What is the “Apocrypha”?

Fr. John Whiteford's Commentary and Reflections ^ | 07-19-2019 | Fr. John Whiteford

[NRx]

Question: "What do the terms "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical" mean, and how does the Orthodox Church view them?"

The question of the Biblical canon is a somewhat complicated one, because it developed over a very long period of time, and there certainly have been some historical disagreements on the matter. The word "canon" comes the Greek word κανών, which means a measuring rod, or a rule. And so when we speak of the canon of Scripture, we are speaking of the lists of books that affirmed to be Scripture.

Christians have a precisely defined New Testament Canon, about which there is no dispute... at least not since the 4th century, and this is due in part because of a heretic by the name of Marcion who produced a very truncated New Testament canon, which included only the Gospel of Luke and some of the Epistles of St. Paul, which he edited to fit his heretical views. And then there were also heretical books that claimed to be written by Apostles, but which were not which the Church wanted to clearly reject. There was never any dispute about most of the books of the New Testament, but there were a few books that were not immediately accepted throughout the Church, but were eventually.

When it comes to the Old Testament canon, there is a precisely defined core canon, and fairly well defined next layer, and then less clearly defined edges. So why the precision in the case of the new, but not the Old? This is partly because there was not nearly as much controversy on the question, which is not to say that there were no disagreements, but the level of concern over these disagreements did not rise to nearly the same level. It was not until the time of the Protestant Reformation that this question did become a bigger issue, because for Protestants who generally took a low view of Tradition, whether or not a book was really part of Scripture became almost an all or nothing question. Either the book was Scripture, in which case it had all authority; or it was not scripture, in which case it had essentially no authority, though it might be a matter of some historical interest.

When we speak of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, or the "Protocanonical" books as Roman Catholics put it, we have general agreement. These books are the same as the books recognized by the Jews as Scripture. The only difference you find is that in some canonical lists the books of Baruch is sometimes listed as part of these books, and Esther is not.

But what are the names used for the "extra" books that are not part of the undisputed Old Testament Canon? Many early Fathers simply made no distinction, and referred to them as Scripture. Then you have some sources that refer to these books as "non-canonical"... but we will need to consider further what they really mean by that. St. Athanasius the Great referred to these books as "readable" books -- books not included in the Jewish canon, but which could be read in Church in the services. Then you have the term "Deuterocanonical," which is, I think, a useful term, but it is a Roman Catholic term that came into use to counter the Protestant rejection of these books. The implication of this name is that these books comprise a second Old Testament Canon, or you could say a list of canonical books which were known not to have been accepted by the Jews, but which were accepted by Christians. Then you have Protestants who labeled these books as "Apocrypha." To these terms we could add the term "Pseudepigrapha", which is a label applied to many texts that are almost universally rejected, but which claim the names of Old Testament saints as their authors.

There is a very interesting comment by Origen in his letter to Africanus (ANF v. IV, pp 386ff.), in which he responds to Africanus, who had asked him why he quoted from the portion of the book of Daniel which contains the story of Susanna, which is not found in the Hebrew text. Origen responds that he was not unaware of this fact (after all, he produced a six column text of the Old Testament,  the Hexapla, which was the first critical edition of the Old Testament, and which compared the Hebrew text with various Greek editions). Origen defended the authenticity of this portion of Daniel. His response is detailed, but let me highlight a few points:

"And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!  Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things?

In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.” Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings.  This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them.  So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew."

Two important points are made here: Christians should use the texts preserved by the Church, and not feel like we have to go cap in hand to the Jews to find out what the Bible is. However, it is important for us to know what texts they accept and do not, so that when speaking to them, we not appear to be ignorant, and thus harm our witness to them.

Skipping further on in the text we find Origen saying that the reason for many of the omissions in the Hebrew texts are because the Scribes and Pharisees omitted things that made them look bad:

"But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories?  The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha).  As an example, take the story told about Isaiah; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books."

Here Origen gives an interesting meaning to the term "Apocrypha" (hidden books). His argument is that the story of Susanna was omitted in the Hebrew text because it made the Jewish elders look bad. If you look at the Wisdom of Solomon, you could see how they might also have had incentive to have hidden this book too.

"Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected" (Wisdom 2:12-20).

This is a very clear prophecy of the attitude which the Jewish leaders would take toward Christ. This text was used very effectively by Christians in the Early Church, and the Jews had good reason to want to dismiss it.

I think Origen puts his finger on the reason why many Fathers made a distinction between the "canonical" books of the Old Testament which the Jews accepted, and the books which they did not accept. Even to this day, you still find these books referred to as "non-canonical" by contemporary Orthodox writers, who mean by that only that they are not in the Jewish canon.

For example, Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy, in The Law of God, wrote:

"Besides the canonical books, a part of the Old Testament is composed of non-canonical books, sometimes called Apocrypha among non-Orthodox. These are books which the Jews lost and which are not in the contemporary Hebrew text of the Old Testament.  They are found in the Greek translations of the Old Testament, made by the 70 translators of the Septuagint three centuries before the birth of Christ (271 B.C.). These book have been included in the Bible from ancient times and are considered by the Church to be sacred Scripture. The translation of the Septuagint is accorded special respect in the Orthodox Church. The Slavonic translation of the Bible was made from it. 

To the non-canonical books of the Old Testament belong:

1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. The Wisdom of Solomon
4. Ecclesiasticus,  or the Wisdom of Sirach
5. Baruch
6. Three books of Maccabees
7. The Second and Third book of Esdras
8. The additions to the (Book of Esther,) II Chronicles (The Prayer of Manasseh) and Daniel (The Song of the Youths, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon)” (Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, The Law Of God: For Study at Home and School (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996), p. 423).      

While generally, not much is made of a distinction between the "canonical" and "deuterocanonical" books in the Orthodox, some writers continue to argue that there is a distinction, such as Fr. Michael Pomazansky:

"The Church recognizes 38 books of the Old Testament. After the example of the Old Testament Church, several of these books are joined to form a single book, bringing the number to twenty-two books, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. These books, which were entered at some time into the Hebrew canon, are called "canonical." To them are joined a group of "non-canonical" books-that is, those which were not included in the Hebrew canon because they were written after the closing of the canon of the sacred Old Testament books. The Church accepts these latter books also as useful and instructive and in antiquity assigned them for instructive reading not only in homes but also in churches, which is why they have been called "ecclesiastical." The Church includes these books in a single volume of the Bible together with the canonical books. As a source of the teaching of the faith, the Church puts them in a secondary place and looks on them as an appendix to the canonical books. Certain of them are so close in merit to the Divinely-inspired books that, for example, in the 85th Apostolic Canon the three books of Maccabees and the book of Joshua the son of Sirach are numbered together with the canonical books, and, concerning all of them together it is said that they are "venerable and holy." However, this means only that they were respected in the ancient Church; but a distinction between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament has always been maintained in the Church (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, trans. Fr. Serpahim (Rose), (Platina, CA: St. Herman Press, 1984), p. 26f).

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), on the other hand, says:

     "In contemporary editions of the Bible the books of the Old Testament are subdivided into those books that are canonical and those not canonical. Those books that fall under the canonical category are understood to be those of the Hebrew canon. This canon (i.e. the list of books recognized as holy in the Jewish tradition) was formed over centuries and was finally solidified in the year 90 CE by the Sanhedrin in the Galilean city of Jamnia. The canonical texts differ from the non-canonical in their antiquity; the former were written in the period between the fifteenth and fifth centuries BCE, while the latter were written between the fourth and first centuries BCE. As for the number of non-canonical books concerned there are the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 2 and 3 Esdras, the letter of Jeremiah, Baruch and 3 Maccabees, and also the Prayer of Manasseh at the end of 2 Chronicles, as well as various parts of the book of Esther, Psalm 151, and three fragments from the book of the Prophet Daniel (3.24-90, 13, 14).
     The Protestant Bible does not include the non-canonical books of the Old Testament, and in this way it differs from the Orthodox just as from the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible includes the non-canonical books under the category of "deuterocanonical" (this term was coined by the Council of Trent in 1546). For the Orthodox Christian, the difference between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament is of a conventional character inasmuch as the question is not about an Orthodox or Christian canon, but is about the Jewish canon, completed independently from Christianity. In the Orthodox Church, the basic criterion for the specific canonicity of this or that book in the Old Testament is its use in the divine services. In this regard one cannot consider the Wisdom of Solomon and those fragments of the book of Daniel which are absent from the Hebrew canon, but which hold an important place in Orthodox services, to be non-canonical. Sometimes the non-canonical books, from the viewpoint of the Hebrew canon and the "deutercanonical" Catholic canon, in Orthodox usage are called by the Greek term anaginoskomena, αναγινώσκωμένα (i.e. acknowledged, recommended reading).
     While all of the canonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the "seventy interpreters" made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the "Masoretic," was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that "in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions" (Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, (New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012) p. 33f).

