Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (23 page)

So here, it is not evident just what distinction this
man wished to induce. But in every case, his proposition was useless. If he
wished merely to say that the import of some divine books is more important in
Christian doctrine than others, the truth is understood by all Christians, and
needs no definition. The Council was not about to define that Maccabees was as
valuable to use as Matthew. But if he wished to say that the relation which God
bore to any book was less than inspiration as we have defined it, the
proposition is false. The Council simply extended proper inspiration to all the
books, and left the question of their respect dogmatic and more values intact.

The Second General Congregation met on February 12. Cardinal
del Monte opened the General Congregation by presenting the findings of all
three Particular Congregations; the Sacred Books were to be accepted just as
they had been in former councils, especially the council of Florence. By the
end of this General Session, the adoption of these decrees seemed, to del
Monte, to have gained the assent of all but one of the council fathers.
[608]

The Third General Congregation (February 15) offered two
questions for final approval by the entire congregation. The first question
asked if the Council of Trent should approve all the books which had been
approved at Florence; each and every one of the fathers responded in the
affirmative [L. placet]. The second question asked if an anathema should be
added to the decree on the canon. The inclusion of an anathema was carried with
24 votes in favor, 15 votes against.
[609]

From an examination of this “inside information” even a
convinced Protestant ought to be able to see that Trent did not
add
any
books to the Bible. Rightly or wrongly, this body acted in a manner entirely
conservative, basing their decisions on precedent alone. The desire of the
Council was to avoid tampering with the canon in any way; to offer, rather, a
simple “rubber stamp” upon the judgments of previous authorities (especially
that of the Council of Florence).
[610]
Even its refusal to provide a defense of the Deuterocanon or
to allow further discussion was based upon conservative principles; after all,
why provide a fresh apology for something that had been settled for centuries?
Doing so could only make the declarations of the Council look reactionary and unsure.
Moreover, Trent’s main task was to declare what is of the Catholic Faith. A
defense, it was argued, would only provoke a rebuttal by a Protestant synod,
which in turn would call for another Catholic response, thus undermining the
force of the original decree. In the end, Trent’s conservatism won out, and the
canon was published pure and simple; a plain, unadorned reiteration of the
traditional position.

On February 18, the Council directed its attention to the
other aspects of the declaration (e.g. Apostolic Tradition and the disciplinary
decree on the Vulgate), and on March 22, circulated the first draft of the
decree. The draft was proposed for discussion in the General Congregation, and
on the twenty-ninth of the same month, a list of 14 points or questions (called
the
Capita Dubitationum
) was given to the Fathers for a vote. The most
interesting of these points, for our discussion, is Question Four, which asked
if the Book of Esdras and others ought to be formally rejected or passed over
in silence. Why was Esdras questioned?

The Problem of Esdras

Protestant apologists argue that Trent’s list contradicted
that of the Council of Carthage because the earlier Council had accepted the
Book of Esdras while Trent rejected it. Is there really such a contradiction?
At first glance, the charge seems credible; Carthage did, indeed, accept
“Esdras, two books” and the identity of these two books seems straightforward
enough.
[611]
The term
was generally understood to mean the two Protocanonical books of Ezra and
Nehemiah (counted as one) together with the disputed book of Esdras proper.
These “books of Esdras”, however, are numbered differently in different
translations and in the various recensions of those translations. Here then is
the confusing part. In Syriac Versions and in several important Greek
manuscripts, the book of Esdras itself is counted as
1 Esdras
.
[612]
In some Septuagint
manuscripts, on the other hand,
2 Esdras
is actually Ezra chapters 1-10,
linked with Nehemiah chapters 11-23. In the Lucianic recension of the
Septuagint, however,
1 Esdras
is Ezra and Nehemiah together, with
2
Esdras
being the
Book of Esdras
proper
.
In the
Latin
Vulgate
,
1 Esdras
is the Book of Ezra,
2 Esdras
is Nehemiah,
3
Esdras
is the Book of Esdras proper, and
4 Esdras
is the
Apocalypse of Ezra.
[613]
  Now the question is, what did the
Council of Carthage mean when it called for a canon with “Esdras, two books”?
Did it mean Ezra and Nehemiah alone, or did it mean Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esdras
proper? It is difficult to tell. It appears that Carthage would have more
likely
included
Esdras, not omitted it.
[614]
  However, neither case is certain.

What exactly is the
Book of Esdras
? It is an
amalgamation of sections taken from the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah
and a short section of unique material as the following table indicates:
[615]

Only a short section of this book (Esdras 3:1-5:6) contains
unique material. Most of the book is a repetition of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, or
Nehemiah. If Esdras is mostly a compilation of existing Scripture, why was it
made in the first place? Gigot believes that Esdras may not have originated as
an individual writing:

But should not this almost perfect identity of
contents between the third book of Esdras and the books which precede and
follow it in the old editions of the sacred text, have suggested long ago that
the third book of Esdras is really not an independent writing, but rather a
revised translation with a single interpolation taken from some independent
source viz., iii-v, 6? In point of fact, the more closely the common elements
are examined, the more will they appear to point to the one and same text as
underlying the third book of Esdras and our canonical writings, and as rendered
more freely in the former than in the ordinary Greek copies of the Septuagint:
the more, in one word, will it become probable, that the so-called third book
of Esdras is simply a version of certain parts of Holy Writ, whose substance is
of course inspired, but whose individuality may be rejected by the Church, as
was done in the case of the old Septuagint translation of the book of Daniel.
[616]

The question was (and still is) ‘is Esdras a separate book
that happened to use an awful lot of canonical material,’ or ‘is it an early
recension of Scripture with some additional non-canonical material added?’ No
one knows. The only thing certain about Esdras’ canonical pedigree is that it
is uncertain.

