Canon of Scripture
Roman Catholics complain that Protestants have 'removed' books from the canon of scripture.
This hue and cry has even been taken up by Muslim apologists like
Ahmad Deedat. But it is more accurate to say that the sixteenth century Council
of Trent added books to the canon, than to complain that Protestants ever
removed any. Protestants adopted the early church's canon of scripture:
"This then is the Holy Ghost,
who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets,
in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle
says, 'All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable
for instruction.' And therefore it seems proper in this place
to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers,
the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according
to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been
inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ.
"Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of
all there have been handed down five books of Moses,
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Jesus
Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), the Book of Judges together with
Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon
two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days
(Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which
the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor)
Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book.
"Solomon gave three books to the Churches,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise
the books of the Old Testament.
"But it should be known that there are also other
books which our fathers call not 'Canonical'
but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom
of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son
of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general
title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book,
but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the
Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the
Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called
the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called
The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would
have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation
of doctrine. The other writings they have named 'Apocrypha.'
These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the
traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which,
as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this
place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the
first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may
know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must
be taken."
(Rufinus (late fourth century), Commentary on the
Apostles' Creed, 37-38, ECF 2.03).
|
|
"The Old Testament, then, consists of all together twenty-two books in number,– which also, I have
heard, is traditionally the number of written characters used
by the Hebrews,– the order of which, and the name of each, being
as follows: first, there is Genesis; then Exodus; then Leviticus;
and after this is Numbers; and then Deuteronomy; and following
these is Jesus son of Nave [Joshua]; and Judges; and after this
is Ruth; and again, following after these are four books of
Kingdoms, of which the first and second are counted as one [1
and 2 Samuel], and the third and fourth likewise as one [1 and
2 Kings]; and after these there is a first and second of Paralipomenon
[Chronicles], likewise counted as one; then Esdras, a first
and second in one [Ezra and Nehemiah]; and after this is a book
of Psalms; and then one of Proverbs; then Ecclesiastes; and
Song of Songs; and besides these, there is Job; and then the
Prophets, the twelve counted as one book [minor prophets]; then
Isaias; Jeremias, and along with it, Baruch, Lamentations, and
the Letter; and after these, Ezechiel; and Daniel. It is of
these so far enumerated that the Old Testament consists...
"These are the fountains of salvation at which they who thirst may be satisfied with the words they
contain. Only in these is the teaching of piety proclaimed.
Let no man add to these, nor take away from them....For the
sake of greater clarity I must necessarily add this remark also:
there are other books besides the aforementioned, which, however,
are not canonical. Yet, they have been designated by the Fathers
to be read by those who join us and who wish to be instructed
in the word of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon; and the Wisdom
of Sirach [Ecclesiasticus]; and Esther; and Judith; and Tobias;
and the Teaching attributed to the Apostles [Didache]; and the
Shepherd. Those which I mentioned earlier, beloved, are included
in the canon, while these latter are but recommended for reading."
(Athanasius, Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, 367 A.D., 791, pp.
341-342, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, William A. Jurgens).
"Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: As you
have often, prompted by your regard for the
word of God, expressed a wish to have some extracts made from
the Law and the Prophets concerning the Savior, and concerning
our faith in general, and have desired, moreover, to obtain
an accurate account of the Ancient Books, as regards their number
and their arrangement, I have striven to the best of my ability
to perform this task: well knowing your zeal for the faith,
and your eagerness to become acquainted with the Word, and especially
because I am assured that, through your yearning after God,
you esteem these things beyond all things else, engaged as you
are in a struggle for eternal salvation.
"I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question
were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately
acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them
down below, and herewith send you the list. Their names are as follows:
"The five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of
the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the
Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books
of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in
a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made
my extracts, dividing them into six books."
(Melito of Sardis,
c. 177 A.D., Book of Extracts, ECF 0.08)
|
|
"When expounding the first Psalm, he [Origen] gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the
Old Testament as follows: 'It should be stated that the canonical
books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two;
corresponding with the number of their letters.'" (Origen, quoted
in Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25).
