Tuesday, August 03, 2010
The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part Three: From Jerome to the Reformation: William Webster
Here is an article by William Webster on the canon which shows that the canon held by Jerome was the accepted canon of scripture until the Council of Trent officially added the Apocryphal books: The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part Three: From Jerome to the Reformation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
To say that Trent added books is misleading. Trent confirmed what was already believed by the Church. See my link.
http://catholicquestioning.blogspot.com/2010/01/septuagint.html
The Webster article documents the beliefs of the church on the canon, that the apocryphal books were not considered inspired for centuries, and so were not included in the canon.
Actually, Jerome included them in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. What he wrote was that certain Jews he knew didn’t include them in their Bible. In addition, at the dawn of the fifth century, after Jerome finished his translation, Bishop Exuperous of Toulouse wrote a letter to Pope Innocent I, asking which books were considered Sacred Scripture. The Pope responded with a list identical to the Catholic Bible of today. The Catholic canon remained virtually unchallenged for the next thousand years. These decisions were echoed at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 and infallibly declared at the Council of Florence in 1441. To say that the books in question were not considered inpired for centuries is demonstrably false and a misreading of the history of the canon.
John,
the Webster article claims that, while there were some authorities who accepted the Apocryphal books, the majority did not. The canon apparently was not 'fixed' until Trent, as far as the RCC is concerned, if I am understanding the information correctly. One major point I see here is that it seems that the canon was not considered a finalized thing until Trent and afterward, and I don't believe it can be shown that the Apostles and Christ accepted the Jewish apocryphal books, so the RCC canon can't be considered 'Apostolic Tradition'.
I think the information Webster cites about the Glossa Ordinaria is very conclusive about what the church in general accepted about the canon of scripture, John. Have you read the article?
Here's a quote from the end of the section on the Glossa Ordinaria:
Webster states:The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,125 and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha,126 all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome. Again, the significance of this is that the Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians. Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole, demonstrating the emptiness of the claims of Roman apologists that the decrees of Hippo and Carthage officially settled the canon for the universal Church. We come back again to the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states that the canon was not officially settled for the Roman Catholic Church until the sixteenth century with the Council of Trent.
Here is a quote in the Webster article from Cardinal Cajetan:
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.129
Actually, Jerome included them in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. What he wrote was that certain Jews he knew didn’t include them in their Bible.
John, Webster shows that there were two concepts of canonical books: those that were inspired, and those that were considered good for edification, yet not inspired. This is directly stated in quotes by various Catholic theologians over the centuries. The uninspired books were included in the Bible, but were not considered inspired by most theologians.
Also, Webster gives much more documentation about what Jerome wrote that shows he did not consider the apocryphal books to be inspired.
Yes, I read Webster, whose sole purpose in his website is devoted to refuting Catholicism which hardly makes him an unbiased source of information. Much of the argument really comes down to the question of authority. Is Jerome the authority, Webster, or the apostolic successors (the bishops gathered together in council)? I side with what I believe are the successors.
John,
I don't believe the Catholics whom you would accept are 'unbiased' either. That doesn't make the information given automatically suspect. Webster gives direct quotes and historical documentation of many respected theologians.
Apparently, the church in general did not automatically accept the decrees of councils as the final word, but theologians had freedom to discern the canon by their own conscience and understanding
I never said there are not unbiased Catholics, just that Webster certainly is biased. If not the Church, then what authority do we have that the seven books in question are not canonical? Who decides?
John, the church is not some hierarchy, but is the congregation of believers, including of course, theologians and and leaders who have the understanding to determine (though not infallibly) by various criterion and the discernment of the Spirit, which books are to be considered inspired. Apparently there was a very close consensus on this by the men of the church over the centuries, as documented by Webster and others before him, that the Hebrew canon was the accepted inspired canon, but the Jewish apocryphal books were included in the copies of the Bible for edification, but not considered inspired. Trent, by making a final declaration in contrast to this consensus, departed from tradition.
And what's wrong with being biased? Anyone who has a personal interest in this is biased, yet that doesn't mean each can't weigh the evidence and make an informed decision. It doesn't mean one is untruthful or unable to see the truth clearly when presented.
The decrees of the bishops gathered together in council apparently were not considered the final authority by the many respected Catholic theologians that Webster cited, so maybe their understanding of authority was different than yours. They were free men with understanding and discernment, and many were ordained and had authority as well.
You asked 'Who decides?' It looks to me like the church as a whole did a pretty good job of deciding which books were inspired for centuries.
And maybe there is a misunderstanding about what the earlier councils meant by canonical, since there were two different categories of 'canonical' by Jerome's definition: inspired and uninspired, both included in the Bible, but with clarifying commentary to distinguish them.
Jennie,
There is no such thing as a theologian in the Catholic Church, at least in the way you understand the term.
Only the Church in union with the pope is protected from teaching error.
And, the Churhc is indeed the Roman Catholic Church. It is called the "BODY" of Christ because it is the VISIBLE representation. If it were all of the believers throughout the worldl, it would not be referred to as the body, but the "SOUL" of Christ.
I also find it humorous that whenever someone attacks the Church they become a 'respected theologian' in your books.
Leo,
the RCC calls itself the Body of Christ. Scripture calls 'all who believe the gospel' the Body of Christ. I'll go with God's word over man's.
Jennie,
You said, "the RCC calls itself the Body of Christ. Scripture calls 'all who believe the gospel' the Body of Christ. I'll go with God's word over man's."
Guess what...all who believed the gospel when it was written, WERE members of the Catholic Church. You, through baptism, are a separated member of the Catholic Church.
It is what it is...
Leo,
the 'catholic' or universal church, is not the same as the 'Roman Catholic Church', as evidenced by the separation of the eastern churches and the protestant churches, and others.
Jennie,
Sorry, but it is exactly the same. And don't compare yourself to the eastern churhces which broke away circa 1000A.D., since they hold fast to the same Faith and unbroken line of authority from the Apostles.
Post a Comment