Many things are questionable about Esdras. The Council of
Carthage
may
have included Esdras on its list. We don’t know for
certain. Esdras
may
be an individual book or it
may
be a
recension. No one knows. A few Church Fathers
may
have used Esdras as a
canonical book, but this usage disappeared around the fifth century, although
it remained in the
Latin Vulgate
and the Septuagint. By the time of
Trent, the exact nature of the
Esdras,
both its form and its canonical
status, was open to doubt. The best move for Trent was not to move at all.

The fourth question of the
Capita Dubitationum
asked
whether those books that were not included in Trent’s list, but were included
in the
Latin Vulgate
(e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4Ezra, and 3 Maccabees),
should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in
silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted
that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops
did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit
decision on these books. In post-Tridentine editions of the Vulgate, Esdras,
and the others were moved to an appendix in the back.
[617]

Those who claim then, that Trent “rejected” Esdras are
mistaken. It did not. In fact, any rejection or affirmation was purposefully
withheld.
[618]
If
there was no decision, then Trent cannot be said to have contradicted Carthage.
The question of Esdras’ canonical status was left theoretically open.

Another
Capita Dubitationum
of note is Point 10,
which asked if the expression “sacred and canonical” [
pro sacris et canonical
]
should be used: Yes or no. Forty-four fathers voted in agreement [
placet
],
and three Fathers voted against [
non placet
].
[619]
  One of those three who opposed was
Bishop Castellamare who, on April 5, voiced his objection in the General
Congregation. Breen recounts:

The bishop of Castellamare remarked that the words
sacred
and canonical
were objectionable on account of Judith, and some others which
are not in the Hebrew Canon. He moved to substitute: ‘in the Canon of the
Church.’ Cardinal Cervini, the president, responded: ‘It is true what thou
sayest, but we follow the Canon of the Church, not of the Jews. When we say
Canonical
,
therefore, we understand of the Canon of the Church.’
[620]

To which, the dissenting bishop gave his approval [
placet
].
[621]

Point 13 of the
Capita
states “As to the remaining
points that already have been decided upon in a General Congregation: not to
make a distinction between the books that are accepted, their enumeration
according to the Council of Florence, and the anathema to be added to the
books, we do not know, if the Sacred Synod wants to recall and deal with the
matter again. If it wants to, it is free to do so.”
[622]
The Council Fathers gave their
Omnibus
placet
(a majority vote in the affirmative). Although a couple of bishops
(e.g., Bertano and Seripando) attempted to reintroduce Jerome’s distinction
into the decree, their motion was rejected out of hand, since it had already
been determined by the General Council that the books were to be accepted as
they had been at prior Councils.

Trent then, was neither innovative nor reactionary; those
who attended were convinced that canon had already been settled. The claim that
Trent acted creatively, aggressively, deliberately altering a recognized bible
by adding additional books on its own authority, can only be made by someone
completely ignorant of the historical facts. Trent’s list was that of the
Council of Florence. The only questionable books even discussed were those
mentioned in Point 10 of the
Capita
(e.g. Esdras, 3 Maccabees et al.);
and these were deliberately passed over in silence. And since Trent was wholly
dependent in this matter upon the actions of previous councils (some which had
taken place centuries before the Reformation), it cannot legitimately be said
that the Council’s canon was reactionary.

Cyril Lucar (Cyril Lucaris) (1572–1637)

The Eastern Orthodox churches also flirted with the
Protestant canon for a time. Cyril Lucar was patriarch of Alexandria
(1602–1620) and later Constantinople (1620–1637). He was attracted to Calvinist
Europe and sent many young priests to the West to study. Cyril had also made
overtures of friendship to the Anglican Church as well as to the Lutherans. He
donated the
Codex Alexandrinus
to King Charles I. In 1627, Lucar
published a treatise called
The Confession of Faith,
which rejected the
Deuterocanon as apocrypha.
[623]
Metrophanes Critopulus, a friend of Lucar, in his
Confession of the Catholic
and Apostolic Eastern Church
followed his friend’s opinion by claiming that
the Church of Christ had never received the Deuterocanon as authentic
Scripture.
[624]
These
books were widely circulated throughout the East.
[625]
In 1638, the Patriarch Parthenius convened a
council in Constantinople. The two patriarchs and the 120 eastern bishops
present at this council issued a letter to the providential synod of Jerusalem
(Jassy), condemning the views of Cyril Lucas as heretical. This letter affirmed
that the Deuterocanon had always been accepted in the East, despite isolated
doubts.
[626]

Vatican Council, I (1870)

The First Vatican Council reaffirmed Trent’s decree on the
canon.

And, indeed, these books of the Old and New Testament,
whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the
same Council, are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be
accepted as sacred and canonical.
But the Church holds these books
as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human
industry alone, they were approved by its authority; nor because they contain
revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been
handed down to the Church itself.
[627]