Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger
Read Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger Online
Authors: Gary G. Michuta
Tags: #Christian Books & Bibles, #Bibles, #Catholicism, #Religion & Spirituality, #More Translations
Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger
By Gary Michuta
More material from
Gary Michuta
Except where otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations in this book are taken
from the
New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms
©
1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, DC, and are
used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the
New
American Bible
may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing
from the copyright owner.
Scripture quotations taken from the
New American Standard
Bible
,® Copyright
©
1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation (www.Lockman.org). Used with
permission.
Quotations taken from Bruce M. Metzger’s,
An Introduction
to the Apocrypha
©
Oxford University Press, Inc., 198 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016. Used with permission.
Quotations from
Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament
©
1967 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand
Rapids, Michigan. Gerhard Fridrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and
ed. Used with permission.
Quotations from
The Apocrypha In Ecumenical Perspective
UBSMS 6
©
1991 by United Bible Societies. Used with permission.
WHY CATHOLIC BIBLES ARE BIGGER
©
2007 by Gary G. Michuta. All rights reserved
Published by The Grotto Press, Port Huron, Michigan
877-247-6886
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Michuta, Gary G., 1964–
Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger / Gary G. Michuta
Includes bibliographical references
ISBN 1-58188-010-3
978-1-58188-010-6
Contents
Chapter 1 A Closed
Pre-Christian Canon?
. 7
Chapter 2 The Closing of the
Jewish Canon
.
36
Chapter 3 When Contents Became
Canon
. 54
Chapter 4 Jerome Against the
World
. 70
Chapter 5 The Age of
Preservation
.
87
Chapter 6 “As Jerome
Saith…”
. 104
Chapter 7 Why Protestant Bibles
Are Smaller
.
125
Chapter 8 The
Deuterocanon in Exile
. 145
Appendix 1 Sola Scriptura and
the Problem of the Canon
. 155
Appendix 2 The
Deuterocanon and Biblical Inerrancy
. 160
“Amico fideli nulla est comparatio, et non est digna
ponderatio auri et argenti contra bonitatem fidei illius.” (Sir 6:15)
There are a number of people I would like to acknowledge and
thank for bringing this book to completion. First and foremost, I would like to
thank the Holy Spirit who has spoken through the prophets and gave us the
Sacred Scriptures as a treasure of His love and wisdom. Thank you Rod Bennett
who patiently worked through this book and made it warm, accessible and
readable for all. I would also like to thank the team of editors proofreaders
and designers who help turn this book from research to a reality especially
Dennis Walters, Adele Brinkley, Gigi Mills, Brenda Polk, and Launa and Alan
Wakenhut. Thank you also Paul, Cassandra and the rest of the Husak family for
the gift of your time, wisdom and support for this project. My gratitude is
also extended to the team at Grotto Press for their flexibility and hard work
especially Diane Everett and John McAlpine. To my good friend Rob Corzine,
whose constant advice and encouragement has guided me through the entire
development of this book, I give thanks. Many thanks go to Douglas Eiben for
spending hours in front of a hot photocopier. I owe Steve Ray and Patrick
Madrid a very large debt of gratitude for their constant support and guidance.
They have been faithful friends indeed. Finally, I would like to thank my wife
Chris, and my children, Paulina, Daniel, and Jennifer for their patience and
understanding while I was running off to libraries.
ABD Anchor Bible
Dictionary
ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers
(Robertson)
CBQ Catholic Biblical
Quarterly
CE
Catholic Encyclopedia (1914 ed.)
D
Sources of Catholic Doctrine (Denzinger)
DS
Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum
EJ
Encyclopaedia Judaica.
