A reader writes:
I know that the word deuterocanonical means "included in the second canon". I also know that the word is something of a misnomer since there has really only been one canon that is universally definitive, and there have been a lot more than two canons that have not been universally definitive. I have been told once by someone whom I can not now remember that the canon of the Council of Trent is closed, that there can never be such a thing as "tritocanonical books". So I remember being a little surprised some months ago when I read the decree from the Council which listed the canon that it contained no exclusive language, i.e., that it said, in effect, "these books are holy and to be received", rather than "these books and only these books are holy and to be received".
Just the other day, I was reminded of my surprise when I read this discussion of the deuterocanonical books from the Proemial Annotations of Volume I of the Old Testament of Douay, the 1635 edition from before Challoner’s revision:
"True it is that some of these books … were sometimes doubted of by some Catholics, and called Apocrypha, in that sense as the word properly signifieth hidden, or not apparent. So St. Jerome (in his prologue before the Latin Bible) calleth divers books Apocryphal, being not so evident, whether they were Divine Scripture, because they were not in the Jews’ Canon, nor at first in the Church’s Canon, but were never rejected as false or erroneous. In which sense the Prayers of Manasses, the third book of Esdras, and the third of Machabees are yet called Apocryphal. As for the fourth of Esdras, and the fourth of Machabees there is more doubt."
Is it just me, or is Cardinal Allen here saying that these books may someday be "tritocanonical"? If this was true in 1592, could this still be true today? If not, then why not?
Please note that this issue seems different to me from the one you discussed HERE, which was primarily about a hypothetical newly discovered text. This issue is about texts which, before the 17th century, were part of or appended to almost every Christian version of the bible ever published.
As I mentioned in the post you linked, it appears that the places where the Magisterium has infallibly dealt with the canon are not phrased in such a way that they definitively close the canon. While they do infallibly include the deterocanonicals in the canon, they do not appear to infallibly repudiate the possibility in principle of ever declaring other books to be canonical.
Also as I mentioned before, I don’t think that there is any practical chance of a newly-discovered book being added to the canon, due to the lack of a tradition supporting its authentity and inspiration.
But you have named the one circumstance that could, conceivably–even as a long-shot–result in a book being added to the canon.
I don’t know what Cardinal Allen may have had in mind. It does sound like he was open to the idea of books such as the Prayer of Manasseh being declared canonical, though perhaps he was only clarifying the word used for such books ("apocryphal") without seriously entertaining the idea that they might one day be declared canonical.
But I can see a (hypothetical, long-shot) path by which such books might be declared canonical.
The fact is that some of the books that are referred to by Catholics as apocryphal (the Prayer of Manasseh, 1-2 [3-4] Esdras, 3-4 Maccabees, etc.) are accepted as canonical by other groups of Christians, notably in the East. That being the case, suppose the Catholic Church were to achieve visible union with one of these groups. How would the canonicity of these books be handled?
My guess is that they would be handled the way that other sensitive theological issues get handled in such unifications: The existing churches in the Catholic Church would not be bound to accept them but the newly unified church would be allowed to retain them.
This would be analogous to the way that there is a theological difference between the Latin church and some of the Eastern Catholic churches regarding when the consecration of the elements takes place during Mass. According to the standard theology of the Latin church (which I personally am strongly convinced is correct), the Real Presence appears at the point where the wods of institution are said ("This is my Body. . . . This is my Blood"). However, according to the theology common in some Eastern Catholic churches, the Real Presence appears earlier, when the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the elements to transform them, a point known as the Epiklesis.
Similarly, there is a theological difference concerning who performs the sacrament of marriage. According to standard Latin church theology, it is the parties themselves, but according to some in Eastern Catholic churches, it is the priest.
These theological differences are permitted within the scope of Catholic orthodoxy and, should the need arise, the question of which theological opinion is correct could be addressed definitively by the Magisterium. As long as that need is not pressing, however, the Magisterium is content to allow the differences to exist as trying to settle the question could produce graver harms, including potentially inaugurating a schism. While it would b enice to have every point of theology infallibly settled, the Church has deemed it appropriate to allow us to live with a certain amount of theological uncertainty regarding matters that occupy subordinate positions in the hierarchy of truths.
The same could be true–hypothetically–regarding the canonicity of certain books of Scripture. In fact, there was a long period of time when the Church did live with a degree of uncertainty regarding some of the books not infallibly recognized as canonical. This was because the books were of a subordinate position in the cnaon and issue of their canonicity was not pressing.
If the Catholic Church were to reunite with, say, the Russian Orthodox Church, and if the Russian Orthodox Church accepts 2 Esdras as canonical, it could be judged a matter that should not prevent the full visible union of the churches. Members of the Russian Orthodox Church-now-in-union-with-Rome would be free to continue honoring 2 Esdras as canonical, but members of the Latin church would not be required to do so.
