Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (30 page)

…[A]ny Protestant doctrine of canonization that takes
seriously the question of Christian usage and historical and spiritual heritage
will lead ultimately to the Christian OT as defined in the Western Church at
the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries.
[755]

These definitions affirmed the Deuterocanon as equally
inspired books of Scripture, canonical in the full, modern sense of the term.

That the council of Trent did not add books to the Bible is clear
from their official and non-official deliberations; that august body merely
re-affirmed the canon accepted by previous councils, especially that of
Florence—a canon in full continuity with traditions going back to the time of
the earliest Christians. A definite change in attitude toward these books
can
,
however, be discerned within the history of Protestantism. The Reformation
decisions were made at the point in history during which the terms “apocrypha,”
“canonical” and “inspired” were at their most confused. Language had become
muddled and Jerome’s exaggerated prestige (based on assumptions about the
Septuagint and the
Masoretic Text
which all sides now agree were
mistaken) distorted rather than clarified the issues at stake. Luther’s
attitude toward the Deuteros has been shown to have passed through three
stages; early acceptance, later doubts, a final choice to segregate but not to
remove. Later Protestants continued what must be surely be confessed by all as
a
process of removal
: how else can it be described, when the final product is
a bible that even the early Protestants (and some not so early!) would have
disowned? Clearly, Protestantism has removed books from Scripture.

Does any of this change matter? Does the Deuterocanon
matter? Consider the following points. The Deuterocanon is the word of God,
Holy Scripture, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. These are not my sentiments,
but those of the early Christians. Our Lord was concerned that not one jot or
tittle should pass from the Law until all was fulfilled.
[756]
Imagine how He would feel about whole books
being rejected? In addition, Bible Christians are interpreting the New
Testament with a truncated Old Testament. Jesus did not live and teach during
the time of Artaxerxes but shortly after the time of Maccabees. Judaism of the
first century was much more theologically developed than it was hundreds of
years earlier. It is this more developed Jewish Faith of the first century that
Our Lord and His Apostles inherited and which formed the unspoken backdrop of
the New Testament. Without the Deuterocanon, many New Testament allusions and
echoes of doctrines and practices from the Deuterocanonical period are
silenced.
[757]
Moreover, Protestants who use a bible without the Deuterocanon are cut off from
the practice of the earliest Christians. The Christian Fathers, from the time
of the Apostles to the end of the patristic age, used the Deuterocanon “for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
[758]
  Neither
Christ nor His Apostles nor the earliest Christians ever rejected the
Deuterocanon as “Apocrypha.” The earliest rejection came from a
post-Christian
messianic movement within Judaism. That movement endorsed a false messiah as
well, and rejected the inspiration of the Christian Gospels. Finally, bibles
which lack the Deuterocanon are a deviation even from the practice of early
Protestantism. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli and the earliest English Protestant
bibles all included the Deuterocanon. Some of them even cross-referenced the
Dueterocanon (Apocrypha) in the New Testament margins. The rejection of the
Deuterocanon has also produced many bad fruits. For example, the mocking,
skeptical criticism of the miracle stories in the Deuteros—looked on as “good
clean fun” by early anti-Catholic apologists who took their apocryphal status
as axiomatic—opened the door for the same kinds of criticism to be applied to
the Protocanon. Within a few decades of the 1827 protest by the Edinburgh Bible
Society, all Scotland was filled from one end to the other with the similar
ridicule of the “higher critics.”  In addition, the elimination of the
Deuteros has prevented Protestants from offering an explanation of the canon of
Scripture which is logically consistent with the principle of
Sola Scriptura
(see Appendix 1).

The removal of the Deuterocanon is indeed a matter of
supreme importance, since it affects the very Word of God Himself; and its
effects can be shown to have been devastating in both theology and in practice.
As anti-Catholic prejudices continue to fade and the veneer of historical
justification for the truncated Old Testament is chipped away, let us hope that
there will come into existence a newfound courage in all of us to embrace the
word of God in its entirety and to follow it where ever it may lead—even if
that road eventually leads (as all roads do) back to Rome.

Luther taught that Scripture alone is the highest and
ultimate authority for the individual Christian. When confronted with Scripture
that contradicted his theology (as he was with 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, used as a
defense of Purgatory), Luther took advantage of the doubts raised by Jerome to
deny that ancient book’s full canonical weight. Therefore, it was not the
Sola
Scriptura
that gave birth to Luther’s understanding of Justification by
Faith Alone (
Sola Fide
), but
Sola Fide
, rather, which could not permit
the Scripture to fully speak. Many since Luther’s time have attempted to
provide a justification for the Protestant canon in a manner logically
consistent with Sola Scriptura. Coming up with such an after-the-fact
justification,
however, has proved to be easier said than done.

The Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura dictates that the
canonical Scripture is the highest and final authority in all matters of the
Christian Faith. All other authorities (e.g. the Church, traditions or customs,
theological systems et al.) have weight, but only in so far as they are
subservient to and judged by the word of God in Scripture. This is a noble
attempt to elevate the divine Scripture to the highest possible standard,
indeed,
the
standard above all standards and
the
norm that sets
all norms. However, Sola Scriptura ultimately
undermines
Scripture since
it effectively destroys any logically consistent and cogent explanation of how
we come to the knowledge of
which
books comprise Scripture to begin
with.