FEF Faith of
the Early Fathers
HTR Harvard Theological
Review
IBD
Interpreter Bible Dictionary
IJA
International Journal of the Apocrypha
JBC Jerome
Biblical Commentary
JTS
Journal of Theological Studies
JBR Journal
of Biblical Religion
NCC New Catholic
Commentary on Holy Scripture
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament
PG
Patrologia Graecae (Migne)
PL
Patrologia Latina (Migne)
Is it true that the Old Testament canon was complete and closed
long before the first word of the Deuterocanon was written? Does the New
Testament provide evidence for a closed Old Testament canon? Do the
Deuterocanonical books themselves contain proofs of this supposed fact?
All of these claims have been made through the years by
Protestant apologists attempting to defend the canon of Luther and Calvin; and
if any of these allegations were, in fact, proved valid then there really might
be good reason to question the traditional Christian bible overthrown by Protestantism.
These claims, however, are not true—a fact that may be firmly established by a
careful and unbiased examination of the historical record and the other
evidence at hand. Any bible-loving Christian will want to make such an
examination, surely, rather than run the risk of spurning a set of books which
may, in fact, contain God’s own holy Word.
Let us begin by examining the claim that the
Deuterocanonical books themselves provide evidence for a closed, pre-existing
Hebrew canon.
The Book of Sirach (200–150 BC)
The Book of Sirach
(also called
Ecclesiasticus
)
is the oldest of the Deuteros, written in Hebrew (most likely in Palestine)
sometime around the beginning of the second century before Christ.
[1]
Like the book of
Proverbs, Sirach falls under the category of wisdom literature and was very
popular in the Jewish world; so much so that Sirach’s grandson translated the
book into Greek (probably in Egypt) about fifty years after its composition.
[2]
This grandson also added
a Greek preface to the book which refers several times to the existing
Scriptures of that day. Does this preface show, as some have claimed, that the
canon was already closed by then and excluded, therefore, Sirach itself?
Some Protestant apologists have argued that this
introduction speaks of “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings”—a three-fold
division of the Old Testament corresponding to the three-fold division in
modern Jewish bibles (
Hat-Torah, Nebiim, wa-Kéthubim
)—and implying that
this same modern division was already present when Sirach (oldest of the
Deuteros) was new. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning greatly overstates the
evidence. Sirach’s introduction never speaks of “the Law, the Prophets and the
Writings;” it speaks only of “the Law, the Prophets, and the other books”—a
very unusual piece of language if the now-established terms were already in
use. Indeed, in three attempts to reference Scripture in this fashion, Sirach’s
grandson fails even once to apply what later became the recognized phraseology.
[3]
Furthermore, such a
very vague name as “the other books” may suggest a
deliberate
vagueness
and, in fact, recalls the similar ambiguity employed by some of the early
Church Fathers in the decades before a universally recognized New Testament
canon was promulgated. At the very least, such an indistinct category cannot be
said to effectively
exclude
much of anything.
Moreover, in at least two places, perhaps more, Sirach
indicates that he did, in fact, believe his book to contain the wisdom that
comes only from the Lord, and that it could take a place among the other books
of Scripture (Sir Preface, Sir 24:28-31; cf. Sir 1:1; 6:37; 16:24-25;).
[4]
These claims bear witness
to the fact that Sirach and his grandson, along with their contemporaries in
Palestine and Egypt, could not have believed that the contents of Scripture
were yet fixed and/or that the composition of inspired literature was no longer
possible. After all, all of today’s Christians are fully agreed that there was
definitely a great deal of Scripture yet to come in Sirach’s time—twenty-two
whole books of New Testament writing! The idea that Sirach’s introduction
implies a closed canon by 200 BC really implies that the canon of Scripture was
closed once
, then
reopened
in apostolic times, before being
re-closed
again
at the death of the Apostle John; an inelegant picture of God’s plan
of revelation to say the least.
1 Maccabees (150–50 BC)
Protestant apologists have also claimed that the book of 1
Maccabees proves Scripture to have been closed prior to its composition. They
appeal to the following verses:
1 Maccabees 4:45-46
The happy thought came to them to tear it down, lest
it be a lasting shame to them that the Gentiles had defiled it; so they tore
down the altar. They stored the stones in a suitable place on the temple hill,
until
a prophet should come and decide what to do with them
.
