My non-Catholic Russian Bible containing the book of Sirach
Matt Slick is an extremely anti-Catholic polemicist. He claims to know a lot but whenever he debates a Catholic apologist he comes up short. This was the case with Mark Bonocore and Robert Sungenis. He claims that he’s studied what Catholics believe for years but I just don’t see that with his knowledge of Catholic theology and Church history.
On February 22, 2017, on his podcast, Matt Slick drug out the old canard that at the Council of Trent, the Church added the seven “apocryphal” books to Scripture. Ironically, if one reads Session four of the Council of Trent, there is not a hint that anything is being added to the canon. It just lists the books. This can be checked out here:
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm
Well maybe Matt Slick is suggesting that before this, every list given was the 66 book Protestant canon. However, at the council of Florence which was 100 years before Trent, the canon was given again. Let’s see what it says:
Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It 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.
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.
This is from Session 11 of the Ecumenical Council of Florence. I don’t see any differentiation between the 7 “apocryphal” books and the other 66 which Slick accepts. According to Slick, they should list the 66 book canon. Why don’t they?
On Matt Slicks website Carm.org, he has an article written by a man named Ryan Turner. In this article, he says:
The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
This is a very slippery statement. Yes, Trent was the first official Dogmatic decision on the canon, but that was for the whole canon. This is true for the “apocrypha” and the 66 books that Slick accepts. If I’m wrong, Matt Slick should be able to point out a list where the 66 books were officially decreed to be the canon of the Church. He’ll never find one.
There is also a footnote to this statement from Ryan Turner. It says:
It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council’s decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council.
Yes, three out of the four councils were “not universal” but can Turner or Slick point to a council that gives their 66 book canon, whether universal or not universal? The answer is no. If they can’t find a council that says this and many to the contrary, shouldn’t Slick admit that the Church always accepted these as scripture? I would think so. It should also be noted that Augustine converted to Christianity in 386 so he could not have influenced the first of these Councils and probably didn’t influence the others either.
On February 22, 2017 on his podcast at 16:30, Slick said: They were never considered to be Scripture.
It is true that there were a few Church Fathers and Medieval theologians who denied these 7 books to be Scripture. I’ll never deny that, but that’s not what Slick said. He said the Catholic Church never considered them to be Scripture before Trent. I also find it funny that he brought up Martin Luther quite a bit in regards to the canon. This is the same person who wanted to take the book of James out of the canon because it contradicted some doctrine that he cooked up. Sounds like someone you’d want to learn the Christian faith from, right?
Here are three questions that I have for Matt Slick:
- Why do four pre-Tridentine Catholic Councils list the full 73 book canon without any distinctions?
- Can you give me one list from a pre-Tridentine Council which says that only the 66 books are Scripture?
- Can you name one Biblical codex before 1400 which contains only 66 books? Any Bible in the world will do.
Ryan Turners article can be found here:
https://carm.org/reasons-why-apocrypha-does-not-belong-bible
Sir, do you believe Protestants are saved?
That’s a good question Yahya. Perhaps it’s one that I should do a post on sometime but it’s a little off-topic for this post don’t you think?
Allan, yes it’s off topic. Apologies. It’s a question that is triggered after recently hearing an evangelical pastor say Greek Orthodox aren’t Christian. I think he said Greek Orthodox, could have been another group.
He based this on justification by faith.
I don’t want to get into this too deep since it’s not the subject of the post but if you want to delve into this, read Not by Faith Alone by Robert Sungenis. It’s almost 800 pages and it buries the doctrine of Sola Fide. That book has made many Protestants into Catholics. If you want something shorter, watch the debate between Robert Sungenis and James White on Justification. It’a a good one.
You’re probably not too familiar with Catholic vs Protestant debates but in them, James White has his famous “Blessed man” argument. Sungenis tore it to shreds. It was quite good. Here’s the link:
Sam Shamoun
1. Why do four pre-Tridentine Catholic Councils list the full 73 book canon without any distinctions?
This questions assumes that one “needs” a “Council” (that is under the Lordship of Rome) in order for canon to be “official” – rubbish.
This argument also performs the fallacy: Appeal to Popularity.