To complicate matters further, if you look at the Russian Synodal Bible and compare with the standard Orthodox edition of the Bible in Greek, there are some books that included in one that are not in the other (the Greek Bible included 4th Maccabees, and the Russian Bible includes 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras in some editions), and so what should we make of all of this?

If you think of the Tradition as a target, with concentric circles, you could put the Gospels in the middle, the writings of the apostles in the in the next ring, maybe the Law of Moses, in the next, the prophets in the next, the writings in the next, the deutrocanonical books in the next, the wrings of those who knew the Apostle in the next, the Ecumenical Canons in the next, etc. The only debate would be which ring to put them on... and ultimately, is that the most important question? For a Protestant, this is a huge question. For the Orthodox, it is not so much.

For most of the books in the Orthodox Bible, there is no question that they are Scripture in the full sense. The Deuterocanonical books are certainly Scripture as well, though some Fathers and some writers would argue that they have secondary authority. Then there are some books that are included more along the lines of being appendices to the Scriptures (4th Maccabees and 2nd Esdras). They all are part of the larger Tradition, and they all have to be understood within the context of that larger Tradition -- and that is the key thing to keep in mind.

For more information, see:

Stump the Priest: The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text

This discussion with Gary Michuta (a Roman Catholic apologists) is of interest:

He has also written a book entitled "The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments," which has a lot of useful information on this subject.

[ealgeone]

There was no dogmatic decree limiting the priesthood to men until Pope John Paul II's Ordinatio sacerdotalis in 1994.

Paul says what??

The accepted Catholic Bible included the Deuterocanonical books since the 4th century, and this even without a dogmatic decree. There was no dogmatic decree on the canon of the Bible until Trent because there was no need for one; the Deuterocanonical books were accepted by Catholics as part of the Bible.

Again, as daniel1212 has shown this is not an accurate statement.

[Petrosius]

Again, as daniel1212 has shown this is not an accurate statement.

Isolated reservations by individual theologians do not negate the general acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books. They were included in the Vulgate Bible and were used as Sacred Scripture in the Church's liturgies. There was no great debate or controversy over this issue between the 4th century and Trent.

[daniel1212]

Church teaching in the Ordinary Magisterium, that is in the day to day teaching of the Church, are often questioned. Thus the need at times for the formal proclamations of ecumenical councils and popes. Even today we see some who are questioning Church teaching on a number issues related to sexual morality. There may be a need for a formal declaration to settle these issues, but this does not take away that the teaching of the Church in these areas has been constant.

The two are simply not analogous. We are not speaking about teachings that are often questioned but require assent of mind ansd will, but an issue that manifestly could see varied scholarly opinions as one unsettled. Nor are we dealing with some liberals who want to sanction birth control, but highly esteemed men who were manifestly free to disagree about the status of apocryphal books down thru centuries and right into Trent.

Besides those already cited,

mong 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

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.

It also amuses me that in their attempt to claim that the Catholic Church only defined the canon of the Bible at Trent, that they ignore the Council of Florence in 1442.

What is not amusing is how Catholic will disagree with what their own scholarly sources attest to, and great men of hers taught, as cited, in preference to what they can only wish they would say. Which means all the sources and men I cited were (and are) in dissent from your church.

Do you really think that everything a general council states is infallible? Far from it, even the argument a pope uses in making an accepted infallible argument are not held to be infallible themselves as per RC theology.