1 Maccabees 9:27
There had not been such great distress in Israel
since
the time prophets ceased to appear among the people
.
1 Maccabees 14:41
The Jewish people and their priest have, therefore,
made the following decisions. Simon shall be their permanent leader and high priest
until a true prophet arises.
Because 1 Maccabees seems to assert that all prophets (and
prophecies) had ceased by the time of the events depicted, it would appear to
follow that this book cannot be considered prophetic (i.e., inspired)
Scripture.
[5]
In actual
fact, this conclusion reads a great deal too much into the texts in question
and only demonstrates that this inspired and inspiring book has been read
through a prejudiced, Protestant lens.
Consider if some official were to decree that a certain pile
of bricks could not be removed until after a policeman should arrive, would
those who heard the decree immediately assume that policemen no longer
exist?—or only that no policeman is currently available? Would not the hearers
assume, rather, that policemen do still exist and that one will eventually make
his appearance? Likewise, the writer of 1 Maccabees should not be construed to
make any sweeping generalization about the continued existence of the prophetic
office—any more than the several Protocanonical writers who make similar
statements intended such a generalization. Take Asaph, for instance, author of
the Psalm 74, when he wrote these words: “They said in their hearts, ‘Destroy
them all! Burn all the shrines of God in the land!’ Now we see no signs,
we
have no prophets
, no one who knows how long” (74:8).
[6]
No Christian argues from this passage that
prophecy in Asaph’s day had ceased until the coming of Christ; why then should
parallel statements in another Old Testament book (namely, 1 Maccabees) be held
to prove that it had? Similarly, the author of Lamentations, writing in the
midst of the Babylonian captivity, speaks of his era as a time when prophets
were present but were being given no revelations:
Sunk into the ground are her gates; he has removed and
broken her bars. Her king and her princes are among the pagans; priestly
instruction is wanting,
And her prophets have not received any
vision from the LORD
.
[7]
Certainly, these were terrible times, but many prophets came
and many inspired books were written (including Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Joel,
Zechariah, and Malachi) well after the time of exile. In Jewish history, then,
there were multiple periods when God did not speak to his people through
prophets, leaving only false prophets to roam the land. These disputed passages
in 1Maccabees are simply referencing such times, not implying some mythical
“400 year silence” that started at the time of Esther and continued until the
advent of John the Baptist.
Dr. Rudolf Meyers, writing in Kittle’s
Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament
, ably sums up the deficiencies in this
common Protestant polemic:
On the restoration of the temple by Judas Maccabeus
the stones of the desecrated altar were set aside to be used only when a
prophet arose to make the necessary intimation. This is usually regarded as a
sign that there was no current prophecy, but this understanding is not quite
correct. Exposition should rather assume that the author regards the present
appearance of a prophet as possible (2 Mc 10:1ff does not carry the prophecy
motif). In terms of this basic religious attitude, 1 Mc agrees with [Sirach]
and his grandson. It need be no surprise that such views were possible at a
time when neo-prophecy was already emerging pseudepigraphically, for the
differing outlooks did not cancel one another out, but existed together for a
long time.
The Rabb theory that there is no present prophecy, as we
shall see later
(-> 982),
did not prevail until the [post apostolic]
period.
”
[8]
Neither Sirach nor 1 Maccabees, then, provides any real
comfort for those who would defend the shorter Old Testament favored by Luther
and Calvin.
Let us turn now to an investigation of a second claim; that
the New Testament writings contain evidence for an Old Testament canon which
had been closed prior to the completion of the Deuteros.
Several New Testament passages have been held to disqualify
the Deuterocanonical books; among them Romans 3:2, Luke 24:44, Luke 11:49-51,
and Revelation 22:18-19. Each deserves a separate inquiry.
Romans 3:2
First of all that they [the Jews] were entrusted with
the oracles of God.
