₦airaland Forum

the next thing i will seek to prove in my next post will be this:


The Majority of Early
Christians Who Prepared
Lists of the Old Testament
Canon Specifically
Excluded the Apocrypha

italo:
Who canonised the 66, and when?

google it

every thing must be laid bare. it must be opened.

Ukutsgp:
every thing must be laid bare. it must be opened.

Bros stop dodging the real questions.

When and which council chosed the 66 books and when did the Catholic church add to them

God said this God said that, and still God hasn't said anything, because if he has said a word we won't be here arguing about what he said cause we all will here it

chukwudi44:
Bros stop dodging the real questions.

When and which council chosed the 66 books and when did the Catholic church add to them

wait for the next post since i believed that your question will be answered there.

meanwhile,u can be savouring the post i just concluded in page 1. it is hot and juicy.

most of the questions u want to ask are addressed there.

One intelligent man went behind a bush, came out and formulate an idea,told it to the wife that "thus said the lord" and the revolution began, now everybody is quoting God.

Ukutsgp:
There was no clear evidence pointing to the fact that those books were ever accepted as scriptures. It was only the 66 books in the authorised kjv of the bible that were canonised and recognised as scriptures. The additional books you people accepted as canon were not. U people added those books to simply support some of your ungodly doctrines and practices which are at variance with the word of God.


The rcc is alway known for falsehood.

I can't help but notice that you ignorantly based your whole argument on the Authorised KJV, you should know that the KJV is a 1677? work while we are talking about the church councils meeting since 100AD.
And mind you, most people here you are arguing against are not Catholic, and please stop the copy and paste, just highlight the point or paste the links for those who wish to go. Also I noticed that you are copying from anti-Catholic sites, please do get a broader view about how the bible was compiled

Buffer:
I can't help but notice that you ignorantly based your whole argument on the Authorised KJV, you should know that the KJV is a 1677? work while we are talking about the church councils meeting since 100AD.
And mind you, most people here you are arguing against are not Catholic, and please stop the copy and paste, just highlight the point or paste the links for those who wish to go. Also I noticed that you are copying from anti-Catholic sites, please do get a broader view about how the bible was compiled

i did nt base my argument on kjv. What i'm proving is that, it was only 66 books that were canonised and that the books the catholic added was not recognised nor even considered to be in the canon. The apocrypha was nt recognised and was considered uninspired or spurious. Why would the rcc accept those books as inspired when the jews and the early church rejected them as inspired?

There is nothing like anti catholic site. The catholic always considered those speaking the truth as anti catholic. What i have been posting is just the truth of the matter. I also have many books regarding the apocrypha and how the 66 books in the bible was canonised. It is nt my fault that u are too lazy to read and accept the truth.
I must open up everything so that those who can read will read and get informed. So that they will nt continue to wallow in ignorance regarding the apocrypha and the canonisation of the bible. I have made my research about this issue and when i finish my posting, then we can start the argument as u want.

Just follow my next post when i'm back from church.

66books only were canonised.

Ukutsgp:
66books only were canonised.

Canonised by who?

AnodaIT:
Canonised by who?

martin luther and his friends in the 15th century.

vest:
martin luther and his friends in the 15th century.

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest who translated the Bible from Latin (the church language) into vernacular and was excommunicated.
So there was the Catholic Church and the Bible before Luther

Lol Ukutsgp out to ridicule yourself again on the Apocrypha?

Ukutsgp:
66books only were canonised.

It is not enough to run round this entire forum shouting 66 books only were canonised. The question here is simple,

Who canonised the 66 books?
When was these 66 books canonised?
When did the Holy Catholic Church add other book to these 66 books?
Between the 66 and 73 books, which came first?

And please all these copy paste work you keep doing these days are rather too boring. I want to believe your iq is not tied to another man's personal opinion, you should answer these questions according to your understanding and desist from too many copy pastes.

Ukutsgp:
Why is it that the roman catholic went and added more books to the inspired books in the bible?

Who determined/determines which books are inspired?

