On whose authority did Luther remove the Apocrypha?

[church mouse guy]

David Ewert in his book From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations: A General Introduction to the Bible published by Zondervan in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1983, on page 72, says,

"...no human authority and no council of rabbis ever made an [Old Testament] book authoritative. These books were inspired by God and had the stamp of authority on them from the beginning. Through long usage in the Jewish community their authority was recognized, and in due time they were added to the collection of cannonical books."

This whole thread has sought to blame Martin Luther for something about which he had nothing to do. As has been noted before, the Roman Catholic Church did not adopt these books until 1546. The Roman Catholic Church cannot dictate the Jewish canon, especially almost 2000 years after the Jewish canon or Hebrew Scripture or Old Testament was established by Jewish usage and acceptance. Four hundred years before Jesus was born, God ceased to speak to the Jews according to the Jews.

Martin Luther stood for the truth but Martin Luther did not do what this thread accuses him of doing!

 

[Matt Black]

How does he know which books had the 'stamp of authority on them'? Does he have some kind of 'inspiration detector' machine? 'Jewish usage' depends on whether you mean the LXX or Hebrew text as to whether the DCs are included

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[church mouse guy]

Like Hank pointed out, the New Testament recognizes Jewish authority in this area. However, this whole thread is wrong in charging Luther and wrong if you are saying that some Jewish council determined the Hebrew Scripture.

I will have more to say on that later, but I repeat that I am saddened at this false charge against Luther.

 

[Matt Black]

Although Jerome doubted the canonicity of the DCs, the end-4th century Councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome affirmed them as canonical; over 1000 years of usage by both Catholic and Orthodox (the only representations of the Church/ Christianity unless you're a whacko Succesionist - which I trust you're not) followed before Luther decided to kick them into the long grass. So I don't think it's a false charge...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[church mouse guy]

You keep making these off the wall charges without any documentation. I have documented that the Roman Catholic Church did not elevate the books in question to canon until 1546. You have shown no documentation that Luther had anything to do with adding to the Hebrew Scripture.

As for the Eastern Orthodox, they are really beside the point because the Protestant Reformation dealt with the Roman Catholic Church, as you know. The Eastern Churches split from Rome in 1054 AD so Europe could not have known much about them at the time of Luther.

How can you charge Luther, a true Protestant hero, without any evidence or documentation whatsoever and expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[church mouse guy]

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent says about the African councils:

At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as "Apocrypha"). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". St. Augustine was one among the forty-four bishops who signed the proceedings. Celestius, the friend of Pelagius, came to Carthage to be ordained a priest; Paulinus, the deacon of Milan, warned the Bishop of Carthage against him; and thus, in 411, began the series of synods against Pelagianism. They had a most important influence in checking its spread. The earlier ones seem to have been provincial. The important Synod of 416, under Sylvanus, at Milevum urged Innocent I to stop the heresy, and in the synod of all Africa held at Carthage in 420 the bishops, intensely convinced that vital issues were involved, passed a series of doctrinal utterances with annexed anathemas against the Pelagians. St. Augustine was present. It was, in respect of doctrine, the most important of all the synods of Africa. It is no longer possible from the meagre remains to attempt a complete list of the general synods of Africa; nor is it any longer possible to determine, with exactness in every instance, what synods were general. The following approximate enumeration is made therefore with all due reserve:

-------------------------------------------------

The sentence "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon" indicates that this was local only.

 

[church mouse guy]

And here is the Catholic Encyclopedia statement about the official 1546 acceptance of the books rejected by the Jews:

The New Testament and the Council of Trent (1546)

