites Rufinus's assertion in about 408 that "our fathers" -- that is, Rufinus's "fathers" -- judged the books in question to be "not Canonical," named the same "Apocrypha," and "would not have [them] read in the Churches" (The Creed of Aquileia, para. 38). With regard to Jerome: "It is well known," Calvin observers, "what [he] states as the common opinion of earlier times." Presumably Calvin has in mind something like Jerome's observation that "the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures." Jerome made numerous, similar statements about the Church's historic stance towards the other Apocryphal books.
Calvin could, of course, have made further appeal to Jerome's own opinion. Jerome, after all, cited "the common opinion of earlier times" in defense of his own very clear denial of canonical status to the Apocryphal books (as seen, for instance, in the prefaces he drafted for his Latin translation of the Bible). Jerome did, however, include -- with a clear disclaimer regarding their non-canonical status -- the Apocryphal books in his Vulgate, presumably in deference both to the merits of said books as ancient and useful (albeit uninspired) writings and to the opinion of those who disagreed with him about the canonicity of the books in question.
And there were, as Calvin himself readily acknowledges, some who defended -- contra Jerome and Rufinus -- the canonicity of the Apocryphal books, among them the famous contemporary of Jerome and Rufinus, Augustine of Hippo. Calvin seems to think the opinion represented by Jerome and Rufinus has an older pedigree than that represented by Augustine, but he doesn't press the point. He concludes rather modestly with "let us assume that the point was then undecided."
The ambiguity in early judgments about the Apocryphal books ran substantially deeper than Calvin seems to realize. In fact, it pre-dated Christianity as such. The books in question were denied canonical status in the Hebrew Bible by Palestinian Jews, but afforded canonical status by Hellenistic Jews (Greek speaking Jews living outside Palestine) and so included in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures completed in Alexandria (the Septuagint). In the second century following Christ's birth, the Jews finally reached consensus among themselves in favor of the narrower canon (that which excluded the Apocrypha).
Their disagreement lingered on, however, in Christianity, with Eastern Christians typically following the Palestinian Jews in denying canonical status to the Apocrypha, and Western Christians typically following the Hellenistic Jews in affording canonical status to the Apocrypha (Jerome and Rufinus constituting two notable exceptions). Those who defended the canonicity of the books in question, for example Augustine, typically bought the now largely discredited story about seventy 3rd-century B.C. Jews translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek independently of one another and -- miraculously -- arriving at the very same (inspired) translation. In other words, their preference for the Septuagint's canon was informed by rather misguided assumptions about the Septuagint's nature and origins.
Calvin, had he only known, could have included such Eastern luminaries as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory of Nazianzus among the ranks of Fathers who denied that the Apocryphal books belong to the Bible. In truth, however, ambiguity in early Christian judgments about the Apocryphal books is all that Calvin needed to discredit Trent's teaching on the issue. Trent, after all, in claiming that the "sacred and canonical" status of the Apocryphal books has the (infallible) authority of "unwritten tradition," presumes that some largely univocal tradition concerning the Apocryphal books actually exists. Either the Roman Catholic Fathers at Trent purposed to deceive in this regard, or they made a rather unfortunate historical blunder on the basis of their own ignorance. The implicit claim of a univocal "tradition" on the Apocrypha is a historical blunder not, perhaps, on par with the Book of Mormon's populating the Americas with horses hundreds of years before their (re)introduction there by European explorers, but it's not too far from the same. And, critically, it's a historical blunder in a place where no such blunder should exist -- the canons and decrees of an (infallible) ecumenical council.
Trent's apparent ignorance regarding those early Christians who -- in keeping with the more orthodox of Jewish traditions -- rejected the canonical status of the Apocryphal books, along with its subsequent anathematizing of all who reject said books as "sacred and canonical," has the further (and rather unfortunate) effect of damning such Fathers as Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Jerome, among others. That seems a rather un-catholic (not to mention uncharitable) gesture on the part of the "Catholic" Church.
