CHAPTERS
- Introduction
- A Revolution by Vatican II?
- What is Inspiration ?
- A Revolution by Pius XII?
- Using Genre to defend Inerrancy
- How to Interpret Scripture
- The l964 Instruction of the Biblical Commission
- Which are the Inspired Books?
- The Pentateuch
- Genesis
- Exodus
- Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
- Joshua, Judges and Ruth
- Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah
- Pre-exilic Prophets
- Exilic and Post-exilic Prophets
- The Psalms
- The Wisdom Literature
- Daniel
- The Two Books of Maccabees
- Judith, Esther, and Tobit
- The Gospels
- The Acts of the Apostles
- St. Paul's Epistles
- The Catholic Epistles
- Study Questions
- Selected Answers
Books/Resources by Fr. Most
- EWTN Scripture Q & A
- Basic Scripture
- Bible Commentaries
- Our Lady in Doctrine And Devotion
- Outline of Christology
- An Introduction to Christian Philosophy
- The Living God
- The Holy Spirit and The Church
- Catholic Apologetics Notes
Apologetic Resources
- Ask Father
- Biblical Catholicism
- Theology/Philosophy
- Scripture Resources
- Scott Hahns Lectures
- Apologetics Links
Other Services
- Catholic Chaplaincy
- St. Anthony Communications
|
Chapter 7 Which are the Inspired Books?
In our sketch of apologetics in chapter 2, we said that the only way to be
sure which books are inspired is to accept the decision of the Church.
Actually, the Church was in no hurry to give definitive statements on this
subject. Why?
We saw in chapter 6 that Form Criticism shows the Church has something more
basic than the Gospels, its own ongoing teaching. Up to the time of Luther,
people did not basically depend on Scripture, they simply followed the oral
teaching of the Church, which, as we said, is primary. Jesus never told the
Apostles: Write Some books, give out copies, tell people to figure them out
for themselves. This is what the "Reformers" implied. It is foolish. Copies
were very expensive, not everyone could read, and the study of Scripture is
quite difficult, One should know the original languages, genres, history
and culture among other things. In addition, the Second Epistle of Peter
tells us (3:15-16) that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are many things
that are hard are hard to understand: the unlearned and unstable twist them
to their own destruction. The "Reformers" surely proved that right.
Instead, we find in Second Timothy 1:13: "Hold to the form of sound
teaching which you heard from me." And again in 2:2: "The things which you
heard from me, through many witnesses, hand on to trustworthy men, who will
be able in turn to teach others."
Not strange then that the Church saw no urgent need to draw up a canon,
that is, a list of inspired books. St. Justin Martyr, in his defense of
Christianity to the Jew Trypho (Dialogue, chapter 32, cf 68) says he will
use only the Scripture that the Jews would accept - a natural move in such
a dialogue.
There was an unofficial list in the Muratorian Fragment - which was found
at Milan. It dates from late second century, and does give a list of books.
However we see in it some early hesitations. Not mentioned are the Epistle
to the Hebrews and the Epistles of James and Peter. It rejects some pseudo-
Pauline letters to Laodicea, and Gnostic, Marcionite and Montanist writings
in general. From this we gather that a stimulus to make a list came from
the existence of heretical writings. Marcion rejected the entire Old
Testament, and three Gospels, keeping part of Luke and some of St. Paul's
Epistles.
While most of the books of Old and New Testament were accepted by the
Church from the beginning, there were some hesitations, such as those about
the so-called Deuterocanonicals, which are, in general those books that are
found in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament)
but not in the Hebrew Old Testament. (They include in general: Sirach,
Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith and additions to Esther
and Daniel).
There were also other hesitations, for example, the Epistle to the Hebrews
was accepted very early in the East, chiefly at Alexandria, but the west
did not accept it until the fourth century. In reverse, the
Apocalypse/Revelation was accepted early in the west, only later in the
East. Many fathers - chiefly: Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus believed the John who was its author was
the Apostle John. Other fathers, chiefly: Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of
Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom thought
it was not the Apostle John.
St. Augustine accepted the longer canon (list - including the
deuterocanonicals) and defended it in his De Doctrina Christiana 8. At the
Council of Hippo, his diocese, in 393 AD the longer canon was accepted, and
repeated and confirmed in the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage in 397 and
418. At the end of the decree was a request to Pope Boniface to confirm it.
In 405 St. Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, wrote to Pope Innocent I, asking
him for a ruling. The Pope wrote back to him, repeating the list drawn up
by the Councils. As a result there was much unanimity in the west in the
5th century, though the East was slower to accept, waiting until the 7th
century.
But even in the west there was some difficulty, especially under the
influence of St. Jerome, who tended to favor the shorter canon (without the
deuterocanonicals). So Pope Gregory I spoke of First Macchabees as useful
for edification but not canonical. Cardinal Cajetan, about a thousand years
later, expressed a similar view even after the Decree for the Jacobites of
the Council of Florence (1441: DS 1335).
The really final settlement came from the Council of Trent, against the
errors of Luther, in 1546 (DS 1501-05). It accepted the same list as the
African councils.
|