Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (3 page)

We conclude this examination with a question: If this
passage in Luke’s Gospel really presents a perspicuous proof-text for
determining the canon, why is it that the Fathers of the Church never referred
to it during any of the early debates over the canon? Certainly these early
saints were not infallible; no one claims that they were. All knew the Gospels
well, yet none ever thought to interpret Luke 11:51 in the manner suggested by
this late, Protestant line of reasoning. This fact, surely, deserves serious
consideration.

Revelation 22:18-19

I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy
of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues
described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy
city, which are described in this book.

The Book of Revelation was, in all likelihood, the last book
of the Bible to be written and is, of course, the final book in the New Testament
canon we all agree on. It was also written very late, near the end of the life
of the last living apostle, upon whose death the possibility of inspired
Scripture ceased once and for all (a truth that, again, we all agree upon).
This terrible warning, then, coming at the end of that final book, indicates,
according to Protestant polemicists, that the canon of Scripture was closed at
that time and could not be altered. Is this not a very compelling argument?

Actually, much of the effectiveness of this claim rests on a
kind of “optical illusion.” First, it is by no means certain that the Book of
Revelation
was
written last; most scholars think so, but certainly not
all. Many very orthodox experts believe that John’s Gospel or perhaps one of
his Epistles was the last book to be composed. And no one knows for sure when
the Book of Revelation was written; dates as early as AD 68 have been offered
by reputable men. Secondly, the fact that Revelation comes last in modern
bibles is not based on chronology any more than the fact that Psalms comes
after Nehemiah proves that Psalms was written after Nehemiah. Modern bibles are
arranged like a library—into categories such as “history” and “prophecy”—not in
first-to-last order. The customary order for our canonical books is just that:
a
custom
—an entirely man-made convention with no doctrinal significance. The
convergence, then, of these three facts—that Revelation was, most likely, the
last to be written; that it deals with “last things” and the end of the age; and
that it appears last in modern bibles—have produced an accidental sense of
finality and given to the passage under discussion an unintended meaning.
Thirdly, the Deuteros were not, despite Protestant claims, added to the
Scriptures
after
this passage in Revelation was written. All of the
Deuterocanonical books had been complete and in use among pious Jews for
decades at the time of the Apostle John and had received as much Divine
inspiration as any Old Testament books. Any claim that they had already failed,
by this time, to “make the cut” into some supposedly closed (but subject to
reopening) Jewish canon has already been exploded.

What, then, does this passage in Revelation refer to? 
Plainly, it refers to itself—to the Book of Revelation as composed by the
Apostle John—and not to the Bible as a whole. We know this because the Bible as
a whole had not yet been gathered together in John’s day. Indeed, it would be
centuries before the various books of the New Testament were gathered together
into a universally acknowledged collection. The Book of Revelation, in fact,
was one of the
last
books to gain universal recognition and acceptance
in both the East and the West. Is it not possible, however, that God Himself
inspired John to provide a “bible-wide” curse, even though the true contents of
that bible was known, at the time of composition, only to God Himself? Perhaps,
but there really is no need to drag such strained exegetical guesswork into the
discussion; not when there is a parallel passage in the Old Testament which
provides so much light. Deuteronomy 4:2 says:

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding
you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your
God which I command you.

Given our objector’s logic, this very ancient passage must
be teaching that no book was to have been added to the canon after  the
book of Deuteronomy! 

To sum up this section, we may say without fear of
reasonable contradiction that the New Testament alone provides us with no
information whatsoever on which books do and do not belong in the canon of the
Old Testament.

New Testament Usage

Let us turn now to another type of objection. Is it true
that the New Testament contains no references to the Deuterocanonical books,
indicating that the inspired writers did not consider them to be a sacred
source?

As all readers of the New Testament know, Our Blessed Lord
and the sacred writers who consigned His doctrine to writing very often alluded
to and actually quoted from the existing books of Scripture already complete at
that time (the books which later became known as the Old Testament). There are
over 330 direct quotations from the Old Testament included within the New and
many more oblique references. This is an important fact; indeed, it was used by
several of the early Fathers as a refutation of Marcionism, that ancient heresy
which denied the inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures and held them to be of no
value for Christians. More recently however, some Protestant polemicists have
suggested that the quoting of an Old Testament book within the pages of the New
can be used as a test of
canonicity
; and that there are no such
quotations from the Deuterocanonical books. The New Testament writers ignored
the Deuteros altogether (or so the argument goes) and this apostolic “cold
shoulder” is an infallible sign that the books in question are not to be
regarded as Scripture.

Actually, the force of this argument, so commonly heard
today, depends almost entirely upon ignorance of the contents of the Deuteros;
most of the early Protestants were too familiar with them even to suggest such
an absurd idea. Several early Protestant bibles not only included the
Deuterocanon along with the New Testament, but actually contained cross-referencing
notes pointing out the (supposedly non-existent) connections between the
two!  The original 1611 edition of the Protestant
King James Bible
,
for instance, boasts eleven of such cross-references (and 102 between the
Deuteros and the Old Testament!). The notes were removed from future editions.

