Beautiful work, especially that list of Pope, fathers, commentaries, scholars, and the vote at Trent showing beyond dispute there was no settled canon.
No. Fr. Mike states how the demonized Lutherfer relegated them to “apocrypha” status, although keeping them in his own translation, although there was already numerous German translations circulating, demonstrating that the Deuterocanon was always there. In the Bible… St Jerome had early skepticism, but changed his mind, mister sophist, and submitted to the authority of the Church. Which you refuse like a brute beast. He never relegated them to apocryphal status or separated them in the Vulgate. He realized his personal scholarly opinion was wrong. And if you want to harken to Antichrist Jews, we ask, which Jews? There were numerous factions that had no universal consensus among them. That’s what St Jerome realized, and he has loads of commentary that refute this sickness of yours. For the Deuterocanon speaks of God the Son. This is a tiresome narrative that you need to retire. You’ll only harm your own witness… Like the self defeating irony of appealing to extra-Biblical sources, like Catholic saints, while rejecting the Church that canonized both the 73-book Bible and the Saint himself!
“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But if they [the churches] read Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees… why am I to be blamed for doing the same?”
— St Jerome, Letter 108 §33, to Rufinus
“Are you asking me to account for God’s judgment and disposition? The book of Sirach gives the answer to your foolish question: ‘Seek not the things that are too high for thee…’”
— St Jerome, Against the Pelagians, 1.33
“I follow no one as my chief except Christ alone, and I communicate with none but Your Blessedness [the Pope], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built...”
—St. Jerome, Epistle 15 to Pope Damasus I
SAINT Jerome writes in Epistle 130 to a high born lady of Rome, Demetrias, who had just vowed virginity (A.D. 414):
“I think, therefore, that I ought to warn you… to hold fast the faith of the saintly Pope Innocent… and not to receive any foreign doctrine, however wise and discerning you may take yourself to be.”
O look! Popes in St Jerome’s time! Popes that he fully submits to!
Very good. I would just add that in Luke 24:44 Jesus speaks of the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms as having written about him. Also, the Council of Laodicea in c. 363 put out a list of books that agreed with Athanasius’ list (though it did not include Revelation).
Trent did not anathematize Jerome. They anathematize those who hold his opinion after they settled what you acknowledge to be a long dispute in the Church, with some people holding it and others not holding it. You always had two camps in Christianity that either doubted their canonicity or thought them official canon.
You claim there was an established Jewish canon in Jesus' day, but that is just not historically accurate. It was actually after Josephus when a consensus and final declaration of the canon was made. We know this as we see debates on the canonicity of Jewish books even in their literature after the first century. The Pharisees maybe had their majority opinion around Josephus' time. But you cannot just retroactively say that canon was the same decades earlier, and even then, was not settled in Jewish circles until after the Church was established. Jesus line about Abel to Zechariah was about prophets, not what books of the Bible are canon. There were not prophets like what we see with Jeremiah or Isaiah after a certain time period. Maccabees even records that. But that does not mean there was no one to write sacred scripture between the time. Being a prophet and writing sacred scripture are two distinct categories. Elijah never wrote scripture, but he was a genuine prophet, who probably prophesied things we have never and will never hear. The argument that the Jewish canon was settled in the first century is not a historical fact, but a blind guess from Protestants.
Regardless of who had this opinion or that opinion, ultimately it does not give evidence either way about whether the Deuterocanon is truly canonical. Jerome said they were not. Three separate councils before the fifth century said they were (though you dispute one, but that is still two councils of multiple people over one guy Jerome). You speak of Cardinal Cajetan, and I can speak of the Council of Florence over a hundred years before Trent (once again more people as a witness of the broader church against one man). We can cite different people's opinions. The question comes; how do we know which opinion is correct?
The Protestant answer to that question is not convincing. "The Jewish canon!!!!!!" How do I know the Jewish canon is correct? Being trusted with the oracles of God is not the same as being trusted to give us the correct canon. The Jewish argument is the only one I have heard, yet it does not show why we should agree with the Jewish canon. Protestants then appeal to the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to the right canon and the Holy Spirit illuminating which scriptures are inspired (so, personal feelings while reading basically). I read the Deuterocanon, and it seems inspired to me. And the Catholic argues the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church, not the Protestants, to the right canon. The Protestant has no good reason to believe the 66 Book canon except for "These people I can cite had this opinion." But that is not evidence. The Jewish people's opinion is not evidence. Jerome's opinion is not evidence. Neither is Cajetan or even a previous Pope. Opinions are not evidence, and Protestants need a more objective way to establish why they have the canon they have.
Thank you for this, doctor. I have read many explanations of the topic of the canon but few are this succinct. Clear, consise, and compelling. Well done.
This is a great article! Forgive me if I missed this, but from what I understand, I also know that we only have Greek manuscripts of the deuterocanon, while the rest of what we consider the old testament can be found in Hebrew.
This is by far the most helpful response to the Catholic canon I’ve seen. Thank you for sharing this.
Beautiful work, especially that list of Pope, fathers, commentaries, scholars, and the vote at Trent showing beyond dispute there was no settled canon.
Fantastic work. I’m definitely saving this for reference later.
Thank you for sharing!
Fantastic rebuttal points.
Thank you for compiling this, extremely helpful.
No. Fr. Mike states how the demonized Lutherfer relegated them to “apocrypha” status, although keeping them in his own translation, although there was already numerous German translations circulating, demonstrating that the Deuterocanon was always there. In the Bible… St Jerome had early skepticism, but changed his mind, mister sophist, and submitted to the authority of the Church. Which you refuse like a brute beast. He never relegated them to apocryphal status or separated them in the Vulgate. He realized his personal scholarly opinion was wrong. And if you want to harken to Antichrist Jews, we ask, which Jews? There were numerous factions that had no universal consensus among them. That’s what St Jerome realized, and he has loads of commentary that refute this sickness of yours. For the Deuterocanon speaks of God the Son. This is a tiresome narrative that you need to retire. You’ll only harm your own witness… Like the self defeating irony of appealing to extra-Biblical sources, like Catholic saints, while rejecting the Church that canonized both the 73-book Bible and the Saint himself!
“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But if they [the churches] read Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees… why am I to be blamed for doing the same?”
— St Jerome, Letter 108 §33, to Rufinus
“Are you asking me to account for God’s judgment and disposition? The book of Sirach gives the answer to your foolish question: ‘Seek not the things that are too high for thee…’”
— St Jerome, Against the Pelagians, 1.33
“I follow no one as my chief except Christ alone, and I communicate with none but Your Blessedness [the Pope], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built...”
—St. Jerome, Epistle 15 to Pope Damasus I
SAINT Jerome writes in Epistle 130 to a high born lady of Rome, Demetrias, who had just vowed virginity (A.D. 414):
“I think, therefore, that I ought to warn you… to hold fast the faith of the saintly Pope Innocent… and not to receive any foreign doctrine, however wise and discerning you may take yourself to be.”
O look! Popes in St Jerome’s time! Popes that he fully submits to!
Wow… 😂
Very good. I would just add that in Luke 24:44 Jesus speaks of the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms as having written about him. Also, the Council of Laodicea in c. 363 put out a list of books that agreed with Athanasius’ list (though it did not include Revelation).
Trent did not anathematize Jerome. They anathematize those who hold his opinion after they settled what you acknowledge to be a long dispute in the Church, with some people holding it and others not holding it. You always had two camps in Christianity that either doubted their canonicity or thought them official canon.
You claim there was an established Jewish canon in Jesus' day, but that is just not historically accurate. It was actually after Josephus when a consensus and final declaration of the canon was made. We know this as we see debates on the canonicity of Jewish books even in their literature after the first century. The Pharisees maybe had their majority opinion around Josephus' time. But you cannot just retroactively say that canon was the same decades earlier, and even then, was not settled in Jewish circles until after the Church was established. Jesus line about Abel to Zechariah was about prophets, not what books of the Bible are canon. There were not prophets like what we see with Jeremiah or Isaiah after a certain time period. Maccabees even records that. But that does not mean there was no one to write sacred scripture between the time. Being a prophet and writing sacred scripture are two distinct categories. Elijah never wrote scripture, but he was a genuine prophet, who probably prophesied things we have never and will never hear. The argument that the Jewish canon was settled in the first century is not a historical fact, but a blind guess from Protestants.
Regardless of who had this opinion or that opinion, ultimately it does not give evidence either way about whether the Deuterocanon is truly canonical. Jerome said they were not. Three separate councils before the fifth century said they were (though you dispute one, but that is still two councils of multiple people over one guy Jerome). You speak of Cardinal Cajetan, and I can speak of the Council of Florence over a hundred years before Trent (once again more people as a witness of the broader church against one man). We can cite different people's opinions. The question comes; how do we know which opinion is correct?
The Protestant answer to that question is not convincing. "The Jewish canon!!!!!!" How do I know the Jewish canon is correct? Being trusted with the oracles of God is not the same as being trusted to give us the correct canon. The Jewish argument is the only one I have heard, yet it does not show why we should agree with the Jewish canon. Protestants then appeal to the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to the right canon and the Holy Spirit illuminating which scriptures are inspired (so, personal feelings while reading basically). I read the Deuterocanon, and it seems inspired to me. And the Catholic argues the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church, not the Protestants, to the right canon. The Protestant has no good reason to believe the 66 Book canon except for "These people I can cite had this opinion." But that is not evidence. The Jewish people's opinion is not evidence. Jerome's opinion is not evidence. Neither is Cajetan or even a previous Pope. Opinions are not evidence, and Protestants need a more objective way to establish why they have the canon they have.
Thank you for this, doctor. I have read many explanations of the topic of the canon but few are this succinct. Clear, consise, and compelling. Well done.
This is a great article! Forgive me if I missed this, but from what I understand, I also know that we only have Greek manuscripts of the deuterocanon, while the rest of what we consider the old testament can be found in Hebrew.
The RCC still can't get over Luther. And don't they love handing out anathemas!
Dr. Cloos,
Do you have any writings on how can a person be saved?
I'd be interested to read it.
Cheers,
Brian W.