This ecumenical synod had to defend the integrity of the New Testament as well as the Old against the attacks of the pseudo-Reformers, Luther, basing his action on dogmatic reasons and the judgment of antiquity, had discarded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse as altogether uncanonical. Zwingli could not see in Apocalypse a Biblical book. (OEcolampadius placed James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John in an inferior rank. Even a few Catholic scholars of the Renaissance type, notably Erasmus and Cajetan, had thrown some doubts on the canonicity of the above-mentioned Antilegomena. As to whole books, the Protestant doubts were the only ones the Fathers of Trent took cognizance of; there was not the slightest hesitation regarding the authority of any entire document. But the deuterocanonical parts gave the council some concern, viz., the last twelve verses of Mark, the passage about the Bloody Sweat in Luke, and the Pericope Adulteræ in John. Cardinal Cajetan had approvingly quoted an unfavourable comment of St. Jerome regarding Mark, xvi, 9-20; Erasmus had rejected the section on the Adulterous Woman as unauthentic. Still, even concerning these no doubt of authenticity was expressed at Trent; the only question was as to the manner of their reception. In the end these portions were received, like the deuterocanonical books, without the slightest distinction. And the clause "cum omnibus suis partibus" regards especially these portions.--For an account of the action of Trent on the Canon, the reader is referred back to the respective section of the article: II. The Canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church.

 

[Matt Black]

The Council of Rome confirmed what Hippo and Carthage I and Carthage II said about the DCs. Jerome's Vulgate included them. Luther...er...did not; are you thinking of some other definition of 'removed', perchance?

PS I never said that Luther added to the Hebrew Canon; my submission is that he did the opposite.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The Council of Rome confirmed what Hippo and Carthage I and Carthage II said about the DCs. Jerome's Vulgate included them. Luther...er...did not; are you thinking of some other definition of 'removed', perchance?

PS I never said that Luther added to the Hebrew Canon; my submission is that he did the opposite.

Yours in Christ

Matt

Please document what the Council of Rome said. The Catholics are saying that the African churches tried to add books but that the RCC never officially adopted those extra books until Trent in 1546.

Luther therefore accepted the Hebrew Scripture while the RCC went on to add to the Hebrew Scripture. The RCC acted without any authority and is in heresey till this day. One can see that the Protestant Reformation exposed the RCC for what it is--a strange branch of Christianity, big in Europe, but liberal and watered down with European custom and tradition and in doctrine alone and sometimes anti-Christian.

The Catholics do not agree with what you say they say, Mr. Lawyer.

 

[Matt Black]

I think you'll find they do agree with me: see here
You'll also see what the Council of Rome says there, too

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[church mouse guy]

Here is what the Catholic Enclopedia says about the councils that you claim were binding. They were not. They were local only.

Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of the Church organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number of bishops brought together from different countries for some special purpose, regardless of any territorial or hierarchical connection. They were most frequent in the fourth century, when the metropolitan and patriarchal circumscriptions were still imperfect, and questions of faith and discipline manifold. Not a few of them, summoned by emperors or bishops in opposition to the lawful authorities (such as that of Antioch in 341), were positively irregular, and acted for evil rather than good. Councils of this kind may be compared to the meetings of bishops of our own times; decrees passed in them had no binding power on any but the subjects of the bishops present, they were important manifestations of the sensus ecclesiae (mind of the Church) rather than judicial or legislative bodies. But precisely as expressing the mind of the Church they often acquired a far-reaching influence due, either to their internal soundness, or to the authority of their framers, or to both.

I think that the Catholic Church says that its current Bible was adopted in 1546 at Trent. I think that the Catholic Encylopedia is a better source of Catholic information than what you are quoting but I suppose that you would need a Vatican lawyer supply Vatican documents to establish legally what New Advent says.

 

[church mouse guy]

Here is what New Advent says in part about Saint Pope Damasus I:

Damasus defended with vigour the Catholic Faith in a time of dire and varied perils. In two Roman synods (368 and 369) he condemned Apollinarianism and Macedonianism; he also sent his legates to the Council of Constantinople (381), convoked against the aforesaid heresies. In the Roman synod of 369 (or 370) Auxentius, the Arian Bishop of Milan, was excommunicated; he held the see, however, until his death, in 374, made way for St. Ambrose. The heretic Priscillian, condemned by the Council of Saragossa (380) appealed to Damasus, but in vain. It was Damasus who induced Saint Jerome to undertake his famous revision of the earlier Latin versions of the Bible (see VULGATE). St. Jerome was also his confidential secretary for some time (Ep. cxxiii, n. 10). An important canon of the New Testament was proclaimed by him in the Roman synod of 374.

So again, we see that the New Advent clarifies that Saint Pope Damasus I merely proclaimed a canon in the Roman synod--it was not an like Trent but merely a local list. Notice that he employed Jerome and everyone knows that Jerome rejected the Apocrypha. So there was no official adoption in 374.

The charges against Luther are baseless.

 

[Matt Black]

Are you saying that Carthage was not binding on the Church? How then do you know that your NT is correct?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[church mouse guy]

I am saying that according to the Roman Catholic Church the African Synods passed resolutions that were only expressive of local will and afterwards were forwarded to Rome as suggestions. That is Catholic history on the subject of the Apocrypha.

The source that you gave that smeared Luther was a Catholic chauvinistic source in Alabama. That source contradicted official Catholic history as published in New Advent.

Now you are trying to change the subject of your own thread to the New Testament. Suffice it to say that there is no debate among Christians as to the books in the New Testament. However, if you like, wouldn't it be better to start a new thread for your new subject?

 

[Matt Black]

I have no wish to debate the canonicity of the NT; that's not the point of this thread. The reason for mentioning the NT is that Carthage was primarily concerned with closing the NT canon and it is the decision reached then (and confirmed by the other councils which I mentioned but which you also say were not general councils) upon which you and I and millions of other Christians past and present have relied in order to know that the NT in the Bibles we have in our possession is all present and correct. If however you are saying that Carthage and the other councils were not general and therefore not 'legally binding' (as m'learned friends would put it) re the OT canon, then you are casting equally serious doubt on the reliability of the NT canon which we currently possess and which was also finalised at those councils. Are you sure you really want to do that...?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[church mouse guy]

No, I intended to say that they were not binding on the subject of the apocrypha.

BTW, on the subject of BBC shows being aired in the USA, do you like "Keeping Up Appearances" and "Last of the Summer Wine"?

 

[church mouse guy]

Here is what the Catholic Church said about the African Synods in New Advent:

At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as "Apocrypha"). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon"

Notice that Carthage sent the matter to the Vatican.

web page--Please click here for what the Roman Catholic Church says happened at Carthage

 

[Matt Black]

I accept all of that. But that still doesn't answer the question: if these councils or synods did not settle the canon of the OT, as you assert, then on what basis do they settle the NT canon?

<TV tangent> I like both comedies; I tend to prefer 'Last of the Summer Wine' a) because it is still going despite most of the original cast having died! and b) because of the beauty of the backdrop of the Yorkshire Dales <tangent off>

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[church mouse guy]

Firstly, I am not the one that asserts the conclusion about the African Synods; that is the work of the Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent.

You asked on what basis was the canon of the New Testament decided. As you know, the earliest list of the New Testament is from Althanasius in 367 AD.

The books were recognized, in the opinion of most Protestants, for their apostolic authority or apostolic approval. As far as I know Christians have never disagreed about the New Testament.

<tv tangent>I like Last of the Summer Wine for the setting, also. I also like the theme song. Keeping Up Appearances is good for Hyacinth's good example of bad singing as well as a cast of dysfunctional characters such as Daddy, Rose, Onslow, Daisy, and Sheridan. The lady who spills all the coffee is also quite good. I wish that they had made more of that series but I suppose that the ran the idea to the limit and more would have involved lowering of the standard--what do you think?<tangent off>

 

[Matt Black]

But why recognise the Gospel of John but not the Gospel of Peter, for example - both purport to have Apostolic authorship and authority. It needed a Council to settle the issue and, if you trust that Council to settle the NT, why not the OT too?

<Comedy tangent continued> I think the potential weakness of Keeping Up Appearances, which Last of the Summer Wine is less prone to because of the changing cast of characters, was that it only really had one joke, namely that Hyacinth acted posh but came from a very blue-collar family who constantly embarrassed her, and there's only so many different ways you can tell the same joke and get away with it <comedy tangent off>

Yours in Christ

Matt