How does this make it more plausible that the Apocrypha is scriptural? Did the Jews view it is as inspired? No.
Further, just because they are “in the canon” does this mean they are viewed as “God breathed?”
In a commentary on two apocryphal books, The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome wrote:
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church…I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in the Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon
[CF. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, vol. VI, St. Jerome, “Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, Daniel” (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1954), pp. 492-9]
Pope Gregory the Great admitted this too.
Pope Gregory the Great (540-604) didn’t even agree with the canon the Council of Trent came up with
“…we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forth testimony
[CF. Moral Teachings Drawn from Job; 19, 34.]
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6:46).
[Webster, The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, 64]
2. Can you give me one list from a pre-Tridentine Council which says that only the 66 books are Scripture?
Once again, why must it be from a Council? This “assumes” that the Council is correct and speaks on behalf of all of Christendom – which it does not.
We can clearly see from history than Christians were able to identify the authenticity of God breathed scripture just fine before the Canon. In fact; the earliest list of 27 NT Books is given by Origen in 250AD in his Homilies on Joshua.
This is 132 years earlier then the earliest Roman Council (Council of Rome 382 AD).
3. Can you name one Biblical codex before 1400 which contains only 66 books? Any Bible in the world will do.
Whilst it is correct that the Apocrypha was contained in the Bible – does this necessitate that it was viewed as God breathed revelation or was there another purpose? Firstly, Jerome claimed that though it was in the Canon it was not considered “inspired”.
Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD), Jewish historian, does not list the Apocrypha as inspired. However, he does mention them and makes a point to affirm that they are not of the same authority as Scripture.
““ For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death…. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.[Against Apion 1:8]
His questions are to be understood in the context of the following: “Yes, Trent was the first official Dogmatic decision on the canon, but that was for the whole canon. This is true for the “apocrypha” and the 66 books that Slick accepts. If I’m wrong, Matt Slick should be able to point out a list where the 66 books were officially decreed to be the canon of the Church. He’ll never find one.”
Therefore I dont think he is appealing to popularity by mentioning councils, but making a point about Matt Slick and his assertion in that particular setting.
Hello,
You gave good answers but I believe that you were under the impression that the three questions tried to prove more than they did. The three questions were never meant to be a defence of the “apocrypha” but a defence of the Catholic Church believing them to be canon before Trent. Even if the “Apocrypha” is not scripture and the Catholic Church has been wrong in believing in it, it has nothing to do with the fact that we believed it or didn’t believe it before Trent.
Let me address some of your points though because some points pertained to what I was saying:
“This questions assumes that one “needs” a “Council” (that is under the Lordship of Rome) in order for canon to be “official” – rubbish.”
The Catholic Church operates in councils. The Councils don’t create truth, they discover, affirm, and recognize truth. For example, the Truth in Acts 15 was truth before the council. It was simply ratified at the Council.
“This argument also performs the fallacy: Appeal to Popularity.”
I quote councils because they have dozens of Bishops. It’s not the opinion of one person. When Protestants quote people in the early Church who disbelieved in these books, its just individuals. The councils that I quote had many many Bishops. You quote Jerome and Pope Gregory. I respect their opinions but they are two people against the sum of Bishops at the four pre-Tridentine councils. This is hundreds of Bishops as opposed to just a few people. I also have evidence that Jerome changed his mind on these books toward the end of his life but I won’t give that here since this post is not about Jerome, but the Church in general.
“Further, just because they are “in the canon” does this mean they are viewed as “God breathed?””
So it can be in the canon but not God breathed? This makes absolutely no sense. If it’s part of the Biblical Canon its God breathed since scripture is God breathed. Can you show me someone pre-Trent who says it’s in the canon and not God-breathed?
“Can you give me one list from a pre-Tridentine Council which says that only the 66 books are Scripture?
Once again, why must it be from a Council? This “assumes” that the Council is correct and speaks on behalf of all of Christendom – which it does not.”
I want you to show me evidence of the 66 book canon in the pre-Trent era. If Matt Slick is correct and we only accepted them at Trent, then we should find the 66 book canon mentioned in previous councils. Why aren’t they there? They aren’t there because we believed in the 73 book canon in the pre-Tridentine era.