Dozens of explanations or justifications for the scriptural
canon have been offered over the years, but only the following three approaches
have gained any sizable adherents: (1) the historical investigative approach;
(2) the canon within a canon approach; and (3) the self-attestation/inner
witness approach.

Historical Investigative Approach

Evangelicals and mainline Protestants typically favor this
argument, supposedly based on the results of historical investigation.
According to this method, the investigator uses various historical critical
methods to examine the beliefs of the early Church Fathers and councils. Trends
of thought are outlined and the results, they claim, point to a consistent (or
nearly consistent) affirmation of the legitimacy of the shorter Old Testament
canon. The canon, therefore, is determined by
historical research
.

The historical investigative approach
has substantial
merit in that it provides an objective and verifiable means of determining a
closed fixed canon. Critics are quick to point out, however, that it has more
than a few equally substantial failings. For example, practitioners of this
method often presume the legitimacy of a shorter Protestant canon and then
proceed to select those Fathers who appear to agree with their
a priori
assumption.
Evidence to the contrary (such as a Father who affirms the Deuteros) is either
ignored or dismissed as the product of ignorant men. In other words, this
method is prone to special pleading.
[759]

Critics of this method note that the results of this
historical approach never reach the level of certitude necessary to establish
the limits of something so fundamental as the Word of God. A river, as they
say, cannot rise higher than its source. In other words, because the historical
investigation approach relies on the inductive reasoning of fallible men,
moving from particulars to the general, it can never produce an
infallible
conclusion, but only a highly probable one. High probability, these critics
point out, is not enough to bind the consciences of all believers. There must
be no possibility of error when it comes to the contents of God’s word since
the certainty of faith rests on those contents. If Scripture is uncertain,
one’s faith is uncertain.

Finally and most decisively, critics have argued that the
historical-investigative approach contradicts
Sola Scriptura
because it
sets the results of external historical investigation as the norm
above the
norm
of Scripture. Historical research becomes the ultimate judge and
arbitrator of what should and should not be permitted to pass muster as the
Word of God. Although this approach is often lauded for being of secondary
usefulness, it most certainly does contradict
Sola Scriptura
.

Canon within a Canon Approach

Martin Luther developed this second approach. He believed
that the canonical scriptures demonstrated their own canonicity by their
contents. Luther reasoned that the first duty of an apostle was to
preach
Christ
. Therefore, if a book preached Christ it was to that extent
apostolic and canonical Scripture. Conversely, if a book did not preach Christ
it was to that extent not apostolic and canonical Scripture.
[760]

Luther’s “canon within a canon” approach attempts to avoid
appealing to any criterion outside of Scripture so as not to violate
Sola
Scriptura
. Instead, the contents of Scripture itself are used to determine
the canon. Critics are quick to point out that this method also fails its
objectives in two ways.

First, the “canon within a canon” approach suffers from
circular reasoning. How did Luther learn that an apostle’s first duty is to
preach Christ, if he did not learn it from a book of Scripture? And how did he
know, before reading it, that said book was canonical? By rejecting an
authoritative and authentic Tradition of Scripture,
Sola Scriptura
cuts
itself off from the only avenue of escape from this circle. The “canon within a
canon” approach assumes at the outset the canonicity of a certain group of
books and then, based on those books, formulates what constitutes “preaching
Christ.”  It then uses this formulation to confirm those very same books
as canonical—thus begging the question.

Second, this approach, it is sometime argued, also cannot
provide the level of certitude necessary to establish the limits of the word of
God. Even Luther admitted that not all books “preach Christ” equally. Some
“preach” Him more forcefully and clearly than others (something which hardly
anyone has ever doubted). The “canon within a canon” method produces not a set
number of books, but a continuum of canonicity. Each book was more or less
canonical. Indeed, some New Testament books (e.g., 2 and 3 John, James,
Hebrews, Jude and Revelation) were said to be of questionable canonical status.
Who or what determines if a given book possesses sufficient canonicity to
overturn a conviction or to bind the conscience of the believer? The answer is
Martin Luther. Not surprisingly, non-Lutherans are less than satisfied with
this answer.

The
canon within a canon approach
also violates
Sola
Scriptura
, in that it sets up as the standard determining what is and what
is not the word of God, nothing more or less than Dr. Martin Luther’s own
understanding of what constitutes having “Christ preached.”  Anyone who
adopts this method erases Dr. Luther’s name and fills in their own, but the
process does not become more reliable by the change.

