This post is a continuation of The Deuterocanonical Books, part 1. It may be helpful to read that before continuing.
The early Christians used the LXX and used it right along with the rest of the Scriptures.
"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sirach 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sirach 4:31]. ~ Didache [4:5, 70 AD]
"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, 'Woe to their soul because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' [Isaiah 3:9], saying, 'Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us.' [Wisdom 2:12]" ~ Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [74 AD]"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the LORD, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Peter 2:17]...When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms deliver from death' [Tobit 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Peter 5:5], having your conduct blamless among the Gentiles [1 Peter 2:12], and the LORD may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the LORD is blasphemed! [Isaiah 52:5] ~ Polycarp [Letter to the Philadelphians 10, 135 AD]
There is a good collection of quotes from the Early Church Fathers using the deuterocanonicals at Catholic Answers: The Old Testament Canon and The Fathers and the Deuterocanonicals
The Scriptures were canonized in 382 at the Council of Rome. They included the deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament. This decision was ratified at the councils of Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397 and 419, II Nicea in 787, Florence in 1442, and Trent in 1546. Christians used this canon all the way up to the Protestant Reformation. The deuterocanonicals were included in all of the early editions and translations of the Bible (including Wycliffe and Luther). The Guttenberg Bible, the first book ever printed, also had the deuterocanonicals.
So, what changed? Why did Protestants suddenly decide that they were faulty Scriptures after 1000 years of using them? What authority did they have to decide what was divinely inspired and what was not?
Jon left a really great comment that summed it up very well. He said:
"This topic is especially of interest to me, since many Protestant family and friends ask me why Catholics 'added' extra books to the Bible. I always ask them in return how a church in the Protestant model (fragmented, no central magisterium) could possibly come to agree on which books were inspired by God. Only if there is an infallible magisterium with a promise from our Lord that she will teach no error can we be sure that our canon is correct."
He hit the nail right on the head. Protestants don't even claim to have infallible authority. How could they claim to have the correct canon? And why would God wait 1000 years to give the world the revelation that they had the wrong Scriptures?
Sophia asked:
"How can the Catholic Church prove that God actually meant these documents to be a part of the Bible?"
My answer to Sophia is: I believe that these documents are divinely inspired for the same reason that I believe that Hebrews, Esther, & Revelation are inspired. The Catholic Church canonized them and declared them to be infallible. Why do you believe in Hebrews and not Tobit? On what authority do you depend upon to know what is really Scripture and what is not?
Christians used the same Bible for nearly 1500 years. Christians still use that Bible today. I would challenge Protestants, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, that the Bible alone is your total authority, you had better be very sure that you have the correct Bible. If it is really that important to you, you had better be sure that you aren't missing something.
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
I have been participating in the 90 Day Bible Reading Challenge that is going on here on HSB. So far it has been a really awesome experience for me! However, ForeverConfused and I, the two Catholic participants, have it harder than everyone else, because we have to read 73 books rather than 66. ;) I thought that I'd write up a post about why that is, and get into the historical context a little bit.
The 7 "extra" books in the Scriptural canon are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch (there are also a couple more chapters in Esther and Daniel). They are all in the Old Testament, and are often called by Protestants, "the Apocrypha", which literally means, "hidden". Because we as Catholics believe that they are in fact included in the Bible, we call them "deutercanonicals", meaning that they are a part of the canon. There is a collection of apocryphal books, but these seven are not included in them.
So how did Protestants and Catholics end up with two differing Bibles? Protestants will claim that the Catholic Church added extra books, but in reality, it was the Protestants who removed the books from the original canon.
Let's go all the way back to first century AD. There was some dispute then between the Jews on the Old Testament canon. There was no common canon shared between all of the Jews. Some rejected the writings of the prophets while others accepted them as binding. There was one widely used Greek version called the Septuagint (LXX) which included the deuterocanonical books. This is the Old Testament that is used by Catholics today, and also by many Jews (particuarly the Ethiopian Jews). The only distinction between the deuterocanonical books and the books accepted by both Catholics and Protestants is that the deuterocanonicals were included in the LXX.
Around 80 AD, a group of Jewish Rabbis in Jabneh met together to discuss the canon. They were getting very annoyed that this new little "Jewish cult" that was gaining so many new converts: Christianity. These Christians were using the LXX to convert their followers, and it was being very effective. The Greek translation seemed to support their views too clearly. For example, in Hebrew, Isaiah 7:14 would be rendered as, "a young woman shall conceive and bear a son," whereas in the Greek, it would be, "a virgin shall conceive." The Rabbis at Jabneh consequently condemned the Septuagint, however, that didn't stop the disputes over the canon, which continue to go on to this day.
I'll hopefully be posting the second part of this entry this week, so stay tuned :)
Pax Christi,
Sylvia
Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone, was one of the two pillars of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants claim that the Bible is the only authority of truth here on earth for us as Christians. They disregard anything extra-biblical as "man's opinion" or "man's tradition". But the irony of Sola Scriptura is that it in itself is an extra-biblical doctrine. Nowhere in the Bible do we see support for the idea that there is a single infallible book that is the pillar and foundation of truth. In fact, we see quite the opposite:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. ~ I Timothy 3:15
Protestants will accept the fact that there is truth outside of the Bible (Jn 21:25). But, they say that no other truth is needed other than the truth that is presented in the Holy Scriptures. One of the most common passages used to support this doctrine is 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. ~ 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The first thing to consider when reading these verses, is what is Paul referring to when he says "scripture"? Obviously, the Early Christians didn't have the entire New Testament at their fingertips. The gospels and epistles that make up the NT, and also quite a few other epistles that aren't in the canon, were scattered all over the place during the first 400 years of the Church. In the previous verse, 2 Tim 3:15, Paul says that, "from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures". Timothy was raised on the Old Testament. He was familiar with the psalms and the prophets.
The fact is that it wasn't until the year 397 at the Council of Carthage that the New Testament Canon was closed. There was much dispute over which books were inspired by God and which ones were not. There were countless other documents such as the Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Barnabas, St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, The Shepherd of Hermas, etc., that weren't declared as inspired by the Holy Spirit. So who was it that decided which books were inspired and which ones weren't? The Roman Catholic Church.
Going back to 2 Tim 3:16-17, Protestants may claim that this is sufficient evidence that the Bible alone is the authority for Christians. But nowhere in that passage does it imply singular authority. It does say that Scripture is an authority (the Scripture that they had at the time), that it is "profitable" for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". But does this mean that Scripture is the only authority that is profitable for these things? The Scriptures (remember that we're speaking in context of the Old Testament) will thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works. It will strengthen and build up the man of God - after all, it is His inspired Word! But, as Peter says in his second epistle:
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience mean salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. ~ 2 Peter 3:15-16
The Bible contains many things that are hard to understand. If you have 10 people in one room, and you read a passage of Scripture to them, it's likely that each of them will have a different interpretation of what that passage means. The question is: which of these interpretations is correct?
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. ~ 2 Peter 1:20
If we want the truth, we're going to need an infallible interpretation of that infallible Scripture. Can any of us claim to have an infallible interpretation?
As I said in my last entry about sola scriptura, the Catholic position in no way undermines the authority of Scripture. Scripture loses it's authority when it's detached from the authority of the Church. It was through the authority of the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that the Scriptures came about in the first place. She alone holds the God-given responsibility to interpret His Word. The interpretation of Scripture isn't something to be taken lightly. It's not something that just anyone can presume to do. Martin Luther, after having severed himself from the authority of the Church, took appalling liberties with the Scriptures. He called the Book of James an "epistle of straw" and said that he was "such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist". He also rejected the inspiration of the Book of Revelation:
There are many things objectionable in this book. To my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character...Everyone may form his own judgement of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it. ~ Martin Luther (Sammtliche Works, 63, 169-170)
This is just an example of what can happen when someone relies on their own personal interpretation. They can "form their own judgement[s]" regardless of the teaching of the Church. One analogy often used is that of the constitution. The founding fathers didn't simply write the constitution and then hand it to everyone saying, "interpret it to the best of your ability". They established a government - a hierarchy - an authority. Otherwise, the United States wouldn't have lasted a month without disintegrating into utter chaos.
No one can rely simply on sola scriptura. In essense, they are really relying on their own interpretation of the Bible - and not the Bible itself. But, God established a Church to be the pillar and foundation of His truth. That Church canonized God's inerrant Word in the Scriptures, and that Church is led by the Spirit into all truth to interpret the Scriptures.
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
Sola Scriptura was the second of the two pillars of the Reformation. Luther claimed that our sole authority and rule of faith was the Bible alone. But what does the Bible say about where our authority comes from? Is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura Biblical?
1 Timothy 3:15 ~ But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.
The early Christians didn’t have the entire New Testament. They relied upon the spoken word and traditions handed down to them from the apostles.
1 Corinthians 11:2 ~ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 ~ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
If our entire faith is based solely upon the Bible, how was the early Christian church able to survive for the first 300 years without it?
In fact, how did we even get the Bible that we have today? Did Jesus hand it to the apostles when He was on earth saying, “This is the sole foundation of truth.”? No, but he did establish a church saying, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. (Mt 16:18)
And how are we supposed to know what books are supposed to be in the Bible, anyway? There are many books that aren’t included in the canon such as the Gospel of Thomas for example. Who decided that it was not Scripture? And what about the book of Philemon? It doesn’t seem to have much spiritual or doctrinal significance. Who decided that Philemon would be included in the canon of Scripture? How do we know that Philemon is inspired, even though it may seem somewhat uninspiring?
It was the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, that decided which books were to be included in the canon in the year 382 under Pope Damascus I. That decision was again ratified at the Councils of Hippo (393) and
Here are what some of the Early Church Fathers had to say:
"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. ~ Vincent of Lerins (AD 434)
“I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.” ~ Augustine of Hippo (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation” 5:6)
What happens when you try to hold the Bible alone as your sole authority? Unfortunately, the Bible does not interpret itself. That means that you are left to your own personal interpretation to understand what the Bible means.
1 Peter 1:20 ~ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
When you have thousands of people relying on their own personal interpretation of Scripture, you get thousands of different denominations.
I am not trying to undermine the Bible in any way. I think that those who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura are undermining the Bible (though unknowingly) by detaching it from tradition. The Bible loses its authority when it loses the authority of the Church. Luther was able to question the validity of the books of James and Revelation because he denied the authority of the Church.
I will end with this rather lengthy excerpt from An Exposition of the Faith – Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, “The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called”. It sums up pretty much everything. :)
“Now the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized world to the end of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples its faith in one God, the Father Almighty...and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit...so that every knee may bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King...and every tongue may confess him, and that he may execute righteous judgment on all...the godless and wicked and lawless and blasphemers among men he will send into the eternal fire. But to the righteous and holy, and those who have kept his commandments and have remained in his love...he will by his grace give life incorrupt, and will clothe them with eternal glory.
Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. For the languages of the world are different, but the meaning of the [Christian] tradition is one and the same. Neither do the churches that have been established in