The ambiguity in early Christian opinions about the Apocrypha also highlights the ultimate need to evaluate claims of the Apocrypha's canonicity by some higher standard than tradition. Thus Calvin introduces the second prong of his response to Rome, showing how the Apocryphal books, unlike Sacred Scripture, fail to testify to their own inspired and infallible status. Calvin points, for instance, to the concluding remark of the author of 2 Maccabees: "I ... will here make an end of my narration," the author writes, "which if I have done... not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me." The Holy Spirit, Calvin observes, begs no forgiveness for errors or faults in His words.
The author of Maccabees' words, it must be said, do seem a far cry from the confidence informing the Apostle John's rather dire warning against making additions or subtractions to his inspired text, and by implication at least, making additions or subtractions to the entire canon as such (Rev. 22:18-19).
Ping!
Calvin could, of course, have made further appeal to Jerome's own opinion. Jerome, after all, cited "the common opinion of earlier times" in defense of his own very clear denial of canonical status to the Apocryphal books (as seen, for instance, in the prefaces he drafted for his Latin translation of the Bible). Jerome did, however, include -- with a clear disclaimer regarding their non-canonical status -- the Apocryphal books in his Vulgate, presumably in deference both to the merits of said books as ancient and useful (albeit uninspired) writings and to the opinion of those who disagreed with him about the canonicity of the books in question.
Someone really has no clue about how things work. There is no crime where there is no law, so someone who questioned the canon before Trent issued its anathema is not "damned" or even under any censure. Duh.
You really, really don’t get Sola Scriptura, do you?
You really, really don’t understand literary devices, do you?
What did happen though, is at Trent, Rome anathematized itself, based on the teachings of The Council of Orange.
I don't think Sola Scriptura means what you think it means.
Nice try, though.
Hoss
Exactly. What this piece backs into is the necessity for Trent and the need for the Church to canonize the Bible.
Jerome of course did not substitute his opinion for the decision of the Holy Spirit speaking thru the Church.
unlike Calvin, Jerome kept the peace of the Church and obeyed John 17 and 1 Corinthians 1.
btw, how does Calvin explain the Oriental Orthodox who split from the Catholic Church in the 5th century and the Greek Catholics who split in 1054ad accepting the so called “Apocrypha”?
also, does Calvin give any thought as to why the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to correctly determine the NT canon, but somehow get the OT canon incorrect?
why does Calvin point to unbelieving Jews, rather than to Bishops of the Church?
I can’t believe some really believe NO ONE had the correct Scriptures before the 16th century.
I don’t think Sola Scriptura means what you think it means
could you tell us what it means? also, how can we use “sola scriptura” to determine what is scriptura and what is not?
The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that there was no Church until the 16th century... and that just makes a mockery of the promises of Christ and the reality of the first 1500 years of Christendom.
Same Holy Spirit that got you a socialist pope?
I do admire the chutzpah of the followers of Calvin.
how do you appeal to Jerome, Athanasius, Cyril and Gregory on the so called Apocrypha, yet condemn as heretics anyone who believes as they do in baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, etc etc.
all these Church Fathers would have rejected Calvin as outside the Faith, but when you are drowning, you must grab onto any thin reed you can I guess.
Just shows how there was much more disunity on doctrine than y’all like pretend with your papist fantasies.
“unlike Calvin, Jerome kept the peace of the Church and obeyed John 17 and 1 Corinthians 1.”
Unlike Jerome, Calvin’s Rome explicitly repudiated the gospel so he obeyed 2 Corinthians 6:14.
When you have time, give these two sermons a listen and cry out to God that He would be pleased to reveal the truth to your heart and soul.
The Gospel Defined and Discerned
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=81901181950
Unmasking the False Gospel
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1010665821
Bingo
cry out to God that He would be pleased to reveal the truth to your heart and soul
too late, I did this many years ago.
God is good, He answers prayer.
The "new" Rome tries to dance around their damning to hell of anyone that believes in Trent...and that each pope MUST reaffirm the findings of Trent
Th words of Trent were carefully chosen.. the word Anathema was not a latin word..( the "language" of Rome" ) instead it was was a greek word found in the scriptures with a definite meaning
Gal 1:8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!…
anathema
thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction
a curse
a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.