To refute then this fallacious argument, let us begin here
using the venerable
King James Bible
as our starting point. Let us
examine the eleven points of contact recognized by the fathers of this greatest
of all English bibles and see what they can tell us about the relationship
between the New Testament and that portion of the Old known as the
Deuterocanon.

1) Matthew 6:14-15–Sirach 7:14

Matthew 6:14-15

For if you forgive others for their transgressions,
your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others,
then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.  (cf. Mk 11:25:
When you stand to pray, forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so
that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions.)

Sirach 28:2

Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray,
your own sins will be forgiven.

This first cross-reference concerns Our Lord’s explanation
of the last line of the
Our Father
. The link between forgiving others
and receiving forgiveness of sins (or in the case of the parallel text in Mark
11:25, the relationship between prayer and forgiving one’s neighbors) is found
in Sirach 28:2.

2) Matthew 27:43– Wisdom 2:15,16

Matthew 27:41-43

Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders
mocked him and said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the
king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in
him. He saved others; he cannot save himself. He trusted in God; let him
deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

Wisdom 2:17-22

Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out
what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend
him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let
us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his
patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own
words, ‘God will take care of him.’ These were their thoughts, but they erred;
for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of
God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the
innocent souls’ reward.

The larger context of Matthew 27:41-43 is given here for the
reader’s benefit. Many modern bibles will direct the reader to the Suffering
Servant passage in Psalm 22:8-9, which reads:

All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer;
they shake their heads at me: ‘You relied on the LORD—let him deliver you; if
he loves you, let him rescue you.’

Bibles which include the Deuterocanon will likely provide a
second cross-reference to Wisdom 2:17-18. No one would deny, surely, that the
two texts have a certain affinity with one another. For example, both Psalm 22:8-9
and Wisdom 2:17-18 speak about God rescuing the just man who places his trust
in Him.
[25]
 
However, the taunts of the chief priests, scribes and elders in Matthew 27:43
suggest something more specific; Christ is being mocked not merely for being
“loved by God” (as a comparison to Ps 22:8-9 would suggest), but specifically
because “He said ‘I am the Son of God.’” This is the point at which the
connection to the plainer passage in the Deuterocanonical book becomes dramatic:

He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants
him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’
[26]

For if the just one be the son of God
, he will defend
him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
[27]

This is the only passage in the Old Testament which
expresses a direct expectation that the true Son of God would be rescued and
delivered from persecution by mockers and detractors; and it is precisely
Christ’s claim of divine Sonship that led the Jewish leaders of Matthew 27:43
to express their feigned expectation of such a rescue. Given this close
interconnection, it is not surprising to find Protestant sources recognizing
this dependency on Wisdom in Matthew 27:41-43. What, if anything, however, does
this usage tell us about the inspired status of Wisdom?

First, the elders must have understood the Book of Wisdom to
be an authoritative, perhaps even predictive, sacred text; for had they taken
the book as mere human apocrypha their taunt would have been meaningless,
perhaps even blasphemous, since it would then have amounted to a demand for a
miraculous rescue God never promised. Only a recognized inspired text would
have given these words power and avoided blasphemous presumption.

Secondly, the chief priests, scribes, and elders must have
had a reasonable expectation that those present would recognize their citation
of Wisdom 2:17-18; otherwise, their words would have been lost on their hearers.
Third, Matthew’s inclusion of these words in his Gospel narrative indicates
that he saw them as having some significance for Jewish Christian readers,
seeing perhaps, as the Apostle Paul did, Christ’s ultimate rescue in the
Resurrection as a vindication or demonstration of His divine Sonship.
[28]
Finally, Matthew
apparently expected his readers to know this text as well and accept it as a
genuine prophecy. From earliest times, Christians used Wisdom 2:17-18 as a genuine
prophecy of Christ’s passion.
[29]

There is something stronger than an allusion or even a quote
here; Matthew is
employing
Wisdom in this text (or rather the Jewish
elders were employing Wisdom, and Matthew recorded it). It suggests that
Matthew, the chief priests, scribes, and elders, as well as their hearers and
readers, understood this text to be prophetic. Yet despite the significance of
this employment, by Matthew and others, this reference to the inspired book of
Wisdom has been systematically omitted from most Protestant bibles.
[30]

3) Luke 6:31–Tobit 4:15

Luke 6:31

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (cf.
Matthew 7:12: Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the
law and the prophets.)

Tobit 4:15

Do to no one what you yourself dislike.

The
King James Bible
of 1611 drew the obvious
comparison between Our Lord’s Golden Rule and the negative form of it which
appears in Tobit 4:15.

4) Luke 14:13–Tobit 4:7

Luke 14:13

But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the
maimed, the lame, and the blind…

Tobit 4:7

Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy
face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord
shall not be turned from thee.

5) John 10:22–1 Maccabees 4:59

John 10:22

And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem:
and it was winter.

1 Maccabees 4:59

And Judas, and his brethren, and all the church of
Israel decreed, that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in
its season from year to year for eight days, from the five and twentieth day of
the month of Casleu, with joy and gladness.