First Response to Gerry Soliman: On the Canon of Scripture by Carlos Antonio Palad

Book of Kells

The following has come to my attention:

http://solutions- finder.blogspot. com/2010/ 03/evaluating- responses- of-carlos- antonio.html

In it, Mr. Gerry Soliman (a.k.a Rodimus) tries to refute what I said in answering Questions 1-17 as earlier posted by “Milesawayman”.

In a nutshell, Mr. Soliman declares that I committed the following mistakes:

1) In Mr. Soliman’s words: “While it is true that Trent was organized to combat the Protestant position of the canon, it isn't true that the council of Trent merely reiterated the canonical status of the seven books of the Deuterocanonicals. Trent never made reference to the African Councils of Hippo and Carthage and recognized the books which these councils have declared to be inspired.”

2) Mr. Soliman says that the New Catholic Encyclopedia refutes me:

“An entry of the New Catholic Encyclopedia refutes Mr. Palad's response:

"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" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).”

3) Mr. Soliman also cites as proof against the Catholic position, the fact that (according to the source he cites) the Council of Trent “removed” Esdras 1 from the Bible, which, according to Mr. Soliman’s source, was part of the Catholic Bible until 1546. This – according to Mr. Soliman – is proof that the Catholic Canon was indeed formed only at the Council of Trent in 1546.

Regarding Mr. Soliman’s first point, I respond: for a position to be reiterated does not mean that all the precedents for it have to be cited and repeated, for that would be an enormous waste of time and paper. What is important is that the newest iteration of a particular position repeats the contents of previous precedents. The Council of Trent was, and is, justly renowned for the brevity of its Decrees, which focus on proclaiming the core content of the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, and not on enumerating the documentary proofs for these (that was – and is --- the task of Catholic theologians, historians and apologists). It is true that the Council of Trent, in its Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures (April 8, 1546), does not cite the Council of Hippo, or the Third Council of Carthage, or even the Epistle of Pope Innocent I. For that matter, this Decree does not cite anything, since it focuses on enumerating the Books of the Bible. Nevertheless, this does not matter, for the aforementioned Canon of the Council of Trent regarding the contents of Sacred Scripture merely repeats – without addition or subtraction – what Carthage III (following the Council of Hippo in 393) and Innocent I actually proclaimed as the Canon of Scripture. It is in this sense that Trent reiterates the teaching of Carthage . Quibble as Mr. Soliman might about words and semantics, the essential truth of the matter under discussion is unassailable: the Biblical Canon proclaimed by Trent is identical with that of Hippo, Carthage III and the Epistle of Innocent I.

Furthermore, the actual Decree of April 8, 1546 declares that the 73 books of the Bible are the books “received by the Council”; these are the books that the Council “receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence” and notes that the “written books” have been transmitted “from hand to hand”. Towards the end of the Decree, we read: “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…let him be anathema.” All these point out an obvious fact: the Council of Trent, far from inventing the Catholic Canon of Scriptures, is merely repeating what the Catholic Church had taught and received from the Fathers as the Canon of Scripture – the Canon that had been listed down in Hippo, Carthage III and by Innocent I.

For Mr. Soliman’s benefit, I will point him to the following essays:

On the Third Council of Carthage : http://www.bible- researcher. com/carthage. html

On Pope Innocent I and the Bible: http://www.bible- researcher. com/innocent. html

Although the nomenclature of Carthage III and Innocent I differ from the Council of Trent, they denote exactly the same 46 books currently listed in Catholic Bibles.

Innocent I and Carthage III both list 44 books for the Old Testament. However, it should be kept in mind that Baruch and Lamentations were incorporated as part of Jeremiah in early Bibles, thus what used to be counted as one book is now counted by everyone as three. (I would like to refer Mr. Soliman to the article "Baruch" in the Oxford Bible Commentary published in 2001, p. 700)

This having been noted, Mr. Soliman can find no comfort in these Canons, for, aside from Baruch, it clearly lists as part of the Scriptures all the other 6 OT books that the Protestants relegate to Apocrypha. (The essays that I link to, note that Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus – often called Sirach nowadays – are part of the “five books of Solomon”, while both Canons explicitly list the two Maccabees, Judith and Tobit. As for Baruch, I have already explained this.)

Regarding Mr. Soliman’s second point, I respond: There is no contradiction between what I wrote and what the New Catholic Encyclopedia says. Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled”, the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon. Finally, in 1546, the Catholic Church, faced by Martin Luther’s attacks and the innovations proposed by some scholars of the day, decided to close the Canon of Scripture once and for all. This does not mean that the Catholic Church “invented” the Canon of Scripture only in 1546, or that the Catholic Canon of Scripture was formed quite late in the day; it simply means that in 1546, the Catholic Church finally decided to end all discussion regarding the contents of Canon of Scripture, the Canon that it the Western Church had already been using anyway for more than 1,100 years.

Lest Mr. Soliman try to make hay out of the fact that the New Catholic Enyclopedia speaks of the “uncertainty” that persisted down to Trent’s day, this is easy to explain: precisely because none of the Canons of Scripture prior to 1546 had dogmatic force, there were still scholars who felt entitled to have serious questions about which books should be part of the Canon of Scripture. After all, there were no anathemas against them. In this sense there was uncertainty. But this does not erase an equally solid fact: the reality of the stability of the Biblical Canon in the Western Church from Carthage III to Trent , that even the questions of scholars was not able to deform.

The Council of Trent was simply the Church’s way of declaring: “All right, folks, we’ve been discussing this Canon of Scripture of more than a thousand years and no one has shown that there’s anything wrong with this Canon, therefore we are closing this discussion and we’re going to declare this Canon as the sole binding one from now until the end of time”.

Regarding Mr. Soliman’s third point, I respond: Esdras 1 (Esdras 3 in Latin) was never considered by Rome or the Western Church as part of the Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture as listed by Carthage III and by Pope Innocent I does not contain it (refer to my response to Mr. Soliman’s third point). As such, we must qualify what is meant when Mr. Soliman’s source declares that Trent “removed” Esdras 1 from the Bible.

Trent “removed” Esdras 1 in the sense that, in 1546, Trent closed the doors on any further discussion of what books are considered by the Catholic Church as part of the Bible. It is, therefore, more accurate to say that Trent “excluded” Esdras 1 from the Bible.

It would be inaccurate to say that Trent “removed” Esdras 1 if by that word is meant that, prior to 1546, Esdras 1 was part of the Canon of Scripture officially received by the Catholic Church. Carthage III does not have it. Innocent I does not mention it. Copies of the Vulgate may have had it, but neither St. Jerome ’s opinions (he who made the Vulgate translation) nor the vicissitudes of the late ancient and medieval publishing history of the Vulgata, ever constituted a witness to canonicity of Scriptures in the Catholic Church.

(To avoid confusion, it should be kept in mind that what modern-day English speakers refer to as “Esdras 1” is known as “Esdras 3” in Latin and in pre-1965 English Catholic usage, while what is called “Esdras 1” in the Vulgate and in Latin decrees, and in pre-1965 Catholic English translations of the Bible, refers in fact to what we now call the Book of Ezra.)

In yet another sense, it is inaccurate to say that Trent “removed” Esdras 1 “from the Bible”. Yes, Trent excluded Esdras 1 from the Canon of Scripture; however, Pope Clement VIII, in a non-dogmatic and purely disciplinary decree, asked that Esdras 1 and 2 (Esdras 3 and 4 in Latin) be included in editions of the Latin Vulgate, not as part of the Canon of the Bible, but as appendices, due to their historical significance and importance. Indeed, many Latin Vulgates published down to the early 20th century contain these two books as appendices.

It is interesting to note that, at present, only the Orthodox accept Esdras 1 as part of the Bible. Even here, the Orthodox are (as is so frequently the case) not united. Some Orthodox accept Esdras 1, but not Esdras 2; others accept both; and others reject both. The Orthodox Churches have no fixed Canon of Scripture to this very day.