Catholic Canons of the Scriptures

[Charles Sloan]

Now I would like to discuss the Roman Catholic canons and decrees of the concerning the Holy Scriptures. This is taken again from the Council of Trent, fourth session under Julius III. As afore mentioned these decrees are still recognized by the Roman Church as doctrinal law and considered apart of the Roman Curia.

This short passage contains what is considered the "Catholic Canon" or the books they consider the Holy and inspired Word of God. This includes the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees. The apocryphal books, while considered historical in nature; are not considered sacred or inspired and were not included in the Jews canon of the Rabbis at the time of Jesus. So these books were are not included in the canon that is commonly accepted today as the Holy Bible.

They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

Notice that if you reject the apocrypha as apart of the canon, you are considered anathema or accursed by God. This would effectively place every Bible believing Christian not apart of the Roman Church as condemned and doomed to hell if this decree were to be true.

I would like to hear some thoughts on this.

[DCR]

It seems that different canonical councils have come to different conclusions about what all was included in the canon at different times.  I need to review my history of this.  Does anyone remember when it was decided what was included in the "canon" that comprises most non-Catholic Bibles today?

I have to wonder, though, how most of us (as non-Catholics) would view those who don't accept certain books of the Bible that we accept?  For example, how should I view someone who, for example, throws out the book of James or the book of Hebrews as not legitimate?  Should they be considered okay?

[Bon Voyage]

I believe the books were included in the King James Version of the bible until the late 1800's.

[DCR]

Thanks for pointing that out, Gary.  I was just thinking that I thought I had heard that before... or at least that the original 1611 KJV included more or some of what we call "Apocryphal" books.

[Bon Voyage]

Found this:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

- Jerome (340-420), preface to the books of Solomon

[Bon Voyage]

Found this on Wikipedia regarding King James Only-ism:

Church of England, Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which is the church's doctrinal statement enacted in 1563, says this about the books of the Apocrypha:

    And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such as are the following:
    The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
    The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
    The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
    The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
    The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
    The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
    Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

[Charles Sloan]

That is kinda a side issue, not that I don't agree that the apocryphal were still included until 1826. But this really isn't about the editions of the Protestant Bible, so much as that the view of the apocryphal books must be seen as equal with Scripture or you are consider anathema by the Roman Church.

Sorry, but I would rather this not become rabbit trailed in discussion of editions of the Bible.

[DCR]

Wasn't the council, in effect, saying that those books which we are considering here to be "Apocryphal"... are "Scripture" in view of the council?

If that's the case, then what we have here is a case of disagreement on what is considered to be "Scripture."

With that in mind, I guess this goes back to my question... if it was wrong for the council to consider anyone who doesn't accept all the listed books as "anathema," then would it, by the same token, be wrong for us to consider someone "anathema" for not accepting, say, the book of James... or Jude... or other books we consider to be Scripture?

[Charles Sloan]

That is a good question, but I don't think we should consider a Christian who has difficulty accepting the authority of Scripture anathema just based on the fact they might not accept every book. I believe if we were to probe deeper we would find there is a reason behind their rejection of these books. For example with the hyper-dispensationalist who rejects the book of James, they do so because they consider James a book of Jews law keeping because of their skewed views of obedience and faith.

But just to condemn a Christian for not conforming to our views seems like heresy.

[Harold]

Council Of Trent

Since the Council Of Trent seems to be the basis of these threads maybe we need to understnd what the council was trying to convey.

FTL

[Charles Sloan]

Council Of Trent

Since the Council Of Trent seems to be the basis of these threads maybe we need to understnd what the council was trying to convey.

FTL

I believe the basis of these threads is to understand what the council was trying to convey.

[Ek Pyros]

It seems that different canonical councils have come to different conclusions about what all was included in the canon at different times.  I need to review my history of this.  Does anyone remember when it was decided what was included in the "canon" that comprises most non-Catholic Bibles today?

I have to wonder, though, how most of us (as non-Catholics) would view those who don't accept certain books of the Bible that we accept?  For example, how should I view someone who, for example, throws out the book of James or the book of Hebrews as not legitimate?  Should they be considered okay?