The Self-attesting/Inner Witness Approach

John Calvin offered a two-fold witness approach to this
problem, and Reformed Protestants generally follow his approach today.
According to this method, the canonicity of a given writing can be known—not by
the contents of a given book, as was Luther’s approach—but by the quality or
nature of the writing itself. The canonical Scriptures are said to be so holy,
true, powerful, harmonious, elevated and beautiful that their inspired
character unmistakably imposes itself upon the reader. This impression made by
inspired Scripture is so strong and unmistakable that the Protestant theologian
Charles Briggs, argues:

If men are not won by the holy character of the
biblical books, it must be because for some reason their eyes have been
withheld from seeing it.
[761]

Therefore, this approach concludes, the inspired canonical
Scripture is
autopisteuo
(self-attesting). In addition to the
self-evident nature of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is said to also provide an
inner witness within the believer’s heart that assures and confirms him or her
that what is being read is the inspired word of God.

This self-attesting approach to the canon masterfully avoids
two of the most
serious flaws of the “canon within a canon” approach. By
moving the criterion from a believer’s theology (Christ preached) to qualities
perceivable to every human (truth, harmony, beauty, etc.), the self-attesting
approach avoids, at least at first glance, the placing of one’s theology above
the Scripture. It also avoids Luther’s canonical continuum, by insisting that
the impression made by an inspired work is such that degrees of canonicity are
neither needed nor discernible. In theory, this approach seems formidable. When
put into practice, however, the self-attesting approach discloses several
serious deficiencies.

If the nature of the sacred Scriptures is so plain and
unmistakable, how is it that so many people were wrong on the canon? Martin
Luther is perhaps the best example. How is it that Luther missed the
unmistakable perception of the canonicity of the Book of Revelation, the
Epistle of James, or Esther? Reformed Protestants generally argue that it was
Luther’s zeal for the gospel that blinded his eyes from seeing the obvious. If
this logic is true, however, then how do the Reformed Protestants know that
their perception is correct, and that Luther’s was incorrect? Moreover, how do
they know that it was Luther’s
zeal
that did him in on the canon
question? Proponents noticed that Luther’s views on the canon differed from
theirs. They investigated Luther’s life, noted his zeal for his beliefs, and
concluded that it is probable that Luther’s zeal blinded him on the canonicity
of these books. In other words, they knew that they were right and Luther was
wrong based on the results of historical investigation. So this method, really,
is just the previously discussed historical-investigation method in disguise
fraught with the same weaknesses and failings. The historical investigative
approach cannot be used to determine the canon by Protestants because its results
are not certain and it violates
Sola Scriptura
.

There are other problems as well. The self-attestation
approach can never provide a closed or fixed canon. Even if a person could
infallibly discern what was and was not inspired Scripture, this perception
could never tell anyone that these books
alone
comprise the canon. There
is always the possibility that there are books
yet to be read
which will
also give a self-attestation. Many good Protestants, in fact, have been led
into Mormonism by just this rationale: “Perhaps” said the missionaries at the
door, “you would feel a burning in your bosom if you did read the Book of
Mormon.”  Moreover, if self-attestation identifies inspiration (that is to
say that all inspired works attest to their own divinity), would it not also be
possible to determine inspiration within various manuscripts? Wouldn’t it be
possible to discern whether certain textual variants are authentic or not based
on their self-attestation?
[762]
Furthermore, what constitutes a divine witness? A case in point is the
Protestant divine John Bunyan, author of the famed Protestant allegory
Pilgrim’s
Progress
. In his autobiography,
Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners
,
Bunyan writes:

One day, after I had been so many weeks oppressed and
cast down, as I was now quite giving up the Ghost of all my hopes of ever
attaining life, that sentence fell with weight upon my spirit, ‘Look at the
generations of old, and see: Did ever any trust in the Lord and was confounded?’
At which I was greatly lightened, and encouraged in my Soul…
[763]

Drawing spiritual strength from this passage, Bunyan
searched his Protestant Bible for it, but to no avail. Eventually he did
discover its location—in Sirach 2:11! Shocked that he had felt such divine
consolation from a book in the Apocrypha, he dissembled, only to admit later
that this passage continued to bring him spiritual comfort.
[764]
Is this not an instance of Sirach’s
attesting its own divine character to John Bunyan? And if so venerable a figure
as Bunyan can be wrong about such a thing, perhaps the same could happen to you
and me?

Conclusion

Ironically, the principle of
Sola Scriptura
is the
chief impediment to defining the exact limits of the Scripture within
Protestantism. It places the Scriptures as the final court of appeal, but it is
unable to identify which judges are to sit on its bench. A Sola Scripturist may
say, “Thus saith the Lord,” provided he qualifies his statement with the words
“… I think.” In other words,
Sola Scriptura
is a self-refuting
proposition. No one can know, with sufficient certainty, what the
Scriptura
is unless he adopts a norm outside of scripture that sets the limits of
Scripture. But then
Scriptura
has ceased to be
Sola
.

No solution is possible in this matter because all of these
methods are
a posteriori
in nature. They are attempts to justify a
position that has, for other reasons, already been determined.

The only alternative to these
a posteriori
solutions
is to treat the canon as something handed down or received, as did some of the
early Protestant Confessions. However, the question must be asked: received
from
whom
?  Saint Francis de Sales, an ardent leader of the
Catholic counter-reformation, argued that no ancient canon squares perfectly
with that accepted by Protestants. He wrote: