Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (41 page)

^[639]
Howorth, “Bible,”14. Emphasis added.

^[640]
Eck appeals to Augustine’s
City
of God
, Book 18.

^[641]
“Evidens enim est, librum
Machabeorum pertinere ad vetus testamentum quando ergo Sanctus Hieronymus
canonem hebreum conscripserit, et eos solos libros valere in contentione, qui
de canone sunt, definiat sitque in hac sua sententia receptus, facile nostro
telo verberabimur nisi fidelibus persuadeamus” as quoted in Howorth, 14. Luther
knew that Eck’s interpretation of Maccabees was unassailable and the Church’s
acceptance of Maccabees could not be ignored. Luther, in what Sundberg called
“an argument of desperation,” first appealed to Jerome and then posited that
the Church is not competent to determine the Canon. Also see Albert Sundberg,
Jr. “The Protestant Canon: Should It Be Re-examined?”
CBQ
28 (1966):
195.

^[642]
Howorth, “Bible,” 14. “Scio quod
ecclesia recipit hunc librum, et hoc dixi: sed non potest ecclesia plus
tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis quam per se ipsum habeat, sicut et
ceterorum patrum opuscula approbat et recipit, sed non ideo confirmat aut
meliora reddit…Transeo ergo ista que inmultis dicuntur canon et canon.”

^[643]
“[C]oncilium non potest facere de
scriptura esse, quod non est de scriptura natura sua, sicut nec ecclesia potuit
facere, Evangelia, etiamsi approbavit Evangelia…”ibid.

^[644]
Or as Johann Eck replied: “Cum
doctissimi fuerint in eo consilio viri, malo credere concilio quod a spiritu
sancto regitur quam domino Luthero, non quod concilium faciat aliquid de
scriptura quod non sit, sed quod credam concilium melius habere sen sum et
intelligentiam scriptu rarum decernendo hoc esse de scriptura quod in scriptura
reperitur…” ibid.

^[645]
See
Works of Martin Luther
,
trans. C.M. Jacobs (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), United Lutheran
Church in America, 6.363ff. Also see Reuss,
History
, 321.

^[646]
See Dentan, Robert C.,
The
Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments
, (Greenwich, Connecticut: Seabury,
1954), 18-19. Also Metzger,
Introduction
, 181.

^[647]
See Henry Howorth “The Bible Canon
Among Later Reformers,”
JTS
10 (Jan. 1909): 207-08.

^[648]
Luther is, quite literally, guilty
of the charge commonly launched against Catholicism by Protestants today. He
has, to paraphrase Scripture, “[made] void the word of God by [his] own
tradition…”

^[649]
This phenomenon can be seen in the
earliest Christian editions of the Old Testament (e.g. The great codices, the
Old Latin and various codices of the
Latin Vulgate
).

^[650]
See Robert C. Dentan,
The
Apocrypha: Bridge of the New Testament
, (Conn.: Seabury, 1954), 18-19.

^[651]
Goodspeed, Edgar J.,
The Story of
the Apocrypha
, (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1937), 4.
Emphasis added.

^[652]
Luther’s
German Bible
(1545),
as quoted in Metzger,
Introduction,
183.

^[653]
A few words ought to be said about
the term “apocrypha.” Daubney follows Lightfoot in distinguishing three
particular stages of development of this term: “
Firstly
, it was taken to
designate those books which were ‘held in reserve and studied privately’ but
not read in church (orig. Ep. Ad Afric. 9).
Secondly
, it came to denote
books affected by heretics, and carried with it the ideas of ‘spurious’ and
‘heretical’ (Iren. I. xx. 1); and
Thirdly
, it was applied to
non-canonical books whether genuine or spurious (Jer. Prol. Gal. 1).” (Daubney,
3). Emphasis his. Later, Jeromists distorted this term in an attempt to
reconcile Jerome with the Church (e.g. Alcuin,
Against Elipandus
, Book
1, 18; Peter Comster,
Preface to the Book of Joshua;
and possibly Hugh
of St. Cher
, Postillea in Joshua
, Prologue). By Luther’s time, the term
had been so distorted as to render it practically useless. For example, even
some Fathers of the Council of Trent, who argue for the full canonicity and
inspiration of the Deuterocanon, call them “apocrypha.”
The Evangelical
Lutheran Church recognizes this broad medieval definition in its joint
statement on the canon of Scripture. See
Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue: Agreed
Statements 1985–1989
(Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1992), 22 and
footnote.

^[654]
Indeed, Luther’s
German
Translation
was not considered a complete bible until the “Apocrypha”
section was completed. See
The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West From
the Reformation to the Present Day
, vol. 1, ed. S. L. Greenslade,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1963, 96.

^[655]
The Protestant theologian Wilhelm H.
Neuser notes that Luther’s new arrangement of the Old Testament, “…broke
radically with previous church tradition.” (Wilhelm H. Neuser, “The Reformed
Churches and the Old Testament Apocrypha” in
The Apocrypha In Ecumenical
Perspective
, UBSMS 6, (United Bible Societies, 1991), 89).

^[656]
  Howorth, “Bible,” 25. Emphasis
added.

^[657]
“…sed non divinam cum caeteris illis
autoritatem damus.”

^[658]
“… non cum caeteris conferamus.” See
Westcott,
History
, 270. Emphasis his. Oecolampadius’ list omits the
Deuterocanonical sections of Esther and the Book of Hebrews. Howorth, “Bible,”
27.

^[659]
Neuser, “Apocrypha,” 90.

^[660]
See Westcott, 270 and Bruce, 102.

^[661]
Preface to the 1531 Zurich Bible
as quoted in Neuser, “Apocrypha,” 91.

^[662]
As quoted in Neuser, “Apocrypha,”
91. Emphasis added.

^[663]
The public reading of a book in Church
attests to the belief that a given book is Scripture since the ancient liturgy,
like the synagogue before it, held a special station for the reading of sacred
Scripture.

^[664]
Scholars believe this first preface
is not the work of John Calvin, but his cousin Olivetan.

^[665]
As quoted by Neuser, “Apocrypha,”
93.

^[666]
As quoted in Neuser, “Apocrypha,”
95-96.

^[667]
See Neuser, “Apocrypha,” 96.
Cholinus in the 1542
Latin Bible
stated that Sirach was written in
Hebrew.

^[668]
The decree of the Fourth Session
addressed the authority of apostolic tradition, the canon of the Old and New
Testament and the
Latin Vulgate
as the authoritative translation for
theological debate.

^[669]
John Calvin,
Antidote to the
Council of Trent,
Session Four, trans. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh, 1851), 
69.

^[670]
Calvin,
Antidote
, 68.
Emphasis added.

^[671]
Calvin,
Antidote
, 70-71.

^[672]
If Jerome’s opinion was the common
view of the times, one wonders why he composed the “helmeted” preface (and
others like it) as a pre-emptive strike against his critics?

^[673]
Following this line of reasoning,
one could also conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity is still not
formulated even today because it is not accepted by some (e.g. the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Mormons, et al.).

^[674]
On Christian Doctrine
,
2.12-13.

^[675]
Maccabees is merely acknowledging
that some Greek readers (who pride themselves and their culture on their
literary eloquence) may not feel his literary style completely satisfying. He
does commend his work as the fruit of his best efforts. This acknowledgment in
no way impinges upon the question of this book’s inspiration. The Holy Spirit
is the primary author of Scripture and the human writer is the secondary
author. All the words set to writing are those of the Holy Spirit, the literary
style and skill, however, reflect that of the human author. This is why each
book of Scripture reads differently and differs from one other in literary
quality. What matters is whether the Holy Spirit is the primary author.
Calvin’s comments, therefore, miss their mark.

^[676]
John Calvin,
The Institutes of
the Christian Religion
, Book 1, Chapter 8, Section 10, p. 80; The Beveridge
translation erroneously has Calvin discussing 1 Mc 12:43; 2 Mc 12:43 is the
correct citation. The quotation from Augustine is said to come from
Contra
Gaudentium
, 31.38. However, Calvin seems to have had in mind Rufinus’
De
Expositione Symboli 36-38
.

^[677]
Calvin,
Institutes
, 441 [Book
4, 9, section 14].

^[678]
This has been solemnly affirmed, as
we saw in the quote from Vatican I cited above.

^[679]
2 Tm 3:15

^[680]
Nuesner, “Apocrypha,” 101. Calvin has
it backwards. It’s from Scripture that we learn true doctrine, not from
doctrine that we determine which books are Scripture.

^[681]
Nuesner, “Apocrypha,” 102-103.

^[682]
This is a gross generalization.
Neither the Protocanonical nor Deuterocanonical books of Scripture were immune
from questions or doubts by individuals. What matters is whether these doubts
reflected the Church as a whole or the theological speculations of the
individual.

^[683]
Belgic Confession
, Article 5.

^[684]
As quoted in Metzger,
Introduction
,
190.

^[685]
As quoted in Philip Schaff’,
The Creeds
of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes
; 6
^th
ed.,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1931) 356-82.

^[686]
Institutes of the Christian
Religion
, Book 1, Chapter 7, 72.

^[687]
  See Neuser, “Apocrypha,” 106.

^[688]
  “Quandoquidem libros
Apocryphos scripta mere humana esse constat, nonnullos quoque suppositios,
Iudaicis fabulis et commentis aspersos, quales sunt Historiae Iudithae, Susannae,
Tobithi, Belis Draconisque, atque imprimis tertius et quartus Esdrae: nonnullos
etiam continere quaedam dogmatica et historica, libris Canonicis repugnantia:
cumque nec in Iudaica, nec in antiquissima Ecclesia Christiana sacro Veteris
Testamenti codici fuerint adiuncti, deliberatum, fuit: an et illi accuratiori
versione digni sint. Tunc vero utrum conveniat, ut cum sacris et Canonicis
libris, in uno volumine porro coniungantur: cum praesertim illa coniunctio idem
progressu temporis periculum creare possit, quod in Pontificia Ecclesia
accidisse videmus: ut scripta haec mere humana tendem pro Canonicis,
divinisque, ab imperitioribus haberentur. Re diu deliberata rationibusque
variis ac gravissimis utrique allatis atque explicatis, spatium maturius rationes
allatas expediendi, postulatum fuit.” Ninth Session as quoted in Howorth “The
Bible Canon Among the Later Reformers,”
JTS
10 (Jan. 1909):
224-225.                          

     “Ac quandoquidem a multis retro
saeculis, libri hi cum sacris scriptis uno eodemque volumine coniuncti fuerunt,
atque haec coniunctio in Reformatis quoque omnium Nationum Ecclesiis etiamnum
servetur, cumque distinctio seu separatio horum librorum a volumine Bibliorum,
nec exemplo nec suffragiis aliarum Ecclesiarum Reformatarum sit comprobata, sed
occasionem et scandalorum et calumniorum, facile datura sit, quanquam optarent
quidem omnes libros hosce Apocryphos, sacris Scripturis nunquam adiunctos
fuisse; placuit tamen eos hoc tempore sine aliarum Ecclesiarum Reformatarum
consensu atque approbatione, a corpore voluminis Biblici non esse segregandos;
sed eidem coniungendos, adhibitis tamen hisce cautionibus….” Tenth Session, as
quoted in Howorth, “Bible Canon,” 225.

^[689]
Metzger,
Introduction
,
185-186.

^[690]
Bruce,
Canon
, 102-03. Bruce
and others point out that the book order of Tyndale’s New Testament follows
closely that of Luther’s
German Bible
and suggest that he would have
follow Luther in the Old Testament.