Your own Catholic Answer (surprisingly, but likely because had been reproved), states,

In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” 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 eanonicity. - https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/canon-of-the-holy-scriptures#.28a.29_In_the_Council_of_Florence

Also,

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the only infallible aspect of the Council was the decree of union between the Greeks and Latins, Laetentur caeli. It states: ‘Laetentur caeli is an infallible document, the only one of the Council’ (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume V, Florence, p. 973). The first infallible decision, from a Roman Catholic perspective, was the Council of Trent. The English Translator of the Council of Trent, H.J. Schroeder O.P., makes this statement regarding Trent and the canon: ‘The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures’ (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, p. 17, Footnote #4 - https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/savingfaithandrome/rcchurchandrcfaith/).

However, perhaps you represent one of the Catholic schisms who reject past and present authorities who disagree with your judgment of what valid church teaching is, and thus you can affirm Florence which, in contradiction to V2, stated,

The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; - Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), p. 230, #714

Now that should be considered infallible, and if you agree with it as written, means that you must consign us evangelicals to be headed for eternal damnation. But if you disagree with what it plainly says, then it opens up an interpretive can of worms.

So do you reject Francis as a valid pope?

[daniel1212]

As daniel1212 has noted on this thread, it was only at Trent that Roman Catholicism declared its canon as dogmatic.

More precisely, it was only at Trent that repeated Roman Catholic teachings says the canon was dogmatically declared, and I did not merely note is, but well substantiated it, and not be some shameless poper.

And states "It firmly believes, professes and preaches" 5 times, such as in imagining we are all in damnation, but does not use that language when listing books, nor does its anathema clause after the section refer to the issue of the canon, nor is dissent from it anywhere mentioned as cause for anathema. (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)

[Petrosius]

Again I will repeat, isolated reservations do not negate that there was a general acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books by the Catholic Church. Cardinal Cajetan et al. may have been esteemed, but their reservations do not negate the general consensus that existed before them.

[daniel1212]

And yet even if the likes of Cardinal Cajetan and the Catholic Encyclopedia etc were wrong and Florence did infallibly define the canon so that disagreement should have ceased as it did with Trent, what does that avail the papists?

For since its judgments were manifestly wrong about what the NT church believed, then why should its judgments on the canon of Scripture (which writings are of God) necessarily be believed?

They no more warrant belief than all the judgments of who was of God by those who sat in the seat of Moses did., despite their own pedigree and being the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation.

[Petrosius]

And yet even if the likes of Cardinal Cajetan and the Catholic Encyclopedia etc were wrong and Florence did infallibly define the canon…

You keep ignoring my point. It was not that Florence dogmatically defined the canon, but rather that there was a general consensus since the 4th century, and that such would be a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. This, by its very nature, does not issue dogmatic declaration.

[boatbums]

I think it is telling when some religions refer to the "Deuterocanonical" books in the Bible they do not seem to acknowledge that calling them "Deutero" MEANS second canon! Right there is a recognition that these writings are NOT in the same league as the universally accepted canonical books of the Old Testament. Yet, some here will forcefully and adamantly assert that they are just as authoritative as the ones that were Divinely inspired. I think what really is behind this is they see their church in authority OVER Scripture instead of the church being in subjection to Scripture.

[Mark17]

I think what really is behind this is they see their church in authority OVER Scripture instead of the church being in subjection to Scripture.

I think you are right BB. Being as it has been DECADES since I was a catholic, I don’t recall if anyone actually, verbally said it in those words, but the implication was clearly there. Since I am no longer a catholic, I certainly don’t buy it now, but I did way back then.
By the way, I wonder what would have happened, if there had been some sort of 2nd Amendment, during the inquisition? 😁👍😱

[Luircin]

Wrong again.

Luther’s Roman contemporaries were ‘taking books out of the Bible’ just like Luther was, and you aren’t condemning them, are you? Most of them the same books even.

The only explanation is that Rome allowed such things until Trent.

[ealgeone]

I’m not your dude, and you wouldn’t challenge me anywhere except the internet!

Some pretty big talk...but that seems to be about all you ever bring to the threads.

Regarding caucus threads, you once broke into one claiming it was ok if it mentioned another religion, cause there was mention of Pharisees.

Really? That's all you have??

dude....sit down.

[ealgeone]

keep ignoring my point.

Your point is ignored for a reason.

It was not that Florence dogmatically defined the canon, but rather that there was a general consensus since the 4th century, and that such would be a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. This, by its very nature, does not issue dogmatic declaration.

Now we're getting somewhere....an admission that Florence did not dogmatically define the canon for Roman Catholicism.

IF the canon was agreed upon by the 4th century, and I believe it was, it was not due to the "Ordinary Magisterium".

The early ekklesia recognized the writings which were inspired. This is clear from several passages in the NT.

[daniel1212]

You keep ignoring my point. It was not that Florence dogmatically defined the canon, but rather that there was a general consensus since the 4th century, and that such would be a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. This, by its very nature, does not issue dogmatic declaration.

"General consensus" still ignores the substantial and unreproved disagreements, and which is contrary to your revisionism that "There was no dogmatic decree on the canon of the Bible until Trent because there was no need for one; the Deuterocanonical books were accepted by Catholics as part of the Bible."

How can you parrot this after all I have provided? As shown, even the Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Thus while overall the larger canon may have been accepted, it was far from uniform acceptance, but the reason there was no dogmatic decree on the canon of the Bible until Trent is because it was manifestly allowed for scholars to have varied opinions on the canonicity of certain books, as not being a threat, until this became part of the Reformers beliefs. Even then, I have not seen Luther's view on the canon being cited as a cause for the excommunication of him, or made a real issue until later.

In addition, if you want to impose later expressive teachings on the distinctions btwn different magisterial levels and required assent to them, then you must charge the likes of Athanasius of Alexandria (bishop of Alexandria; Cath. church "father;" c. 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop of Jerusalem; doctor of the Cath church; d. circa. 385 AD), Council of Laodicea (363), bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–320 – 403), Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390; bishop of Nazianzus), Hilary of Poitiers, (c. 310 – c. 367; bishop of Poitiers and a doctor of the Cath church), John of Damascus (patriarch of Constantinople, 9th century), Melito of Sardis (bishop of Sardis, 4th c.) and Origen (Cath. church "father" and thelogian; c. 184 – c. 253), Rufinus (344/345–411; historian, and theologian), Cardinals Seripando, Caietan, Ximenes, (16th c.) etc. with being in dissent, not rendering the required religious assent of intellect and will.

Yet who instead were not charged with such, since the matter of the canon was not yet officially settled so as to exclude this, as Trent did. And even within Trent, the issue of dogmatically settling the canon saw 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.

But again, I point out the fact that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent in reaction to Catholic assertions of a settled canon which Luther heretically dissented from as some sort of maverick without scholarly reasons and support.

Moreover, if conformity to the canon of Rome is essential, then why not attack the EOs which add even more books than Rome did to the Palestinian canon?

However, as said, since Catholicism is manifestly wrong in its judgments about what the NT church believed, (based upon the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed) then why should its judgments on the canon of Scripture (which writings are of God) necessarily be believed?

They no more warrant required belief than all the judgments of who was of God by those who sat in the seat of Moses did., despite their own pedigree and being the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation.

[Elsie]

Whew!

Lots of data to get us started.

[Elsie]

The question is: Who had the authority to reject anything as canon after they had been part of the Christian canon for 1000 years before Luther?

There is a difference between 'authority' and 'power'.

Today's question is: Who had the authority to reject the very words of Jesus when He stated:

"Call no man father"?

[Elsie]

"Where We Got the Bible" by the Rev. Henry Graham

…

Doesn't address why Catholics reject parts of it today; as well as essentially adding to it by their various non-biblical rituals.

[Elsie]

Why would you expect an Old Testament book to teach salvation by grace through faith?

Why does the NT book; Hebrews; have an entire chapter about it?

[Elsie]

Again, by what authority? He had none.

Nice set of books you got here.

Be a shame if something happened to them.

[Elsie]

When will the ‘authority’ be defined in this thread as the building of the One True Church upon Peter?