Several Protestant apologists have appealed to this short
verse to demonstrate that a closed canon of Scripture already existed in the
days of Paul and that its contents are identical to those found in modern
Protestant bibles. The words are held to imply that God not only gave the Jews
the Old Testament (“the oracles of God”) but also the authority to infallibly
declare that collection complete and closed—a kind of Hebrew “magisterium.” And
since anyone may obtain a Jewish bible today, examine it and easily determine
that it includes only the books found in Protestant Old Testaments, anyone may
see God’s appointed custodians rejected the Deuterocanon.
The most obvious problem with this argument is that it
proves a great deal too much—meaning, of course, that it proves nothing at all.
If the Old Testament as currently understood by Jews represents the complete
and finished “oracles of God”, then not only the Deuteros but the New Testament
books as well, have failed to make the cut. But if, contrariwise, the list of
God’s true oracles
was not
literally complete in Paul’s time, but
subject rather to a later revision (as all Christians must maintain in order to
save the Gospels and other apostolic works as Scripture) then this passage does
not prove what it was purported to prove. To put the case shortly, if Paul’s
words in Romans 3:2 mean that inspiration had already ceased in Judaism and the
canon of Scripture was already closed, then Romans 3:2 itself is non-canonical
and we need take no further notice of it!
No; to say, as Paul does, that the Jews “were entrusted with
the oracles of God” does not suggest that those oracles already represented a
finished work; any more than the statement “the Library of Congress was
entrusted with the archives of the United States” means that the United States
will produce no more archival material. The statement is, rather, a simple
affirmation on the part of the Apostle that God did speak infallibly to the
Jews prior to the coming of Christ and that the Old Testament is to be regarded
as Scripture.
Secondly, when the Apostle says the Jews “
were
entrusted with oracles of God” he uses the
aorist passive
; he indicates,
in other words, that the authority of the synagogue is a thing of the past. Any
right to reject a given prophecy or prophetic book had now passed from the
rulers of the Jews to the Christian Church (if it were not so, the authority of
Paul himself would be null and void). It should also be remembered that Paul
did not literally say that the Jews “were entrusted with the inspired books”
(though that is certainly included in what he meant); what the Apostle actually
said was “entrusted with the oracles of God”—and this category included much
more than just the Old Testament writings. The Hebrews, recall, were also entrusted
with the Urrim and Thummim (Nm 27:21), and other prophetical devices; and not
all the consultations received by these methods were written down. The scope of
Romans 3:2 then, cannot be restricted to inspired books alone and cannot,
therefore, be a direct reference to a fixed canon.
Finally, the idea that the Jews possessed a canon identical
to modern day Protestantism is entirely gratuitous; there is simply no
contemporary evidence to support such a claim. For one thing, bibles were not
bound together between covers in New Testament times; they existed as loose
collections of scrolls stored in individual synagogues and the precise
collection varied from place to place. Secondly, Judaism was comprised of as
many as twenty-four distinct parties or “denominations”, as it were, in the
first century AD and each of these parties seems to have had its own
distinctive theology and its own preferences in matters of canonicity.
[9]
Most students of the New
Testament already know that the party of the Sadducees had the narrowest views
in this regard, accepting only the Pentateuch as indisputably sacred. The
borders were equally indistinct on the other end of the spectrum, with some
Jewish groups willing to use a canon larger than that received by today’s
Catholics. So, even if some Jewish listing from Paul’s era were to be
discovered in the future, it would still represent only
a
canon—a canon
of the Pharisees, a canon of the Essenes, and so forth—never
the
Jewish
canon, for no one at that time spoke for all the Jews and the precise mix of
scrolls in each synagogue varied widely. Indeed, the Jews of Jesus’ day were
shocked to hear Jesus teaching authoritatively and not like the scribes.
[10]
Romans 3:2
then, provides no evidence for a closed, pre-Christian Hebrew canon.