"On the contrary, the translation [the Septuagint] was
effected by the Holy Spirit, by whom the Divine Scriptures were
spoken. Of these, read the twenty-two books; but have nothing to
do with the apocrypha. Study diligently those only which we read
publicly in the Church. Far wiser than you, and much more pious,
were the Apostles and bishops of old, the rulers of the Church
who handed down these books. You, therefore, being a child of
the Church – infringe not on its statutes. Of the Old Testament,
as we have said, study the twenty-two books; and if you happen
to be desirous of learning, strive to remember them by name as I
recite them. Of the law, the first five are the books of Moses:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Next,
Jesus the Son of Nave; and the Book of Judges together with
Ruth, counted as the seventh.
"Of the others, the historical books, the first and
second book of Kingdoms are counted by the Hebrews as one book;
and as one book also, the third and the fourth. LIkewise, with
them, the first and second Books of Paralipomenon are accounted
as one book; and the first and second of Esdras are reckoned as
one. The twelfth book is Esther. And these are the historical
books.
"Those, however, which are written in verses are five:
Job, the Book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of
Songs, which is the seventeenth book. After these there are the
five prophetic books: of the twelve prophets, there is one book;
of Isaias, one; of Jeremias, one, along with Baruch*,
Lamentations, and the Letter*; next, Ezechiel; and the Book of
Daniel is the twenty-second book of the Old Testament.
"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are
the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And,
pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why dost thou,
who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble
thyself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine
Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these
that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters. [...]
"Of these read the two and twenty books, but have
nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly
these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and
more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of
old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these
books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not
upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said,
study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of
learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of
the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of
Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as
seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second
books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the
third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and
second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and
second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book;
and these are the Historical writings. But those which are
written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and
Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the
seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books:
of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one,
including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel,
and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.
"Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels
only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The
Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being
tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the
souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve
Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles
of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all,
and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of
Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And
whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by
thyself, as thou hast heard me say. Thus much of these
subjects."
(Cyril of Jerusalem, The Catechetical Lectures, 4:33-36).
|
|
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among
the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for
the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines
of the Church." (Jerome, Prefaces to the Vulgate Old Testament).
"As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all
we say, and the compass of the human voice is contained within
their limits, so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by
the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed
in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast.
The first of these books...to which we give the name Genesis.
The second...which bears the name Exodus; the third, ...that
is Leviticus; the fourth,...which we call Numbers; the fifth,...which
is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses,
which they properly call Thorath, that is law. The second class
is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son
of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next
in the series is...the book of Judges; and in the same book
they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the
days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and
Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which
is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it
is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth,
that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms
of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel,
which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah,
the sixth Jeremiah, the seventh Ezekiel, the eighth is the book
of the Twelve Prophets,...
"To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job, the second
with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise
in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books,
Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, Ecclesiastes,
that is Coeleth, the Song of Songs...; the sixth is Daniel;
the seventh,...Words of Days, which we may more expressively
call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book
that amongst us is called First and Second Chronicles; the eighth,
Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins
into two books; the ninth is Esther.
"And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of
the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth
and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think
that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should
thus have twenty-four book of the old law. And these the Apocalypse
of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the
Lamb, and with downcast looks offer their crowns, while in their
presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and
behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with
unwearied voice crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty,
who wast, and art, and art to come.
"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which
we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that
what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal
writings. Wisdom, therefore, which finally bears the name of
Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith,
and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon." (Jerome,
Prefaces to the Vulgate Old Testament, ECF 2.06)
|
"These are the books of the Old Testament which ought to be read:
1. Genesis of the World;
2. Exodus from Egypt;
3. Leviticus;
4. Numbers;
5. Deuteronomy;
6. Jesus of Nave [Joshua];
7. Judges, Ruth;
8. Esther;
9. First and Second of Kingdoms [1-2 Samuel];
10. Third and Fourth of Kingdoms;
11. First and Second of Paralipomenon [Chronicles];
12. First and Second Esdras;
13. Book of One Hundred and Fifty Psalms;
14. Proverbs of Solomon;
15. Ecclesiastes;
16. Song of Songs;
17. Job;
18. Twelve Prophets;
19. Isaias;
20. Jeremias and Baruch*, Lamentation and Letters*;
21. Ezechiel;
22. Daniel.
(Canon 60, Council of Laodicea, p. 318, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, William A. Jurgens).