Did they have the right to do so?

They added no books, they simply canonised the bible as it is today.

Are those additional book accepted by the early church?

YES!

Are they inspired of God?

YES

Are the teachings contained in those books in line with what is found in the 66 books of the bible?

When did 66 books became the yardstick for measuring other books and who sanctioned that?

Those are some questions that are begging for answers.

What do you have to say about this?

Already said what I have to say.

Ukutsgp:
so they compiled some 66 and some 73? And which are the questionable ones they added?

What do you know about KJV bible?

They compiled just one bible which contains the 73 books and remained so for the first 1500years of the existence of Christianity till Martin Luther came and remove the ones he feels like removing both in the old and new testament. Leaving just 66 books and even less.

Oh King James bible? I remember the first and earlier translations of king james version contains the Apocryphal books, so what do you know about it?

Reading through the poster's copy & paste material, it amazes me that he can justify the books in the protestant OT that were never quoted from in the NT e.g. songs of Solomon, Esther, Ecclesiastes but has an issue with the deutero-canonicals.
This all means his conclusions are down to Protestant tradition.

SalC:
They compiled just one bible which contains the 73 books and remained so for the first 1500years of the existence of Christianity till Martin Luther came and remove the ones he feels like removing both in the old and new testament. Leaving just 66 books and even less.

Oh King James bible? I remember the first and earlier translations of king james version contains the Apocryphal books, so what do you know about it?

it better to shut up, than to say what u dnt know. how do u know that the first bible contains 73 books? martin luther came and removed books? u must be a joke. if the first kjv contains the apocrypha, who removed it? is it martin luther too?

btoks:
Reading through the poster's copy & paste material, it amazes me that he can justify the books in the protestant OT that were never quoted from in the NT e.g. songs of Solomon, Esther, Ecclesiastes but has an issue with the deutero-canonicals.
This all means his conclusions are down to Protestant tradition.

dnt worry, u see the reasons soon.

SalC:
Lol Ukutsgp out to ridicule yourself again on the Apocrypha?

it is rather to see how the rcc ridicule themselves by accepting those spurious books as canon.

The Majority of Early
Christians Who Prepared
Lists of the Old Testament
Canon Specifically
Excluded the Apocrypha


Because the claims of Roman Catholicism
concerning the inclusion of the Apocrypha rely so
heavily upon the foundation of "tradition", this
shall be the next point of examination. When
looking to the history of the explicit inclusion of
the Apocrypha in the canon of the Old Testament,
we find that it traces back to a series of councils
which were held in various cities of the western
part of the Roman Empire in the late 4th century
and early 5th century.


A brief history of these councils is in order. The
first body which issued a statement of affirmation
for the Apocrypha was the Council of Rome, held
in 382 AD. In a decree of Damasus, the bishop of
Rome, the list of the Old Testament books was
given, which included the original 39 books found
in the Hebrew Scriptures, amended with the
standard Apocrypha now accepted by the Roman
Catholic religion. This view was reiterated eleven
years later at the Council of Hippo, in North
Africa, and then again at the third Carthaginian
council in 397 AD, perhaps the most well-known
of the three. This canon was reaffirmed under
Boniface at a later Council of Carthage in 419 AD.
While all of this is well and good, the reliance
upon these mere statements ignores some
underlying realities. The first council, that of
Rome, was called by the bishop Damasus, who
was a supporter of the Apocrypha. The
statements on the canon issued by this council
(which was local in its scope) most likely reflect
the opinion of Damasus himself, which was
transferred by his authority as bishop to the
council canons.


Likewise, the later councils in North Africa at
Hippo and the two at Carthage, reflect the views
of the influential theologian Augustine. Augustine,
like Damasus, was a strong proponent of the
inspiration and canonicity of the apocryphal
books . The determinations of these councils
show the weight of authority which he was able
to exercise over their findings, in contravention to
the previous prevailing view of the general body of
the churches.


Further, what is implied in the reliance upon
Rome, Hippo, and Carthage is that these Councils
were general, or ecumenical , in nature, and thus
that they were decided by representatives from all
over the whole body of Christendom. However,
this is not the case. Each of these councils were
local or regional (in the case of Carthage in 397
AD), and their findings represented the views of a
small number of presbyters from localised areas
(primarily North Africa). That these councils had
no perceived authority to enforce their decisions
on the rest of the churches throughout the Empire
is amply demonstrated in that most of the rest of
the churches and ecclesiastical writers in the
Empire went right along using the Hebrew canon,
even after these councils.

UKutsGP

Just give up. No one is buying your nonsense

What is also interesting, given the Roman
Catholic predilection for "authority" is that,
previous to the Council of Rome, The Council of
Laodicea (c. 360 AD) had issued a list of
canonical Old Testament books. This list
coincides with the "Protestant" canon, except that
Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah are included as
genuine works of Jeremiah and appended to his
book 32. None of the other Catholic apocryphal
books are listed as being in the Old Testament.
Since Catholics rely so heavily on the argument
that the inclusion of the Apocrypha was made by
the Church, and not off of any individual decisions
or viewpoints, one wonders why they would
ignore the decision of the earlier council
(Laodicea) in favour of the later ones, and the
general viewpoint of the earlier church over the
viewpoint of a small group (led by Augustine)
who dominated these later councils and led them
to accept the Apocrypha.


In addition to the testimony of Laodicea, we see
that the large majority of Christian writers who
prepared lists of the Old Testament books, gave
canon lists which were very similar to or
coincident with the familiar 39 book canon which
most churches and Independents accept today,
and that these by-and-large excluded the
apocryphal books. Included among those who
rejected all or most of the apocryphal works we
find:


Melito of Sardis (c. 180 AD), lists the standard
Hebrew canon excluding Esther, and he does not
include Baruch or the Letter of Jeremiah with the
prophetic book of the same. Incidentally,
Melito also surtitles Proverbs with the name
"Wisdom", which was a somewhat common way
of referring to that book in the early churches.

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 360 AD), he lists the
complete Hebrew canon. He states that some
add Tobit and Judith to the canon, though his
statement seems to indicate that this occurrence
was among those Greek-speaking Christians in
Rome.


Athanasius (367 AD), who gives the 22 book
Hebrew canon, plus Baruch and the Letter of
Jeremiah.


Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 380 AD), also gives the 22
books of the Hebrew canon, plus Baruch and the
Letter of Jeremiah. Interestingly, in this same
passage, Cyril also says, "Of these read the two
and twenty books, but have nothing to do with
the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these
only which we read openly in the Church." This
would seem to indicate that the remaining books
such as Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom were shunned
by many in his time, and not used by the
churches of his day.


Gregory of Nazanzius (c. 380 AD) provides a
witness to the standard Hebrew canon minus
Esther.

Amphilocius of Iconium (c. 380) also gives the
standard Hebrew canon, and states that "some
add Esther"

Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 385 AD), he lists the
Hebrew canon, including Baruch and the Letter of
Jeremiah. He states that the Wisdom of
Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach are "near to
them in substance", which reflects the prevalent
view of much of the early church that these
books, while not canonical, were useful and
contained much of the same truth found in the
canonical wisdom literatures.


Jerome (c. 391 AD), the premiere biblical scholar
in the early Western church, explicitly rejected the
apocryphal books in toto , listing only the 22
books of the Hebrew canon (minus the additions
to Jeremiah) as canonical.

John of Damascus (c. 730 AD), representing the
later and settled tradition of the Greek Eastern
churches for many centuries to come, provides us
with a list exactly matching the 22 book Hebrew
canon, without the additions to Jeremiah .
John mentions also Wisdom and Sirach, saying
that they are "virtuous and noble", but that they
were not counted among the true canon, which
was "placed in the ark".

