Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (21 page)

Occam acknowledged that the Church reads the Deuterocanon
but denied that it was canonical because they cannot be used to confirm
doctrine. He derived this view from the writings of Jerome and, perhaps,
Gregory the Great.
[567]

Clement VI (1342–1352)

In Pope Clement VI’s papal bull declaring the Jubilee,
Unigentius
Dei Filius
, he quotes the book of Wisdom.
[568]

John Wycliffe (1324–1384)

Wycliffe, venerated by many Protestants as a forerunner of
the Reformation, composed two manuscripts translating the Scriptures into
English. According to Westcott, the first manuscript contained a translation of
the entire Deuterocanon, along with Jerome’s prefaces, noting that within them,
“he [Jerome] affirms the exclusive authority of the Hebrew Canon…”
[569]
A second revision
by Purvey provides a summary of Jerome’s preface to the Books of Kings.
[570]
Purvey essentially
and uncritically reiterates Jerome views in his preface. It is worthy of note
that despite Purvey’s preface, the Deuterocanon was still included in this
edition of Wycliffe’s Old Testament, intermixed with the Protocanonical books.

Like others who reproduced Jerome’s doubts, Wycliffe still
used the Deuterocanon in his personal correspondence and in other works. As the
Anglican scholar, Daubney points out:

Even John Wyclif himself does not seem to have held
very different views on this subject. In his Sermons he quotes Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus very freely, Tobit but rarely. In his
De ente
predicamentali
he refers to Ecclus. [Sir] iii. 11 as “scriptura” (p. 188)
and xviii. 1 is cited with “ut dictiur” (p. 146). But perhaps his strongest
assertion is in
Quaestiones logicae et philosophicae,
where he clinches
his argument by saying, “Ista conclusio etiam patet auctoritate scripturae,”
Ecclus. [Sir] xviii.1. In his
De eucharistia
he guards against idolatry
in the Mass by Baruch vi. 1, 26 (p. 57); and in his
Opus evangelicum,
ch.
xxviii., he quotes II. Mac. v. 19, against the Pope. This practice of Wyclif’s
of confuting Popery from the Apocryphal books, in view of later developments on
either side is not without its humorous aspect. In his
Paternoster
he
refers to Tobit vi. 17 with apparently full acceptance. He also wrote a
Practical
Exposition of the Song of the Three Men in the Furnace,
Dan. Iii. 51 sqq.
[571]

Despite Wycliffe’s dependence on Jerome, this “Morning Star
of the Reformation” appears to have accepted the Deuterocanon, and used it in a
manner fully commensurate with that of inspired Sacred Scripture.

John of Ragusa (1380–ca. 1443)

A Dominican professor at the School of Sorbonne and
President of the ill-fated Council of Basel in 1450, John of Ragusa stated in
the strongest terms the acceptance of the Deutrocanon by the Church during the
Council.

Moreover, it is manifest that there are many books in
the Bible, which are not held in authority with the Jews, but are by them
reckoned apocryphal, which nevertheless, by us are held in the same veneration
and authority as the others, and our acceptance of them rests on nothing but
the tradition and acceptance of the whole Catholic Church, which is not lawful
perniciously to contradict.
[572]

John of Ragusa’s sentiments found their voice in the Council
of Florence and, subsequently, were accepted by the Council of Trent. His
statement on the equality of the Deuterocanon with the Protocanon is a point
that some during his age missed. Nevertheless, John of Ragusa clearly stated
that his belief was based solely upon the acceptance and the constant teaching
of the universal Church. His words about the unlawfulness of contradicting this
universal acceptance echoed those of Pope Nicholas I’s
Letter to the Bishops
in Gaul
some five hundred years earlier.
[573]

The Council of Florence (1439–1445)

Beginning as the ill-fated Council of Basel, this Council
was moved to Florence on January 10, 1439, when an opportunity for
reconciliation between West and East presented itself. The reunion of the two
estranged halves of the Church occurred, however temporarily, on July 6, 1439
with the approval of a
Decree on Reunion with the Greeks
. Other decrees
were issued concerning reunion with the Syrian, Armenian, and Coptic churches;
and eventually with the Bosnians, the Syrians, Chaldeans, and Maronites of
Cyprus as well. On February 24, 1443, the Council was moved to Rome where it
finally closed on August 7, 1445. Unlike prior conciliar decrees, the decisions
made by the Council of Florence were not given as legal canons, but were issued
in the form of papal bulls.