|
|
The books marked with an asterisk (*) are not included in the
consensus Protestant canon. This fact: that while there is broad
agreement, there are also small differences, amongst these early
church lists, is presented by Roman Catholic apologists as if it
were an insuperable obstacle to accepting any of these lists as
relevant to the canon of scripture. Far from being an insurmountable
obstacle, it is not even a real difficulty. Confronted with broad
consensus incorporating small anomalies, proceed as follows: drop
the outliers. There is some variability around the margins of the
early church's canon, but those small differences 'average out.'
Dropping the outliers, you have a very good, and very solid, canon
of scripture, to which any believer can say 'Amen.' And certainly
adopting a late, minority viewpoint is no solution to the absence of
perfect agreement!
Two local councils, Carthage and Hippo, loom large in the
Roman Catholic retelling of the history of the canon. There is this difference
between local and ecumenical councils: an ecumenical council seeks
to gather together the whole household of faith to ascertain the
mind of the church, while local councils cherish smaller ambitions. These
two local councils, under the influence of the great Western
theologian Augustine, did accept the canonicity of the apocryphal
works, even realizing the difficulties with their authorship and
provenance. This was however a minority view; even beyond the early
church period, as late an author as John of Damascus presents the
standard twenty-two book canon of the Old Testament:
"Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old
Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are
twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be
twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And
thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to
be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined
on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second
books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of
Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and
second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four
Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books.
Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first
Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as
they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus
the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which
are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two
books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second
Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms,
Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of
Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve
prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then
come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the
Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus,
which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards
translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are
virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark."
(John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17, Concerning Scripture).
The reader today who encounters the voice of God in the Bible
finds great encouragement in sharing the consensus of the early,
spirit-filled church, who gathered together these treasures. Can not
the same Holy Spirit who inspired the works also be counted upon to recognize
them?
Hebrew Oracles
|
"What advantage
then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were
committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2).
|
|
The twenty-two book Old Testament canon (as the reader will note, the count is artificial)
referenced above by early church writers is and was
the Hebrew canon of scripture:
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among
us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two
books, which contain the records of all the past times; which
are justly believed to be divine. . .and how firmly we have given
credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we
do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has
been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything
from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural
to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem
those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them,
and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them." (Josephus, 'Against Apion,' Book I, 8.).
This is not a coincidence. Contrary to what some Roman Catholics
seem to think, no books were ever 'removed' by the Jews at any time. It is biblically
difficult to understand the church's Old Testament canon as differing from the Hebrew
canon, because the Bible says that the oracles were entrusted to the
Hebrews. Some of these books, like 'Wisdom,' do not even have Hebrew
exemplars. What was ever "committed" to the Hebrews, as Paul
says, in a book not even written in their language?
The Deuterocanonical books fall into the void between the two
testaments. They are not the oracles delivered to the Hebrews, but
nor do they testify that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ; they are
neither New, nor Old, Testament.
Inspiration of God
Bible believers who talk to contemporary Roman Catholics
are used to hearing them debunk the Bible, claiming that it teaches the earth is flat and
other gross errors. It may come as a surprise, therefore, to learn of the respect in which
Catholic authors of old times held sacred scripture:
"But it [sacred doctrine] properly uses
the authority of the canonical Scriptures as a necessary argument, and the authority of the
doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, though merely as probable. For our faith
rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets, who wrote the canonical
books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.
Hence Augustine says (Epist. ad Hieron.): 'Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical
have I learnt to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing
them. But other authors I so read as not to deem anything in their works to be true merely on
account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and
learning.'" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part Question 1, Article 8).
Thomas Aquinas thought that the Bible was inerrant: "I
answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning not by
words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. . .Hence it is plain that nothing false
can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ." (Summa Theologica, First Part Question 1, Article 10).
The people of the present day who agree with Thomas and Augustine
on this point are not Roman Catholics, who have wandered altogether
off the reservation, but fundamentalists:
Augustine and Thomas were fundamentalists; modern Roman Catholics are not. It is often observed that
fundamentalists have trouble getting along with their more liberal brethren, and schism
is the all too common outcome. Perhaps it is fortunate for the contemporary church that these men are deceased
and cannot voice their dismay.
When modern-day Roman Catholics dispute with evangelicals about
the 'canon of scripture,' there is a fatal equivocation: there is no
common notion of 'scripture' shared by these two groups. To
contemporary Roman Catholics, there are no books which are
"God-breathed" in such a direct way that their authorship might as
well be attributed to God, as Jesus so attributes the Old Testament
works He cites. Looking to substance rather than words merely, there
is no residual dispute between evangelicals and Roman Catholics
about the deuterocanonical works: both believe these works were
authored by who knows whom, not by their stated authors; both believe
these works to be an amalgam of truth and error; both believe their
human authors did the very best they could; they were not the
receptacles of any special divine influx. Protestants and Catholics
agree on these points. Where there is no
disagreement, there should be no argument. Rather, evangelicals
should seek to persuade Roman Catholics that there are other books,
inspired by God, which are not an amalgam of truth and error; and
that these books, Isaiah, Matthew, the letters of Paul, etc., should
be consulted to resolve doctrinal disputes.
What is Written
Modern Catholics claim to have in their possession oral traditions dating from the apostles, though what these
are or how their authenticity might be verified, no one knows. But Paul was
already not planning to conduct church business in this manner:
|
"Now these things,
brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and
Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to
think beyond what is written, that none of you may be
puffed up on behalf of one against the other." (1 Corinthians 4:6).
|
|
Contrary to what some people seem to think, this is not a
'difficult' passage of scripture, nor is it hampered with variants which change the meaning.
Paul does not want schools of thought to arise in the church (modern
Roman Catholicism for example) which are based on personal authority
(as of one bishop) or 'oral traditions' which may or may not be
traditional; rather he would have the church firmly founded on the
Old Testament scriptures and the written instructions compiled by
himself and his fellow apostles. We can obey, or disobey, Paul's instructions.
Addition and Subtraction
There is no suggestion in the Bible that the work will be
improved by addition, though there have always been those eager to
add:
|
"You shall not add to the word
which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep
the commandments of the Lord your God which I command
you." (Deuteronomy 4:2).
"Whatever I command you, be careful
to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away
from it." (Deuteronomy 12:32).
"Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a
liar."" (Proverbs 30:6).
"Only be strong and very courageous, that
you may observe to do according to all the law which
Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to
the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper
wherever you go." (Joshua 1:7).
|
|
It was in keeping with this idea, of swerving neither to the left
nor to the right, that Jesus said, “He answered and said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
“This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.’ He said to them,
‘All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.’” (Mark 7:6-9).
Sola
|
"All things, therefore, that have been delivered to
us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and
know, and honor, seeking for nothing beyond these. . .It is not within
our capacity, therefore, to say anything about God or even to think of
Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether
by word or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old
Testament and of the New." (John of Damascus,
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 1-2).
|
|
Godly Forgery
The apocryphal 'Wisdom of Solomon' claims authorship by King Solomon of ancient Israel:
"You yourself have
chosen me to be king over your people, to be judge of your sons and daughters. You have bidden me
build a temple on your holy mountain, an altar in the city where you have pitched your tent, a copy
of that sacred tabernacle which you prepared from the beginning." (Wisdom 9:7-8).
What king was chosen by God to build the temple? This author is not
claiming to be a private citizen. He claims to be King Solomon of
old, though he is not. This is a 'pseudepigraphic' work;
i.e., it makes a bogus authorship claim.
The author wrote in Greek, as
the preface to the work in the Jerusalem Bible admits: "And indeed the whole book is written in
Greek. . ." (Introduction to the Book of Wisdom, Jerusalem Bible). It is less than obvious why King
Solomon of ancient Israel would have written a book in the Greek tongue,
much less why he would espouse the Platonic philosophy centuries
before Plato.
Roman Catholic apologists assert that false attribution of
authorship was an accepted practice of the day. To the contrary,
Tertullian realized that a forger had produced 'The Acts of Paul
and Thecla,' and he was every bit as indignant as any modern reader would be:
"But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim
Thecla’s example as a license for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them
know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he
were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted,
and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from
his office." (Tertullian, 'On Baptism,' Chapter 17).
Why does Tertullian say the man was "convicted" if this practice was accepted? Why the judgmental
vocabulary? Why was the forger removed from office if the church
at large accepted the practice? No doubt they had plenty of liars back then,
we still do today. People who were deceived by a
liar back then got just as angry when they found out as we do today.
The living God does not breathe lies into the souls of
His prophets; His holy eyes cannot look upon evil: "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and
canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy
tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?" (Habakkuk 1:13).
Knowing this we have confidence in His promises: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that
cannot lie, promised before the world began. . ." (Titus 1:2). Bibles
which contain the 'Wisdom of Solomon' come with no such guarantee.
Must we ask the Pope to sort out for us which
statements of God are deceptive and which can be trusted?
Unfortunately, modern Roman Catholics have such a low concept of
scripture that they freely admit to falsehood in the
deuterocanonical works. Forgery is no bar to canonicity, with
such a debased concept of the canon. These discussions were
meaningful in past times, when all agreed that Holy Writ must be
true; but once one party grows bold enough to say, 'this is false, and it is scripture,'
upon what common understanding can discussion hinge? Evangelicals
and Roman Catholics have no common concept of 'scripture' about
which to dispute.
In addition to its false attribution of authorship,
the 'Wisdom of Solomon' teaches the Platonic doctrine of the pre-existence of the human soul: "I was a boy of
happy disposition, I had received a good soul as my lot, or rather, being good, I had entered an
undefiled body. . ." (Wisdom, 8:19-20). Plato adopted the doctrine of
reincarnation which was taught in those environs by Pythagoras, who
may have adopted it from the Hindus and Buddhists who took the
expectation of a return trip for granted, as the native Greeks did
not. It is not commonly thought compatible with Christian
revelation, because of Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
the judgment:"
Quotation
When early church writers compile canon lists, certain works are missing; yet, their adherents point out, these
works are sometimes quoted by Christian authors. This is true; for that matter, Josephus is quoted, and Philo
Judaeus is quoted, though no one has ever suggested these two authors should have a place in the
Christian canon. Paul is quoted in Acts as quoting a pagan poet who said, "For in him we live, and move,
and have our being;" — "as certain also of your own poets have said," — "For we are also his
offspring." (Acts 17:28). The identify of this pagan poet, probably Aratus, is stated variously by
commentators because several pagan poets said very similar things. But whoever he was, he certainly has no
place in the Christian canon of scripture. The fact that he is quoted does not automatically give him any such status.
Does the author says, 'it is written?' or use the verse to determine a point of doctrine? The Book of Enoch is
quoted in Jude's epistle, yet without sucking 'Enoch' into the canon.
We all quote Shakespeare and Benjamin Franklin without ever
imagining the words of those authorities are God-breathed.
By no author are these apocryphal works
quoted often, an anomalous situation if they were indeed understood to be scripture.
Catholics allege that the Jews suppressed these books, which
they had purportedly at a prior time received as scripture, out of
hostility to Christianity. And yet not a one of these books
testifies to Christianity; not a one is doctrinally important. Why
suppress what does not advance your adversary's case? It is true that
Greek-speaking Judaism lost its patronage and its constituency with
the disasters that overtook the Jewish nation. Judaism turned
inward, 180 degrees away from the proselytizing religion in dialogue
with the world which it had been in Philo's day. Instead of
compassing sea and land to persuade everyone to become Abraham's
children, they adopted a racialist definition of what it means to be
Abraham's child, which may be summarized as 'we are, you're not.'