Thus, the weight of historical evidence, from at or
before the time of the Augustinian councils in the
West, is in support of the traditional Hebrew
canon, without apocryphal additions. The only
exceptions to this rule among those who provided
lists of the canon would be the rejection by some
of Esther, and the enfolding of Baruch and the
Letter of Jeremiah into the prophetic Book of
Jeremiah. Even then, we see that only a few
excluded Esther, which was likely because of its
disputed status as a result of its lack of explicit
reference to God. Likewise, only a few include the
additions to Jeremiah, not representing the
greater testimony of the general body of believers.
The inclusion of Baruch and the Letter with the
Book of Jeremiah can be easily explained when
we note the somewhat confusing manner in which
scrolls of text were stored in the times of the
early church.


Thus we see, in contradiction to the claims of the
Catholic religion, that the Old Testament canon
was not determined or fixed at the Council of
Carthage in 397 AD, or any of these other later
councils. Rather, the canon was generally agreed
upon with only a minor amount of dissent, before
the time of these councils. Further, even though
the focus of any discussion on the extent of the
early church's opinion about the canon may be on
the inclusion of the Apocypha or the exclusion of
Esther, this ignores the other 21 (or 38, by our
reckoning) books upon which there seems to
have been little to no doubt at any time among
the primitive churches. Christian writers, from
Clement of Rome and other apostolic authors
right on down through the formative period of
early Christianity, made extensive use of these
other books, never entertaining more than the
barest doubt (if even that) about any of them.
There was no need for any council to tell them
what was Scripture and what was not. Justin
Martyr didn't need the determination of Carthage.
Neither did Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian,
Athenagorus, or any other of these earlier writers.
The canon was simply not determined by any
council, but was generally understood by the true
church of God through the witness of the Holy
Spirit (see John 14:26, I John 2:20,28). Any
disagreements with the Hebrew canon, either
through subtraction or addition, were the result of
the inherently imperfect nature of man and his
perceptions. As has been aptly stated,
"Canonicity is determined or fixed authoritatively
by God; it is merely discovered by man"


Sometimes, this process of discovery just did not
go as smoothly with certain writers and bishops
as it did with others, for what ever reason. While
confusing to later students, the bumps in this
road to discovery of the canon should not be
allowed to provide legitimacy to any argument
seeking to open up the entire Apocrypha to
canonical consideration, merely because a few
books now known to be in the canon were at
certain times disputed.

The Mere Presence of the
Apocrypha in the
Septuagint Does Not Mean
That the Apocrypha is
Canonical


Now we must address a set of claims which find
common currency among Roman Catholic
apologists. The first is that because the
apocryphal books appear in the Septuagint and in
certain translations (such as the Latin Vulgate)
based upon the Septuagint, that this necessarily
means that the Apocrypha is canonical. This
claim rests upon a fallacy of composition, a
logical flaw which occurs when one makes the
assertion that because a statement about part of
a whole is true, that this necessarily means that
the assertion can likewise be made about the
whole. Hence, the claim is that because the 39
accepted canonical books appear in the
Septuagint, that this necessarily extends
canonicity to anything else which may be found in
or attached to the Septuagint.


As will be shown below , it is highly unlikely that
the Apocrypha was even found in the original
Greek Old Testaments used by the early churches
prior to the time of Tertullian and Clement
Alexandrinus. However, the use of apocryphal
references by some of the early patristic writers
has led some to suppose that this means that the
apocryphal books were in the Old Testament of
the early churches. This leads to the second
fallacious claim, which is that patristic quotation
of the Apocrypha necessarily means that these
men viewed these books as canonical and
inspired, a position which is actually something of
a non sequitur.


As was explored above, the mere allusion to or
quotation of a work doesn't mean it is viewed by
the quoting author as inspired scripture. And this
ought to be a generally understood point with
regard to the writings of the patristic authors.
Many of the patristic writers, especially those
involved in dialogue with the pagan philosophers
and Gnostics of their day, quote extensively from
obviously non-canonical sources. The writings of
Hesiod, Plato, Ovid, and many others find free use
among many early Christian writers. These works
are often used to illustrate certain didactic points
which the author is trying to make, or to provide
valid historical or factual information, a use to
which the apocryphal books are most often
similarly put.


salc, francistony, italo, woky.

One of the most basic errors which is made by
Roman Catholic apologists in their approach to
the Apocrypha is to make the simplistic equation
of "use of book = viewed as canon". What is often
not investigated is the SPECIFIC use to which any
certain patristic writer may put a quotation or
allusion to a passage from an apocryphal book.
Was the passage used for didactic purposes, i.e.
used as an illustration to elucidate the teaching
of a truth already established? Does the quotation
take the form and tenor of a proverbial saying?
Is the quotation merely used to show a historical
occurrence, as references to the two Maccabees
often are? On the other hand, does the writer
indeed make use of apocryphal books in a manner
consistent with a view that these books (or at
least some of them) are canonical, i.e. that they
are useful for deriving doctrine concerning
Christian belief and practice? It ought to be
apparent that there is a great difference between
a writer quoting from an apocryphal book and
building a doctrine of faith upon that foundation,
and a writer quoting from one of these books to
give a pertinent illustration or to use a
particularly appealing turn of phrase.


What is glossed over when Roman Catholics
make their claims to widespread use of the
apocryphal books among early Christians is that
the utility which the larger share of these patristic
writers found in the apocryphal books was not
doctrinal, and hence, their use of these books
provides little or no weight to an argument in
favour of their view of canonicity for these books.
Often, early Christian authors would quote from
the Apocrypha, and yet explicitly deny to these
books the status of canon. John of Damascus
(664-777AD), a very late writer, quoted from
apocryphal books on numerous occasions, even
referring to certain of them as "Scripture". Yet,
he explicitly states that there are 22 books of the
Old Testament, and then proceeds to give a
detailed list of these books (which, given the
pattern of bundling books together, works out to
the same 39 as found in the "Protestant" canon).


Immediately after this list, John directly
addresses the books of the Wisdom of Solomon
and the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach
(Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus), saying, "There are
also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of
Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was
published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and
afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson,
Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and
noble, but are not counted nor were they placed
in the ark." Other later writers, including
Gregory of Nazanzius and John Chrysostom, also
exhibited this phenomenon, using the apocryphal
books to a greater degree than earlier writers, yet
leaving witness that they considered these books
to be non-canonical, either through exclusion
from a canon list or specific statement to that
effect, or both.

In this usage, we see a fashion among many of
the patristic writers which seems rather strange
to us today, and which has contributed to many
false perceptions about the use of the Apocrypha
which has been perpetuated by the Roman
Catholic religion. This concerns the (by modern
Protestant standards) elevated esteem given to
the Apocrypha by the early church, which yet did
not reach the level of considering these books to
be useful for doctrine, nor that they were really
part of the canon of the Holy Scriptures (in
contradiction to Roman Catholic dogma). The
position of the bulk of the early churches seems
to be a middle ground between the modern
Protestant and Catholic positions (which really
are reaction and counter-reaction to each other).

The apocryphal books, to a greater or lesser
degree depending on time and place, seem to
have been viewed as useful devotional and
didactic literature, but rarely as canon. In this
respect, they seem in the main to have occupied
a place similar to which modern Evangelicals and
Fundamentalists would accord literature such as
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress or to the writings of
Spurgeon and Luther. This view would probably
be best summed up by the statement of Calvin,


"I am not one of those, however, who would
entirely disapprove the reading of those
books...they err in placing the Apocrypha in the
same rank with inspired Scripture."


Thus, there is little historical or traditional
support for the view that the Apocrypha is
inspired scripture, worthy of a place in the official
canon of the body of Christ. Rather, the testimony
of the patristic writers seems to argue against
such a radical view, and towards a moderate view
of their usefulness without canonicity, which
would perhaps naturally exist before a great
divide over their use were to push two opposing
sides to opposite extremes (as occurred at the
time of Trent). Perhaps the most prudent course
for the Christian to take would be to apply to
them the standard that the Bible calls for when
reading anything (I John 4:1), that is, to test the
spirits and spiritually discern the truth from the
error, and to avoid the error.

The Apocrypha Was Indeed
Added to the Canon in
1546 by the Council of
Trent as Specific Response
to the Reformation


Now we turn to the later years of the history of
the so-called Church, after the era of the
primitive churches, and into the period when
Roman Catholicism established its sway over
Europe. Even in this period, supposedly one in
which the orthodoxy of the Catholic religion was
universally held (including the addition of the
Apocrypha, as pronounced by the previously
mentioned councils), we see that there were
voices within the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism
who rejected the Apocrypha, and whose testimony
witnesses to this position as being somewhat
prevalent.

To begin, we should look at the evidence provided
by yet another council, this one at Trullo, in 692
AD. The pertinent information from the decrees of
this council is below,


"But we set our seal likewise upon all the other
holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed
Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing
Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra,
further those at NeoCaesarea and likewise those
at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria:
those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise the
150 who assembled in this heaven-protected
royal city: and the 200 who assembled the first
time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the
630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In
like manner those of Sardica, and those of
Carthage: those also who again assembled in this
heaven-protected royal city under its bishop
Nectarins and Theophilus Archbishop of
Alexandria...."


Interestingly, this statement basically introduces a
schizophrenic position with regards to the
acceptance of the apocryphal books. On the one
hand, this council "set its seal", i.e. it's approval,
upon the canons (church rules) determined at
Laodicea, the council in c. 360 AD mentioned
above. Yet, it simultaneously gives its approval to
the councils at Carthage. Thus, the Trullan
council approves of Laodicea's decree on the
canon, which was the Hebrew canon emended
with Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. Yet, this
council also approves the findings of Carthage, in
which the entire Apocrypha was inserted into the
Old Testament canon. In short, this council of
Trullo basically demonstrates the folly of relying
upon councils to make determinations of the
canon (or anything else), which the Lord Jesus
implicitly told His disciples that they would be
able to determine for themselves through the
leading of the Holy Ghost.


italo, francistony, salc, chukwudi, btok, woky

We see the confusion continue into later years.
Numerous Roman Catholic writers in the Dark
Ages and the Renaissance, including some of its
greatest and most revered teachers, rejected the
apocryphal books as being part of the inspired
Old Testament canon. These include:


Gregory "the Great" (540-604 AD), bishop of
Rome, who declared for the Hebrew canon of 22
books, minus the Apocrypha

Isidore of Seville (560-636 AD), declared that the
Old Testament had been settled by Ezra, and was
divided into 22 books, so as to correspond to the
number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet . This
idea was relatively common also among earlier
writers in the primitive era, and implicitly rejects
the additional books of the Apocrypha from
consideration as canon.


The Stichometry of Nicephorus of Constantinople,
a short Greek work which was attached as an
appendix to this author's Chronographia, lists as
canonical the entire Hebrew canon except for
Esther, and includes only Baruch from the
Apocrypha, maintaining the number of Old
Testament books at 22. The Stichometry itself is
dated at around 550 AD, but its attachment to
the larger Chronographia is suspected as having
occurred in the 9th century.


Maurus Magnentius Rabanus (776-856 AD), he
reiterates the view that the Old Testament books
were settled and distributed by Ezra, and that
these were 22 books, in accord with the number
of letters in the Hebrew alphabet.

Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141 AD) wrote, "There
are also in the Old Testament certain other books
which are indeed read but are not inscribed...in
the canon of authority; that is, such books as
Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon
and Ecclesiasticus." Hugh also reiterated the
belief that the canon consisted only of the 22-
book Hebrew canon, again with reference to this
as the number of Hebrew letters .

Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173 AD) in Tractatus
Exceptionum, lib. ii, cap. ix.

Cardinal Hugo (1200-1263 AD) in the Prologue to
his Commentary on the Book of Joshua

Thus, some very influential theologians within
medieval Roman Catholicism explicitly denied
canonicity to the apocryphal books, even though
they may have viewed these books as useful and
instructive. This trend continues into the
Renaissance period, with some of the most
influential Roman theologians leading up to the
Reformation making the same historical
distinction. In his 1514 polyglot edition, the
Complutensian Polyglot, Cardinal Ximines was
careful to delineate between the true canon of
Scripture and the apocryphal books. Likewise, the
foremost opponent of the reformer Martin Luther,
Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534 AD), a Dominican
philosopher and theologian who carried the
banner of Catholic reaction against the
Reformation in its early period, regarded them as
inferior in status to the inspired Old Testament
canon.

Now we turn to the official adoption of the Old
Testament plus Apocrypha at the Council of Trent
(1545-1563). Some Catholic apologists will argue
that Trent only reaffirmed what the Church had
believed for centuries. Given the statements from
prominent Catholic theologians seen above, it
seems rather hard to believe that the Apocrypha
was accepted as official canon, binding upon all
Roman Catholics. Some will also point to the
Council of Florence, the eleventh session of which
(1442 AD) confessed the inspiration and
canonicity of the books of the Old and New
Testaments, including the apocryphal books now
accepted by the Roman Catholic religion.
However, what must be understood about the
council of Florence is that its statement
concerning the extent of the canon was not
declared to be an infallible decree . This document
is completely silent with regard to any
requirement placed upon Roman Catholics to
accept this extended canon as necessarily
binding. In this manner, it reflects both the novel
position of theologians like Thomas Aquinas (who
believed the Apocrypha to be canonical), while
still leaving the door open for those who took the
historical position of rejecting the authority of the
Apocrypha.

Truly, the Council of Trent was the first place in
which the Apocrypha was considered part of an
"infallibly decreed" canon of Scripture. The Trent
declaration, found in the fourth session of that
council, reiterated the same list found in the
Florence document, but then adds the following,
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and
canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and
with all their parts, as they have been
accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church
and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate
Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the
aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema."

Thus, for the first time, the specific declaration of
anathema was made against those who did not
accept the Apocrypha as scripture. It was at that
point that the Apocrypha passed from being
disputed ecclesial writings in the eyes of the
Roman Catholic religion, and to the official status
of scripture which must be accepted as such by
all good Catholics. Or, as Schroeder notes:

"...the Tridentine list or decree was the first
infallible and effectually promulgated declaration
on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures."

is position is even acknowledged by Roman
Catholic reference sources,


"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical
books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he
judged were circulated by the Church as good
spiritual reading but were not recognized as
authoritative Scripture. The situation remained
unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example,
John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid,
Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt
the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.
According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate
criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible
decision of the Church. This decision was not
given until rather late in the history of the Church
at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent
definitively settled the matter of the Old
Testament Canon. That this had not been done
previously is apparent from the uncertainty that
persisted up to the time of Trent."


Thus, it is basically admitted here that before
Trent, there was a rather large amount of
uncertainty among doctors of the Roman religion
as to whether the apocryphal books were part of
the Old Testament canon. The "proximate
criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible
decision of the Church", meaning that without
said declaration of canonicity, no argument can
be made for these books from a Catholic
perspective up until the point when Roman
Catholicism arbitrarily added them to the "official"
list of canon. As ought to be abundantly obvious
from the summation of the history of the
Apocrypha's acceptance (or lack of), there is
really not very much evidence to support the
historical consideration of these books as inspired
and canonical. Throughout the era of the
primitive churches, the Middle Ages, and the
Renaissance up until the Trent reaction, opinion
was divided on this literature, even after Roman
Catholicism had established its sway over Europe
through the force of its marriage with secular
powers. This truth is probably best summed up
with the following statement:

"All of the arguments urged in favor of the
canonicity of the apocryphal books merely prove
that these books have been given varied degrees
of esteem and recognition, usually falling short of
full canonicity, until the Roman Catholic church
officially pronounced them canonical at the
Council of Trent."


salc, chukwudi, italo