One such decree was the bull
On the Unification of the
Jacobites,
issued on February 4, 1441. Promulgated by Pope Eugene IV and
adopted as part of the Council of Florence, this decree listed the books of
Sacred Scripture:

Most strongly it [The holy Roman Church] believes,
professes, and declares…one and the same God as the author of the Old and New
Testament, that is, of the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospel, since the
saints of both Testament have spoken with the inspiration of the same Holy
Spirit, whose books, which are contained under the following titles it accepts
and venerates: The five books of Moses…Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of
Kings, two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job,
the Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, twelve
Prophets, … and the Books of Maccabees.
[574]

Note that this is the first time any Ecumenical Council had
promulgated a list of inspired Scriptures and raised the issue of the canon to
this level of solemnity.
[575]
Florence did not qualify its acceptance of the Deuterocanon, nor did it place
it into a separate category. The Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical books are
intermixed without distinction, as they were in the past.
[576]
The wording of this decree is also
important. The Council states that
all
the books of the Old and New
Testaments, including the Deuterocanon, are inspired by the Holy Spirit [
Spiritu
Sancto inspirante
], are to be accepted [
suscipit
], and venerated [
veneratur
].

Florence also employs the Deuterocanon elsewhere in an
authoritative manner. For example, Sirach 18:23 is quoted as Scripture in
session 21, and Wisdom 10:19 is quoted with the formula “It is written” in
session 3. Tobit 12:20, Susanna (Dn 13:9), and Wisdom 5:21 are quoted by the
Council without qualification.
[577]

In our Information Age, it is tempting to assume that after
Florence promulgated its list, all confusion stopped and strict uniformity on
the canon became the norm. Unfortunately, such conformity rarely happens
immediately. It takes time for the various declarations, symbols, and decrees
to disseminate throughout the Christian Church. Moreover, those whose views are
condemned by a council often repackage their heretical views so as to give the
impression that they have changed their positions. This lack of conformity does
not reflect upon a Council’s authority. Centuries often pass before the decrees
of even the most important Councils achieve the desired results; the great
Nicea of 325, for instance, accepted by both Catholic and Protestant alike, was
contradicted by important figures
within the Church
for decades
afterward. In this respect, Florence was no different. Its decrees seemed to
have circulated more swiftly in the East than they did in the West.
[578]
  Consequently,
the scriptural canons of Florence had little impact once the eastern churches
rejected its decrees on reunion.
[579]
And not surprisingly, even after Florence, ill-conceived
attempts to reconcile Jerome’s canon with that of the Church continued.

Alphonsus Tostatus (1455)

Rarely is an examination of one man’s views more confused
and contradictory than the attempt to get to the bottom of Alphonsus Tostatus’
understanding of the canon. In his
Prologue to the Book of Kings
(Prologus Galaetus), for instance, Tostatus writes:

It is said that the book of Wisdom is not in the
Canon, because the Jews expunged it thence; in the beginning they received it,
but after they had laid hands on Jesus and slain him, remembering the evident
testimonies concerning him in the same book… taking counsel, lest we should
impute to them the evident sacrilege, they cut the book off from the prophetic
volumes, and interdicted its reading.
But we on the Church’s
authority
receive the book among the authentic Scriptures, and read it
at stated times in the Church.
Again the Book of Jesus, the son of Sirach,
is not in the Jewish Canon… and although the Jews never received it into the
Canon of Scriptures
, the Church receives it and reads it
…. These things
are true according to the Jews; but with us it is otherwise, for the book of
Judith is received among the authentic Scriptures,
for the reason that the
Church approved it at the Council of Nice, and received it in her divine
liturgy, as she reads the other authentic books
.
[580]