“We can clearly see from history than Christians were able to identify the authenticity of God breathed scripture just fine before the Canon. In fact; the earliest list of 27 NT Books is given by Origen in 250AD in his Homilies on Joshua.”
There are many people who didn’t have the full 27 book canon until those councils. The Moratorium fragment for example.
“Whilst it is correct that the Apocrypha was contained in the Bible – does this necessitate that it was viewed as God breathed revelation or was there another purpose? Firstly, Jerome claimed that though it was in the Canon it was not considered “inspired”.”
Johnny, you have a Bible, correct? I’m betting that it has a table of contents, a concordance, footnotes, references and maybe even a commentary but you and I know it’s not whats inspired. Only the books of the Bible are inspired. We know the footnotes aren’t God breathed but the books are. It makes no sense to include them in the canon and not be God breathed. I find your comment about Jerome believing they were in the canon but not inspired to be quite odd because it contradicts the quote from Jerome that you gave! The quote from Jerome that you gave said:
“but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures” He never gives this canonical but not God breathed category that you give, he just says they aren’t canonical(at this point in his life).
I don’t want to deal with the Josephus quote because it’ll take forever and this is not a defence of the “apocrypha”(although I firmly believe it to be scripture) but a defence that it was considered as part of the Bible before Trent and Trent didn’t add them to the Bible.
Second, the argument of whether the Jews accepted it or not is not very valid in my mind as a Christian.
1. It could be pointed that at least some did, even if in the diaspora (Hellenistic Jews), and the LXX is serves as a good argument for it, but yes, some others did not.
2. However, (and this is relevant from the Christian standpoint), while the Jews were the custodians of the oracles of God, a case can be made that that role was at least shared by the NT church (cf Rom 11:17, Matt 19:28, John 16:13). Indeed, the LXX was the Bible of the early Church. (Personally, as far as I am concerned, the beliefs of Second Temple Judaism after the birth of the Church are irrelevant.)
As a Christian I find the fact that some other “Christians” did not approve of the apocrypha MUCH MORE COMPELLING than the Jews, some of whom who rejected the resurrection of the dead, and most of whom rejected our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The latter proves they had serious discernment issues (John 5: 37, 39-40, 43, 47). 😉
I am with you on this one, however, for those who dont accept these councils as necessarily valid or true simply because they are “councils”, you must admit that the early church was somewhat divided on the OT canon. We have Church Fathers who rejected apocrypha as well as those who accepted them.
At least in the first few centuries. Would you agree or disagree with this?
P.S. Personally I think it is sad that any Protestant Bibles dont have apocrypha, even if they dont treat it as scripture.
Hi Neil,
Thanks for commenting. I would say this in regards to the canon. The Church accepted the 73 book(it was sometimes lower because they’d stick some books together as one but its still the same material) canon but it wasn’t dogmatic at the time and gave individuals the freedom to reject them as canon if through research they thought they weren’t inspired. I would say this about books not contained in the “apocrypha” as well such as Esther or 2 Peter.
It should be pointed out that many early Protestant Bibles had the 7 books between the Testaments. The reason that question three said 1400 and not later was because in the 1400’s after the printing press, some individuals printed the Bible without the Churches authority and moved the 7 books in between the OT and NT.
The reason I find the OT canon issue to be more fluid is that while some advocated shorter canons, the EO churches had an even more extended canon than the RCC. The Ethiopian Orthodox have even the book of Enoch in their canon.
And as far as I understand, none of these churches have dogmatically declared their canon, and these are also ancient churches.
Having read quite a few of the Church Fathers myself, I don’t recall them ever quoting 3 Maccabees from EO Bibles or the book of Enoch from Ethiopian Bibles.
Not sure about that, but the LXX was the Bible of the early church (only two church Fathers I can tell off who even knew Hebrew; Origen and Jerome) – and the LXX did have 3 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees in appendix.
I think the canon in these other churches is more of a tradition than a settled list of books. I think that also explains why Enoch found its way into the Ethiopian canon, because it was traditionally used. I think another point this sheds a light on is that the canon was not settled, at least in the early church. Its still not in other ancient churches the way it is in the Western Church.