This kind of solution I consider to be likely–IF–and that’s a significant IF–such reunions take place (which I pray they do; I’d love to see at least one such union in my lifetime).
Now let’s push it a step further: Following such a union, could the current (early 21st century) churches of the Catholic Church come to recognize such books as canonical?
Yes.
Upon the development of the kind of situation described above, it would be clear that Catholics previously in union with Rome would be free to hold the canonicity of such works, just as a member of the Latin church could–if he were so convinced–licity hold Eastern Catholic theological positions today.
It seems to me, then, that there would be a path for recognition of the canonicity of such books in the Latin and other current Catholic churches, but two things would have to happen first: (1) a long period of time would have to go by in which the canonicity of these books slowly became generally recognized in these churches and (2) there would have to be a canonical crisis at some point forcing a decision on the matter.
So I’d see a three step process to the infallible recognition of the canonicity of these books:
1) Reunion with a church that holds them to be canonical
2) A widespread acceptance of their canonicity in the previous churches in union with Rome
3) A canonical crisis to force the issue
There is also a fourth condition that would have to be met:
4) These books have to be inspired, for otherwise the Holy Spirit will not allow the Magisterium to infallibly recognize their canonicity
Independent of whether condition (4) is the case, I don’t expect to see (1)-(3) fulfilled in my lifetime for any book, unless we get an immortality pill soon.
But it is at least possible that this could happen one day (assuming condition 4 is met).
I’d note that this process finds a mirror in the early Church. While we don’t speak of the New Testament as having "deuterocanonical" books, we certainly could do so, because there were books of the New Testament whose canonicity was disputed in some churches in the early centuries. What happened was, as canonical consciousness grew, those New Testament books which were regarded as canonical in some regions eventually came to be recognized as canonical in all regions. If a sizable enough group of people regarded a book as canonical then it tended to become more favorably regarded as canonical elsewhere, until consent was universal. What we’re talking about above is essentially the same process, played out over a much larger timescale.
And such a process could also alleviate a particular nagging issue: the book of Jude quotes from the book of Enoch in a way that sure makes it sound like the book of Enoch (1st Enoch, that is) is inspired. Since the Ethiopian Orthodox Church regards Enoch as canonical, the above route could bring wider recognition of the canonicity of this book, solving the tension created by Jude’s use of it.
That’s not something to be automatically wished for, though. The edition of 1st Enoch that is used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has lots of stuff in it that would generate new tensions, and they accept other books that would generate even further tensions if their canonicity were received.
I’m just sayin’.
What sorts of things do these books contain that would cause tension? 🙂
Fascinating!
And yes, I was wondering the same thing to, Shane.
I would really like to see one of these reunions in my lifetime too. Let’s keep praying!
Thanks for clearing that up for me Jimmy. Your point about this being “not something to be automatically wished for” is a good one. Perhaps the tone of my question was not as neutral as I tried to make it; I do have a strong attraction to these books. Not that I regard them as canonical, but I do miss the inclusion of the “Apocrypha” section in Catholic Bibles (and Protestant ones too!). While they may not be infallibly inspired like the canonical books, they are a part of our Catholic tradition, and should be treasured for that reason alone. Add to that the romantic notion that they may still yet be “doubtful”, and this tradition takes on some excitement and an aura of mystery that blows the so-called “Gospel of Judas” out of the water.
God bless you!
Shane, I don’t know the answer to your question, but annotation from the Douay Bible that I quoted above went on to mention Enoch, which it disapproved of. Here’s a more complete quote.
From Volume I of the Old Testament, Proemial Annotations, The Sum and Partition of the Holy Bible with a brief note of the Canonical and Apocryphal books.
Quote:
True it is that some of these books (as we shall particularly discuss in their places) were sometimes doubted of by some Catholics, and called Apocrypha, in that sense as the word properly signifieth hidden, or not apparent. So St. Jerome (in his prologue before the Latin Bible) calleth divers books Apocryphal, being not so evident, whether they were Divine Scripture, because they were not in the Jews’ Canon, nor at first in the Church’s Canon, but were never rejected as false or erroneous. In which sense the Prayers of Manasses, the third book of Esdras, and the third of Machabees are yet called Apocryphal. As for the fourth of Esdras, and the fourth of Machabees there is more doubt. But divers others, as the book ascribed to Enoch, the Gospels of St. Andrew, St. Thomas, St. Bartholomew, and the like rejected by St. Gelasius (Decreto de libris Ecclesiaticis dist. 15 Can. Sancta Romana) St. Innocentius the first (Epist. 3) St. Jerome, Epist. ad Laetam 3, Augustin. I.15 cap. 3 de civit. Dei, Origin homi 2 in Cantica, are in a worse sense called Apocryphal, and are rejected as containing manifest errors, as famed by Heretics. Neither can a Christian Catholic be otherwise assured, but by declaration of the Catholic Church, which without interruption succeedeth the Apostles, to whom our Savior promissed, and sent the Holy Ghost, to teach the truth.
Interesante!
It would make sense to have some kind of formal recognition of books that have long been recognized by the Eastern Churches, such as Psalm 151, 3 and 4 Maccabees, etc.
Enoch is a very interesting book. Obviously, it wasn’t written by the Enoch that it claims to be written by, but I have to think that at least part of it is inspired in that a lot of the prophecies in the book point directly to Christ, and everyone is at least in agreement that the book predates Christ’s birth.
It is good to see pointed out that the apocrypha were not universally accepted in the early and patristic church, and were still regarded merely as ‘worthy books’ until Trent.
There is a very large distance between “are to be received” and “is the inerrant word of God.”
The books that were not initially universally listed in every list of canon in the sub-apostolic Church prior to Trent, simply weren’t universally available. Books had to be hand-copied. They had to be carried on roads subject to bandits. They may well have been considered contraband until Constantine made Christianity a religio licita.
That is why there was uncertainty. Bruce, Metzger, etc., the general texts for canonics, would give this in more detail.
Historical study of what texts were available when and where, and accepted by whom do not give credence to the arguments that some well-intentioned Catholics make that, like King James-only sectarians, God re-inspired Jerome’s Vulgate (except, apparently, for his rejection of the apocrypha as inerrant Scripture), and that somehow the Protestants -removed- the apocrypha (let alone allegations of removing NT texts) from the canonical, inerrant Scriptures.
As in the example of Enoch, there can be true statements, even Divine ones, in texts that are not as a whole, the inerrant word of God. If the entire text, taken in context, with attention to genre, is not the inerrant word of God, it isn’t Scripture. It might well be very worthy. They might be as valuable as the works of the recognized Doctors. But they are not necessarily the ultimate source of authority on what is true.
Ack, for the first appearance of Trent, read ‘Nikaea’
Ok, I’m going away from posting for the moment. 🙂 I mean the -second- listing of ‘trent’ should be Nikaea.
Great post, Jimmy. Joseph T. Lienhard, one of the premiere American Patristics scholars, touches on the issue of a “closed” or “open” canon in his The Bible, the Church and Authority. He ultimately concludes that the canon must be considered open.
Please allow me to audaciously disagree that a hypothetical (re)union with certain Orthodox groups could create a scenario in which the Latin Rite (and those Eastern rites already in union) would maintain the canon of Trent while those newly (re)joined would maintain a slightly different Old Testament canon.
The analogy you use of the precise moment of the Real Presence does not seem to be adequate. This issue on the consecration of the bread and wine is a theological question that persists in the Catholic Church today. That is why no official statement on this matter has ever been issued by the magisterium. Consider the plurality of differing opinions among the Scholastics alone. Thus, there is no need to brand this question as an East/West dispute only.
The question as to who actually administers the Sacrament of Matrimony is not an essential question to faith. Like the issue with the Real Presence, there have been differing opinions on that question in the Latin Church alone.
But the canon is an issue that is far more essential, and the notion that the Church would permit a persistant theological uncertainty seems rather unlikely. Consider the various Fathers of the Church who insisted on the importance of establishing a UNIVERSAL canon. The lists of Athanasius, Pope Damasus I, Augustine, Jerome, Eusebius and John Damascene–not to mention those of the various local councils–were penned with an urgency that is hardly to be found among those discussions of the Real Presence or Matrimony. To imagine that there would not be unanimity on the question of the Word of God yet true ecclesial union seems quite contrary to the very spirit of unity in which the scriptures are meant to compliment: the Liturgy, and more specifically, the Eucharist.
In our contemporary ecclesial scene and in light of the Council of Trent, the canonicity of certain books does not seem likely to ever be left to ambiguity again.
Evangelical Catholicism
Jimmy —
Who put the tribbles in the quadrotriticanonicals?
Marueen’s humorous query puts a question to my mind: what about canons on other worlds? (assuming sentient life was there as well as a Christ-event)
Maureen, Applause! Applause!
Aquinas somewhere (in one of his few extant sermons, I think) deals with the deuterocanonicals in a way that might be relevant to the question. He holds that all the books are given to the Church by the Holy Spirit, but there is a sharp difference between the way in which the Holy Spirit gave them: the basic canon was received from the Spirit by the Church, in that she found over time that she needed those books for authentic worship. The deuterocanonical books, however, are due to the Church’s teaching authority, which she has through the Spirit: she found that certain books, like Judith or Tobit, had been found uniquely valuable for teaching certain important things throughout the universal Church. So there are books that are canonical because the Spirit established them as canonical for the Church; and there are books that are canonical because the Church established them by her Spirit-given authority upon finding them universally valuable for Christian teaching (the deuterocanonical works). While there’s nothing official about this way of looking at it (as far as I know), it gives one possible perspective on the question.
I don’t know who put the tribbles in the quadritriticanonicals, but in Scotland they think the problem was solved by the Catholic Kirk.
Why the heck was my post deleted, wherein I simply noted that the earliest Eucharistic liturgies, including the modern East Syrian liturgy, does not contain the Words of Institution; and so it is impossible that the Words are necessary for a valid consecration, as we Latins typically hold?
Jimmy?!
Michael Deem said, “But the canon is an issue that is far more essential, and the notion that the Church would permit a persistant theological uncertainty seems rather unlikely.”
Certainly the authors of the Douay Bible commentary agree with you, but still I’m not so sure that that is true, Michael. The Church allowed persistant theological uncertainty for 15 centuries before deciding this issue. My guess as to why she finally did so is that the brand new dogma that Luther invented called “Sola Scriptura” (by which he really meant “Sola Scriptura canonica” as he would be the first to tell you) made the whole issue a hot topic. The topic wasn’t very hot before because for any given book of Scriptures, the text was either (a) divinely inspired and thus utterly infallible, or (b) handed down by the tradition of the Church and thus authoritative only in matters of faith and morals. Since Scriptures are mostly only used for deciding matters of faith and morals anyway, the distinction between (a) and (b) is mostly academic. I don’t know much about the Orthodox, but it seems they don’t find the issue to be very pressing, and I bet it’s for the same reason. The mania for the canon, like the related mania concerning critical editions of the Bible, seem to both be fallout from the 16th century idea of Sola Scriptura, an idea that seems to have left something of a mark on Catholics as well as Protestants.
All Christian bibles before the 17th century, Catholic as well as Protestant, contained some books that were considered by everyone to be non-canonical. It wasn’t until the 18th century that Catholic bibles were printed without the Apocrypha. In the 19th century bibles without Apocrypha became common among Protestants, but they haven’t entirely disappeared yet. It’s a pity that Catholics today who want to read these treasures of the Church’s tradition have to pick up a Protestant bible to do so.
Rob F.,
Thanks for the reply.
The canon was indeed a hot topic much earlier than the 16th century, especially during the 4th century. So heated was the talk during this century that major figures from Rome, Carthage and Alexandria issued lists of canons that were intended to end the discussion. Athanasius attempted to answer the question in the mid-4th century. Pope Damasus I wrote his Tome in 382 AD, which was adopted by the Latin African churches in 393 AD (Hippo) and in 397 AD (Carthage). Even the great Church historian Eusebius included a large passage in his Ecclesiastical History on the universally accepted and the locally disputed books of scripture (324 AD), which gave expression to the opinions of Syriac and Asia Minor churches.
Trent was the first conciliar listing of the books of the canon, but not the first ecclesial issuance of an authoritative decree on the matter. After Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana, which included the list of Hippo and Carthage, the uncertainty over the canon was more or less settled in the Latin Church. Trent, in the end, gives explicit expression to what had already long been held by the Latin Church for nearly 1200 years.
However, according to the theology common in some Eastern Catholic churches, the Real Presence appears earlier, when the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the elements to transform them, a point known as the Epiklesis.
Actually, the epiclesis generally occurs later, not earlier, than the words of consecration in the Eastern Rites. See, e.g., http://www.byzantines.net/liturgy/liturgy.htm : the epiclesis occurs just after the institution narrative.
Regarding the book of Enoch, St. Jude (and thus the Holy Spirit) certainly seems to propose that the passage he quoted from was indeed prophesied by Enoch, who was indeed in the seventh generation from Adam.
Nothing is said about the rest of the book, and if there are doctrinal problems with it and no substantial history of acceptance of it in the Catholic Church, but rather pretty clear rejection from early centuries on, I suspect that only portions of it are inspired. Perhaps there was an earlier inspired text related to Enoch that was plagerized from, or that became so corrupted that in was no longer at all reliable. The part quoted by St. Jude might be the only part of the book that is real Enochean prophecy, or there might be other valid parts. That does not at all mean that the entire book is inspired, so I do not think there is any “tension” created by St. Jude’s statement and the fact that the book is not in the Catholic canon.
In fact, the author of Hebrews quotes (and makes it an inspired revelation) a non-Scriptural Jewish legend about manna and the staff of Aaron being kept in the Ark not just the tablets of the 10 Commandments. This does not make that whole set of traditions and legends true, just that one part. St. Paul quotes a panthiestic Greek poet when he says “in him we live and breath and have our being”, giving us one of the most beloved passages of scripture but not endorseing all of that poet’s writings.