These positive comments seem clear enough and rather more
straightforward than many we have examined. Yet when the same author comments
upon Jerome’s
Preface to the Books of Chronicles
, we read the following:

There is a difference between them [the disputed
books] and the canonical books that are called authentic; and validly argue
against both Jews and Christian to prove truth; but from the apocryphal books
we may receive doctrine, because they contain holy doctrine, wherefore they are
called at times hagiographa; but their authority is not sufficient to adduce in
argument against anyone, nor to prove things to which are in doubt, and in this
they are inferior to the canonical and authentic books… None of these
apocryphal books even though it be included among the other books of the Bible,
and read in the Church, is of such authority that the Church may from it prove
doctrine and in this regard the Church does not receive them, and thus is to be
understood the declaration of Jerome, that the Church receives not the
apocrypha.

As should be abundantly clear by now, the Church most
definitely did use these books in the confirmation of doctrine and always had.
Even individual scholars who seem, at time, to affirm otherwise, slip
continually back into the habit of confirming doctrine by means of the
Deuteros. Furthermore, Jerome himself is not shy about rejecting these books
outright; he calls them apocrypha, useful, perhaps,
“for the edification of
the people, but not to support the authority of ecclesiastical
doctrines.” 
Tostatus’ words, therefore, utterly fail to be faithful
to either Jerome or the Church. He also complicates matters further by his
inconsistent use of terminology. For example, earlier Tostatus denied the title
of “authentic” Scripture to the Deuterocanonical books, yet in the second
quotation, he frankly declares that the Church accepts Wisdom “among the
authentic Scripture.”
[581]

As to why Tostatus believes the Deuterocanon are not to be
capable of establishing doctrine; consider this from his
Prologue on the
Gospels
:

The Church knows not whether writers inspired by the Holy
Ghost wrote these [the disputed] books… When, therefore, there is doubt
concerning the writers of certain books, whether they were inspired by the Holy
Ghost, their authority is taken away, and the Church does not place them in the
Canon of Scripture. Furthermore, regarding these books, the Church is not
certain whether or not heretics have not added to, or taken from that which was
written by their proper authors. The Church, therefore, receives such books,
permitting every one of the faithful to read them; the Church also reads them
in her offices on account of the many devout things which are contained in
them; but she obliges no one to believe that is contained therein, as is the
case with the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, Judith, and Tobias.
For though these books are received by Christians, and proof derived from them
in some degree may have weight, because the Church retains those books, yet
they
are not effectual to prove those things that are in doubt against heretics and
Jews, as Jerome says in his prologue upon Judith
.
[582]

This last statement shows that Tostatus would divide
Scripture along lines of utility. He equates the extrinsic usefulness of the
Deuterocanon (e.g. they were not authoritative in debate with non-Christians
and heretics) with the intrinsic nature of the other books (whether or not the
Holy Spirit was their primary author). Because the Deuterocanon has “some
degree” of authoritative weight only in the Church, and because the canonical
books are authoritative both in the Church and with the Jews, the inspiration
of the disputed books is in some manner inferior to the canonical books.

In this sense, Tostastus’ views regarding the degrees of
authority may be forgivable because the Council of Florence (and those that
preceded it) did not explicitly address the issue of whether all the books of
its canon were
equally
inspired and
equally
authoritative.
[583]
However, Tostastus
flatly contradicts Florence in denying that the Deuterocanon is divinely
inspired. The Council did not permit such latitude.

Antoninus (d. 1459)

In spite of the Council of Florence, Antoninus, the
Archbishop of Florence, also remained faithful to Jerome. Antoninus writes: