<RULE 15 SUSPENSION>
Ed Peters writes:
Jimmy, I’m a simple man, talk to me as you would to a simpleton, and tell me, A) the basic canon of Scripture is closed (pace finding better versions of accepted texts) or B) the canon is NOT closed, or C) we don’t know.
Following which, Quasimodo writes:
The Jimmy of Akin,
The Quasimodo asks the same question as the Ed Peters. Quasimodo thought Trent (and Florence?) closed the canon. Infallibly. No?
Following which, Adam D writes:
Um, Ed Peters is a simpleton? Okay, I’m a downright babbling idiot. Don’t even bother trying to explain anything to me, Jimmy. I won’t understand it.
(I mean seriously, Ed P? A simpleton? 🙂
RESPONSES:
To Ed:
Since Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologiae with simplicity in mind, and since he included many distinctions in it, let me begin with a distinction.
First, we must distinguish between whether the canon has been closed by God and whether it has been closed by the Church.
Regarding whether the canon has been closed by God, I answer that it has. This seems evident from what would be meant by a divine "closing" of the canon–that is, a cessation of the writing of new books of public revelation to be collected by the Church in her Bibles. Since the Church has established (see the Catechism on this point) that the era of public revelation is over until the Second Coming, it would seem that there are to be no new books of public revelation written and thus no new books can be composed for inclusion by the Church in her Bibles. The canon is thus closed from God’s perspective.
This does not, however, guarantee that we currently have in our possession all books of public revelation that God has previously inspired.
In regard to whether the canon has been closed by the Church, this question would seem to resolve to whether the Church has defined a particular list of books for inclusion in its Bibles that is incapable of further admission, even if new books of apostolic origin and/or divine inspiration were to be discovered.
To answer this question, we must introduce a second distinction: Whether the matter has been infallibly decided by the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church and whether it has been decided infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
To answer the first question, we must look at the texts where the Church has infallibly addressed the question of the canon.
The first such text seems to be found in the Bull of Union with the Copts (Session 11) of the Council of Florence, which says:
It [the holy Roman church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
This establishes that certain books (the ones named) are accepted and venerated by the Church as Scripture at the books of the Old and New Testament. However, there are two difficulties with regarding this as an irreformably exclusive list:
- The text is of debatable infallibility since it does not use terms like "define" or "anathema." (It is a decree of an ecumenical council imposed on a people as a condition for unity with the Roman church, but it does not use the language the Church has elsewhere used to trigger infallibility.)
- Even granting that the text is infallibly, every infallible utterance must be interpreted strictly regarding what question is being decided, and in this case it would seem that the question would be "What books–of those currently known–belong to the Old Testament and the New Testament?" It does not appear that the questio was "What books–of those currently known or ever to be discovered in the future–belong to the Old and the New Testament?" Since the latter question was not addressed, it does not preclude a futurely-discovered book from belonging to the New Testament.
Thus this decree does not seem to represent a closing of the canon by the Church.
The second text is the Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures by the Council of Trent, which states:
Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it [the Council of Trent] receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; . . .
It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.
They are the following:
<SNIP>
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.
From this it is seen that the Council of Trent "accept[ed] as sacred and canonical" certain books without saying anything one way or the other regarding additional books. Thus it did not close the canon in the sense of excluding any future books from acceptance as sacred and canonical.
Since these seem to be the two instances on which one can argue (plausibly in the first case, certainly in the second case) the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church has dealt with the canon in an infallible manner, it would seem that the extraordianry Magisterium of the Church has not closed the canon.
This leaves us with the issue of whether the ordinary Magisterium of the Church has settled the question. In this regard, while it appears that there are enormous reasons why the Church would never add anything to the canon at this date, it nevertheless appears that the ordinary Magisterium of the Church has not entertained the question of what would happen if an unknown apostlic book were discovered.
Since no matters are infallibly defined that have not been entertained, it would seem that it has not been defined that a newly discovered apostolic book could not be included in the canon. Hypothetically, therefore, it could be included, despite the overwhelmingly unlikelihood of this.
It thus would seem that the canon remains theoretically open on the supposition of the discovery of an unknown apostolic book.
Since we do not have (and are overwhelmingly unlikely to ever have) a previously unknown book of demonstrably apostolic origin, we are unlikely to find ourselves in the above situation. In the absence of that circumstance, we must regard the canon as practically closed. The Church considered numerous works purporting apostolic origin and found them lacking. They are thus not to be considered canonical.
Thus all known extra-canonical works are to be regarded as non-canonical: Those that were known in antiquity are to be regarded as non-canonical on the grounds of rejection by the Magisterium, and those written after the apostolic age (e.g., Joseph Smith’s forgeries) are to be regarded as non-canonical on the grounds that public revelation is closed.
Works that were written in the first century (before the ban on public revelation) and that were lost before the Church began to pronounce on the canon could theoretically be included given what the Magisterium has thus far determined, but practically they could not.
To Quasimodo:
The Quadimodo has obviously been paying attention to the rules regarding the use of the definite article in the New Testament Greek. Therefore, the kudos to the Quasimodo regarding the use of "the"!
To Adam D:
We are all simpletons (Latin, simplicii) here. Now, if you can get the real Benedict XVI (and not a combox faker) to participate in the blog, we’ll have to revise that.
Till then, we’re all just folks.
Got it? ;-D
</RULE 15 SUSPENSION>
The Jimmy Akins wrote:
‘Therefore, the kudos to the Quasimodo regarding the use of “the”!’
Shouldn’t that be “the ‘the’!”
Thx Jimmy. I think it means, C) we don’t know.
While I do not have the credentials of an apologist, I do seem to recall that in Hebrews (about Enoch) and some other places in the Old Testament and elsewhere there appear to be references to writings that have been lost. Thus, it would seem to me that if those writings were found, the Church, using its authority, could determine their place in the Canon, just like it has in the past. Since we Catholics have an authoritative Magisterium, this is less of a problem to us than it would be to the Sola Scriptura crowd. The finding of such writings would certainly be the beginning of the end to their brand of religion since Martin Luther isn’t around to tell them which books to dump and they have no substitute mechanism.
Jimmy;
I was wondering if the Catholic Church may be more willing to accept as inspired a newly found version of existing scripture that contained additional text. I say this because books such as Daniel have expansions in the Septuagint such as the Song of the 3 Holy Children that are not found in the existing Hebrew.
Would something of this nature be far more likely to be accepted as inspired?
Before I could be open to the possibilty of a book being added to the canon 2,000 years after we received the Deposit of Faith, I still need to see some indication in Tradition or Magisterium that the Church is open to the possibility that she doesn’t currently know the identities of each and every book in the canon of Holy Scripture. Even a little hint would suffice for me.
But I’m not aware of even the slightest hint to that effect.
Ask yourselves: do we really want to entertain the possibility that one or more of the books that God inspired for the sake of the Church have been missing in action for 2,000 years, thereby making it impossible for the Church to benefit from those books for that entire time?
No, I think we can safely conclude that there will never, ever, ever, EVER be any lost books of the Bible turn up and be added to the canon by the Church. God would never let an important part of the foundation of the faith be lost. We’re not Mormons or Campebellite Restorationists. We’re Catholics.
On the other hand, Jared, what if it was part of God’s Foreknowledge that we would benefit most from such a document at this point in time and not earlier?
I’m happy to be one of ‘just folks’ and it’s real nice to see you, Jimmy, being so humble as to declare that I and all the rest of your readers are on an equal footing with you. However, I insist on reserving the right to refer to you as greater than most mortals, with phrases like “a second Aquinas” or “intellectual juggernaut” (I’m not great at developing catchy phrases — maybe somebody else can do better) though I’ll reserve myself in your comboxes from now on.
Jared,
I would have to disagree with your assessment. First, we know that there are some writings that are missing-there are explicit references in Scripture to them. Whether they are divinely inspired is another issue.
Second, it may be a part of God’s plan for someone to find such writings at a certain time and place because there is a need that exists now that didn’t before. God’s will is revealed in many ways. It is like miracles. We know that miracles occurred during the time of the apostles. There is no reason to believe like certain Protestant sects do that the age of miracles ended with the last apostle. The Church’s determination of who are saints rests on the premise that miracles still occur to this day. The fact that the Scriptures say that there are other writings means that there is a possibility that they could be found.
Their authenticity or whether they should be considered “biblical” would have to be tested against the canon that the Church has defined to this point to be divinely inspired. I never suggested that there is a missing divinely inspired writing that would impart some novel notion or contradict the teachings of the Church like Mormonism teaches. If it did, it obviously couldn’t be Scripture. The three-legged foundation of church teaching-Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium-is our insurance against error.
That being said, I do not see anything wrong with finding a lost writing which may corroborate, elaborate, or expand our understanding of our beliefs, which is far more likely than finding some lost book that should be a part of the Old or New Testament. I, for one, would not be upset if a writing is found that happens to confirm something that the Church has taught is part of its sacred tradition.
My final thought is this, the Church teaches that over time our understanding of certain truths, e.g. the Trinity, our doctrines concerning Mary such as the Immaculate Conception and her role as a co-redemptrix, papal infallibility, develop over time (St. Vincent of Lerins and the Venerable Cardinal Newman). I see no reason why God could not “develop” our understanding of things through the finding of a lost writing.
Jimmy,
But what about Dei Filius, of Vatican I?
5. Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us.
6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.
7. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church. …
If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.
This looks to me as if a book has to have been “committed to the Church” to be received as canonical. Also, I can’t see how a newly discovered apostolic epistle could qualify as one of those “passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us”. And doesn’t the anathema from the Canons on Revelation say that Trent listed the “complete books of Sacred Scripture”? If some were missing, the list wouldn’t have been of the “complete” books, right?
Patrick, in that context, “complete” is apparently referring to the chapters of each book, not the list of books itself.
But I stand by my assertion that any long lost epistle of the apostles that surfaced today, whether or not it is authentic, could not be anything more than optional private revelation. Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, and since then the Holy Spirit has prevented the Deposit of Faith from “defecting.” The canon of Scripture is a part of the Deposit of Faith. Therefore no canonical book is currently unknown to the Church, or has ever been lost, and new books can ever be added to the canon of Scripture.
We know most assuredly that we are missing some of Paul’s letters. 1 Cor. 5:9 alludes to a previous letter he sent to the Christians in Corinth that has clearly been lost.
But Jimmy, isn’t widespread use by the early Church one of the criteria for canonicity? Even if we found a new book, if it was never in use by the majority of local churches (e.g., St Paul’s lost letter), then it wouldn’t be canonical regardless, if I recall correctly. Or am I missing something?
The consideration you raise applies practically, not theoretically.
On the theoretical level, the infallible statements dealing with the canon do not preclude the possibility that a future-discovered inspired document could be added.
On the practical level, that’s never going to happen–precisely because any documents we discover in the future will not have a long history of use by the early Church.
Great article, Jimmy. Or, I should say, ANOTHER great article.
I have to wonder, though, about this statement:
“Since we do not have (and are overwhelmingly unlikely to ever have) a previously unknown book of demonstrably apostolic origin, we are unlikely to find ourselves in the above situation.”
Would the Didache not be a possibility?
Also, since the Didache was re-discovered at such a late date, would it be so far out of the realm of possibility that another Apostolic letter (say, pre-1st Corinthians, which we know to have existed) could be found?