Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (27 page)

The story of how these books were accepted, then
stigmatized, and eventually removed altogether is reflected in the succession
of English bibles and in the official Prayer Books of the Anglican Church.

The Myles Coverdale Bible (1535)

Printed in Zurich in 1535, the English
Myles Coverdale
Bible
continues the tradition of Luther and Calvin by placing the
Deuterocanon in a separate appendix. Coverdale followed much the same line as Zwingli’s
Zurich Bible
. Zwingli felt that the Deuterocanon could not be used to
confirm doctrine because it did not enjoy the same doctrinal clarity as the
Protocanon. However, the books were good and profitable to read. Coverdale
essentially held the same opinion, only he spoke of “dark sentences” in the
Deuterocanon that differed from the open and manifest truth of the Protocanon
(as if no one ever finds “dark sentences” in the Psalms or Ezekiel!).
[689]

William Tyndale (1494–1536)

It is commonly believed that the honor of producing the
first English translation of the New Testament belongs to William Tyndale (the
honor may actually belong to Coverdale, but this has not been solidly
established). Tyndale died before he could begin a translation of the Old
Testament, but it is reasonably certain that his translation would have
included the Deuterocanon in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments.
[690]
  An indication
of his thoughts in the matter can be gained by his inclusion, in an appendix to
the 1534 revision of his New Testament, of two readings from Sirach and Wisdom
intended to be read during particular feast days.
[691]

The Matthew’s Bible (1537)

The
Matthew’s Bible
is a reworking of both the
Coverdale
Translation
and the
Tyndale Translation
. The Deuterocanon is again
placed in an appendix. The cautionary remarks are taken largely from Calvin’s
preface in the
Olivetan
Bible
(1535).
[692]
Curiously, the 1539 and 1540 editions of the
Matthew’s Bible
changed the title of the appendix from  Apocrypha
to Hagiographa, a term usually reserved to denote a section of the canonical
Old Testament.

The Taverner’s Bible (1539)

This Bible was a reworking of the
Matthew’s Bible,
produced largely by Edmund Becke. The Deuterocanon (along with 3Maccabees) is
placed in an appendix, combined with a preface explaining why these books were
good to read but not to be considered inspired Scripture.

The Great Bible (1539)

Edited by Coverdale, using the
Matthew’s Bible
as a
foundation,
The Great Bible
was commissioned by King Henry VIII through
the auspices of then Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer. It was intended
to function as
the
Authorized Version of Scripture, and a copy of this
Bible was to be supplied to every parish church.
The Great Bible
went
through seven editions, all of which included the Deuterocanon. The first
edition (1539) sported Coverdale’s preface.
The Great Bible
titled the
Deuterocanonical appendix Apocrypha, but like some editions of the
Matthew’s
Bible,
the title was changed.
[693]
  In later editions, the preface was titled “The volume
of the books called the Hagiographa,” or “The volume of the books called the
Apocrypha, containing the books following,” or “The fourth part of the
Bible.”  This first
Authorized Version
of English Scripture
therefore, included the books of the Deuterocanon—and in a manner recognizing
them as, in some sense, a part of the Old Testament.

Geneva “Breeches” Bible (1560)

Famed for its rendering of Genesis 3:7 (Adam and Eve making
“breeches” for themselves out of fig leaves), the 1560
Geneva Bible
affixed a preface to its “Apocrypha” explaining the writings as “those books
that were not to be received by common consent or to be read or expounded
publicly in church. They could only prove doctrine inasmuch as they agree with
the Protocanon.”
[694]

Of how this common consent might be computed, there is no
explanation. The statement, however, that these books were not “read or
expounded publicly in church” can be easily established as completely false. We
have already demonstrated that the Deuteros were often, and from the earliest
times,
prescribed
to be read in the Church.

These various English translations reflect the ebb and flow
of Anglican thought on the Deuterocanon. The authorized bibles often reflect
something approaching a real acceptance of the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Those
translations depending upon foreign entities (e.g., the Zwingli and the Zurich
Bible) usually took the opposite approach: reducing the Deuterocanon to
apocrypha; yet refusing, nevertheless, to eliminate such “merely human writing”
from between the two covers of Scripture.

The change within the Church of England can be even more
strikingly seen in the official articles of Faith that promulgated by that
church.

The Ten Articles (1536), The Bishops’ Book (1537) and
The King’s Book (1546)

In order to retain peace and unity in the English Church,
King Henry VIII imposed the
Ten Articles
as a compromise. Article One
asserts that the Faith rested not only upon the “whole body and canon of the
Bible” but also upon the Creeds as well. In Article Ten, Prayers for the Dead
are encouraged and supported by a proof text taken from the 2 Maccabees. In
1537, a committee set up by Archbishop Cranmer revised the
Ten Articles
but left this tenth essentially as it was in the original. The King disapproved
of Cranmer’s revision, however, and it never gained any authoritative sanction.
In 1546, Henry VIII published
The Necessary Doctrine and Eradition of Any
Christian Man
, which served as a statement of Faith for the Church of
England until Henry’s death in 1547. It, too, included a statement on prayers
for the souls departed, along with the same reference to 2 Maccabees. A series
of new articles were drawn up during the reign of Edward VI, but were withdrawn
after the accession of the Catholic Queen Mary in 1553. However, Cranmer had
already issued a text of the
Forty-two Articles
(1553). The later (and
more famous)
Thirty-nine Articles
were based largely upon this work.

The Thirty-nine Articles (1562)

In 1562, the Church of England adopted the
Thirty-nine
Articles
to serve as a doctrinal measuring rod for the Protestant English
Church.
[695]
  The
Sixth Article provides a list of the Old and New Testament books and closes
with the following decree:

In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those
Canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, of whose authority was never any
doubt in the Church. Of the names and number of the Canonical Books…[lists the
short canon of the Old Testament]…All the books of the New Testament, as they
are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical. And the other
books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and
instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any
doctrine. Such are these following [Lists the Deuterocanon and 3 and 4 Esdras].

The Sixth Article’s statement assertion, that there never
was any doubt concerning the authority of the Protocanonical books, is an
overstatement, or what F. F. Bruce calls “[a] certain naiveté.”
[696]
Individuals had
expressed doubts about many of the Protocanonical books. The adoption of the
Sixth
Article
of the Protestant canon not only contradicts how the Deuterocanon
was used throughout history, but also it contradicts the
Thirty-fifth
Article
, which reads:

The second Book of Homilies, the several titles
whereof we have joined under this Article,
doth contain a godly and
wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times
, as doth the former Book of
Homilies which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth: and therefore we
judge them to be read in Churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly,
that they may be understood of the people.
[697]

The
Book of Homilies
is a set of lessons that were to
be read in church during holy days. However, the
Homilies
use the
Deuterocanon in a manner that goes beyond the restriction set forth in the
Sixth
Article,
sometimes explicitly quoting them as divine Scripture.
[698]
As the Anglican
scholar William Daubney observes:

In the Index to Dr. Corrie’s edition [of the Homilies]
no less than seventy-five apocryphal texts are referred to as quoted in the
Homilies. High honour is certainly paid to the Apocrypha in those Reformation
sermons, almost beyond what at first sight the terms of the Sixth Article would
seem to warrant…In the homily against Swearing, for example, a quotation from
Ecclesiasticus is introduced by the words ‘Almighty God by the wise man saith’
(p. 68)’. In the homily against Excess of Apparel, Judith and the apocrypha
portions of Esther are cited as ‘Scripture’ (p. 291). Likewise, in the homily
against Idolatry, the canonical and uncanonical books are indiscriminately
classed together under the common title of ‘the Scriptures’; the doctrine of
the ‘foolishness of images,’ it is said is ‘expressed at large in the
Scriptures; viz. The Psalms, the Book of Wisdom, the Prophet Isaiah, Ezekiel
and Baruch’ (p. 166). The words found which preface a verse from Tobit, ‘The
Holy Ghost doth also teach in…Scripture, saying’; and in the next sentence a
text is given from Ecclesiasticus, which is introduced as ‘confirming the
same.’ But perhaps the strongest statement of all is that in the tenth homily,
wherein we are exhorted to learn from the Book of Wisdom, as being the
‘infallible and undeceivable word of God.’…and in the last homily of all, that
against Rebellion, we still find ourselves referred to Wisdom as Holy Scripture,
and are still exhorted to hear Baruch as a prophet (pp. 516,523).
[699]

The
Sixth Article
states that the Deuterocanon cannot
be used to establish doctrine, yet the
Thirty-fifth Article
describes
the
Book of Homilies
as containing “godly and wholesome doctrine,
”
even though it uses the Deuterocanon to establish these doctrines. Aware of
this contradiction, Daubney suggests that the two Articles can be reconciled if
one understands the
Sixth Article’s
reference to “any doctrine” to mean
“any doctrine [not already confirmed by the canonical Scriptures].” Daubney
continues:

Unless we take the words of the Article in this sense,
it seems impossible to reconcile it with the doctrinal use of the Apocrypha in
the Homilies by the same authorities as those who put forth the Articles...
[700]

Daubney’s cure is worse than the disease. If the
Deuterocanon is Scripture, as the
Book of Homilies
uses them, then
according to Paul, it ought to be profitable for teaching, correction, and
training in righteousness.
[701]
The Apostle makes no distinction between Scripture that is profitable towards
these ends and Scripture that is not. Moreover, who or what determines if a
given doctrine is taught in the canonical books in order for the Deuterocanon
to confirm them?
[702]
Furthermore, if a doctrine is clearly taught in the canonical Scriptures, why
bother referring to the Deuterocanon at all? In effect, Daubney’s solution
renders those books, which the
Homilies
call Holy Scripture and the word
of God, essentially worthless.

This contradiction within the
Thirty-nine Articles
illustrates the theological tension that was present in much early Protestant
theology with regards to the canon. Doctrinally, the Deuterocanon could not be
admitted to the same authority as the Protocanon, yet a vast majority of the
early Protestants, including the Reformers, would not dare remove these books
because the simplest peasants knew they were part of the Bible. Therefore,
early Protestantism propagated the Deuterocanon, but at the same time denied
its authority.

The Westminster Confession

In 1643, the Long Parliament, which convened under Puritan
influence, resolved that the liturgy and doctrines of the Church of England
needed to be clarified. In 1644, it was proposed that a single confession,
catechism, and directory of public worship would be imposed throughout the
King’s dominion. All work on editing and revising the
Thirty-nine Articles
ceased, and in 1648, Parliament granted authority to work on new and
independent Confession that continued until the restoration of 1660. The
Westminster
Confession
became that single Confession of Faith and enjoyed the unique
distinction of being
the
Confessional standard for the whole United
Kingdom. Regarding the Apocrypha, the
Westminster Confession
states:

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of
divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of
no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made
use of, than other human writing.
[703]

The
Westminster Confession
introduces here a very subtle,
but radical, departure from the past—a break from previous Protestant usage as
much as Catholic. By stating plainly that the Deuterocanon is
not
inspired and that it has no more authority than any “other human writing,” the
Confession effectively condemns its inclusion between the covers of a bible; no
longer even an appendage to Scripture, as the Reformers themselves would have
it, but a mere collection of human opinion. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli did not
venture this far. Once considered the “fourth part of the Bible,” consisting of
holy and wholesome writings prescribed by the early Church to be read publicly,
its writings were now no more authoritative than Bunyan’s
Pilgrims Progress—
if
that.
The loss of the Deuterocanon from Protestant bibles can be traced
then, not to the Reformers themselves, but to that radical body of
self-proclaimed “Puritans” who seized control of the English government under
Oliver Cromwell.