Had the church not cared to preserve Philo's writings as well as the
Apocrypha, these works would have been lost, as the Jews walled
themselves off from their Greek heritage. And yet searching for Christian quotes of a book like
'Judith' yields unimpressive results, given the book's lack of any point of contact with the Christian faith.
In a similar vein, some works that almost never show up on canon lists were on occasion bound in a volume with
the Bible. The reader should reflect that early editions of the King James version of the Bible included the
Apocrypha, yet with a translators' preface that clearly labelled the Apocrypha as non-canonical.
Binding and quoting, as indices of canonicity, must be used with caution. They must be used by advocates,
no doubt, because there's not much else.
Every Time
Some people say, 'I don't know much about the Bible, but what I do know has changed my life.'
No one ever said, "Reading 'Judith,' or 'Tobit,' has changed my life;' these are
not life-changing books. Their insipidity and mediocrity do not
testify in favor of their inspiration, but against, because the God whom man
cannot bear to look at and live cannot be expected to write little
stuff. It is rather surprising that people keep trying to sell such
an unremarkable and unexciting product. It doesn't sell itself; it is not
self-authenticating.
All the Scriptures
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all
the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27).
How could Luke know that anyone had searched all the scriptures, if there was not in his
day a functioning, closed canon of Old Testament scripture?
Council of Florence
A frequent 'Catholic Answers' caliber resolution to the problem of the canon is to
cite the medieval Council of Florence. As the Byzantine Empire
tottered toward its final demise, an effort was made to reconcile
East and West. The East, desperate for military assistance and
money, might be expected to 'give' a little on thorny theological
disputes like the 'filioque' clause of the creed. This Council, held
at the height of the conciliar movement, was admirably democratic in
its proceedings. But its findings
were never ratified by the Eastern church, and in 1453
Constantinople fell to the Turks. The 'Council of Florence' thus
subsists in the rarefied air of proposals never agreed to, contracts
never signed, understandings never consented to, possibilities never
instantiated. Even Roman Catholic jurists do not accept the findings
of this Council, because of all the varied difficulties it presents,
yet a text exists; thus, Catholic Answers has discovered this matter
was resolved prior to Trent. It was not. And once the matter was
addressed at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent,
understandably the attention of the Protestants had wandered. The
canon was resolved, as it should have been, by the consensus of the
spirit-filled early church, not by decree from the top down.
People of the Book
|
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am
God, and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:22).
|
|
The Roman Catholic Church has adopted in recent years a startling attitude
toward Islam: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge
the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess
to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one,
merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1994, §841)
Muslims know, because they read it in the Koran, that Jesus is the Messiah: "Remember when the angel
said, ‘O Mary! Verily God announceth to thee the Word from Him: His name shall be, Messiah Jesus the son of Mary,
illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have
near access to God; and He shall speak to men alike when in the cradle
and when grown up; and he shall be one of the just.’" (Sura 3:40-41).
But they do not look to Him for salvation.
But that is just what the Messiah is for; He is to save His people:
“Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’” (Isaiah 49:5, Acts 13:47).
This would seem to be a classic case of hearing the gospel, and rejecting
it. They acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, yet do not trust in Him to be
saved. Why, then, does the Roman Catholic Church give them a place in the
"plan of salvation"?
"The LORD is their strength, and He is the saving refuge of His anointed.
Save Your people, and bless Your inheritance; Shepherd them also, and bear
them up forever." (Psalm 28:8-9).
Bible Contradictions
Bible-believing Christians who talk with Roman Catholics nowadays are
familiar with a little satchel of 'Bible contradictions' which Catholics
like to pull out. In fact they have heard these very same 'Bible
contradictions' many times from the atheists. Are these contradictions real, or
is there less here than meets the eye?
'Bible Contradictions' work like this: One writer says A, B, and D happened; another writer
says A and C happened. The only way this is a 'conflict' much less a 'contradiction' is if
it is impossible for A, B, C, and D to have all happened. This is what is advertised, by the
atheists and Roman Catholics, but not delivered.
|