I remember.  The process "officially" began with Athanasius (as far as when our canon was first being developed).  But before him, long before him, the policy was to use scripture 2 Tim. 3:16 style that was directly affiliated with the Apostles and eyewitnesses of Jesus.  Other books were considered, but not read for the congregation as scriptural as we would consider the Bible today.

Second, these people might be "ok" in the sense that they can still believe in Jesus as the Risen Lord--that is, they have all the facts they need about Him in the other books--but of course someone like myself would beg to differ with their opinions on Hebrews and James.  Haha, entirely subjective but I just love Hebrews and James.  One is so magnificently written, the other horribly convicting.

[broach972]

The apocryphal books, while considered historical in nature; are not considered sacred or inspired and were not included in the Jews canon of the Rabbis at the time of Jesus. So these books were are not included in the canon that is commonly accepted today as the Holy Bible.

This is extremely debatable and history simply does not support your views on the issue.

They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

Notice that if you reject the apocrypha as apart of the canon, you are considered anathema or accursed by God. This would effectively place every Bible believing Christian not apart of the Roman Church as condemned and doomed to hell if this decree were to be true.

I would like to hear some thoughts on this.

As I have stated in a previous thread concerning the term "anathema," this simply is not the case.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=25031.msg482264#msg482264

The reason for this pronouncement deals more with the NT than the OT.  Luther wanted to make some drastic changes to the NT.  Actually, he wanted to dump the OT altogether.  Luther was hoping and expecting that the European Jews would rally to his cause and finally accept Christ, which they did not.  He was infuriated at this and wanted to drop the OT altogether.  As far as the NT is concerned, Luther wanted to include only the Four Gospels and some letters of Paul.  He despised the Book of James and Hebrews.  Which books make up the Bible had been settled for quite some time, since the Councils of Carthage and Hippo.

[Charles Sloan]

The apocryphal books, while considered historical in nature; are not considered sacred or inspired and were not included in the Jews canon of the Rabbis at the time of Jesus. So these books were are not included in the canon that is commonly accepted today as the Holy Bible.

This is extremely debatable and history simply does not support your views on the issue.

Granted. Regardless of the history if one does not submit to the apocrypha they are anathema according to these decrees.

As I have stated in a previous thread concerning the term "anathema," this simply is not the case.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=25031.msg482264#msg482264

The reason for this pronouncement deals more with the NT than the OT.  Luther wanted to make some drastic changes to the NT.  Actually, he wanted to dump the OT altogether.  Luther was hoping and expecting that the European Jews would rally to his cause and finally accept Christ, which they did not.  He was infuriated at this and wanted to drop the OT altogether.  As far as the NT is concerned, Luther wanted to include only the Four Gospels and some letters of Paul.  He despised the Book of James and Hebrews.  Which books make up the Bible had been settled for quite some time, since the Councils of Carthage and Hippo.

Regardless of the reasons of this pronouncement (which you should at least provide some proof of), the council cursed everyone that does not accept the apocrypha as the inspired Word of God. So Luther and his intentions reflect nothing on the effect today except to curse those who reject the apocrypha.

[broach972]

Regardless of the reasons of this pronouncement (which you should at least provide some proof of), the council cursed everyone that does not accept the apocrypha as the inspired Word of God. So Luther and his intentions reflect nothing on the effect today except to curse those who reject the apocrypha.

Well, considering I have degree in history and teach a variety of history courses, I would like to think that I have some credibility on this matter.  But if it is proof you want concerning Luther's attitude towards Scripture, then so be it.  I am sure that the Church had a reason to defend the canon at that time.  You only need logic to come to that conclusion.  You have used Wikipedia in past threads so I will do the same.

Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James "an epistle of straw," finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."[3] He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the Scriptures. His views on some of these books changed in later years.

It is obvious that Luther was extremely hostile to various parts of the canon.  This is a historical fact.  The books of the Apocrypha was part of the canon and Trent simply reaffirm what had always been the case.  Trent aimed to solidify the intregrity of the canon.  As far as the "anathema" is concerned, that has been addressed on another thread.