The Catholic Argument for the Canon: Exploring Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority

The question of which books should be included in the Bible has been a matter of debate for centuries. For Catholics, the canon includes certain books known as the Deuterocanon, often referred to by Protestants as the “Apocrypha.” While the Protestant tradition typically excludes these books, the Catholic Church has historically embraced them as part of Sacred Scripture. This post will explore the Catholic argument for the canon, tracing the history and reasoning behind the inclusion of these texts, and addressing some common objections.

The Septuagint and the Early Church

The roots of the Catholic Old Testament canon stretch back to the third century before Christ, when a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Septuagint (often abbreviated as LXX), was undertaken. The term “Septuagint” refers to the seventy (or seventy-two) translators who, according to legend, worked on this translation. The Septuagint became widely used among Greek-speaking Jews and was the version of the Old Testament most commonly used by early Christians. As the early Church expanded into Gentile regions, the Septuagint naturally became the Church’s Old Testament.

The New Testament writers frequently quoted the Old Testament, drawing from the Septuagint over 295 times. However, critics of the Deuterocanon argue that while the Septuagint included the Apocryphal books, the New Testament authors never quoted them as sacred Scripture. For instance, Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology notes that there are no direct quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament, suggesting its non-sacred status. Yet, it is worth noting that Jesus did celebrate Hanukkah (John 10:22-23), a festival rooted in the events described in 1 Maccabees. While this does not equate to a direct endorsement of the book as Scripture, it shows a connection to the history found in the Deuterocanon.

Jewish Perspectives on the Apocrypha

Some historians, such as the Jewish historian Josephus, did not hold the Apocrypha in the same esteem as other Old Testament books. He wrote, “From Artaxerxes to our own times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” Grudem and other Protestant scholars have argued that this indicates a consensus among Jews that the Apocrypha was not considered Scripture. However, this argument may not carry as much weight as it appears because Jewish views on the canon were not monolithic. For instance, the Sadducees accepted only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch), while the Pharisees held to a broader Hebrew canon. There was no universally agreed-upon canon during Jesus’ time, illustrating a lack of consensus among the Jewish people themselves.

St. Jerome and the Vulgate

The issue of the Apocrypha’s status as Scripture came to the forefront during the translation work of St. Jerome in the late 4th century. Tasked with producing a Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate), Jerome sought to return to the original Hebrew texts for accuracy. He discovered that the Hebrew Bible did not include the Apocryphal books and consequently argued that they should not be part of the canon. However, his view was not universally accepted, and a major opponent of Jerome’s position was St. Augustine.

St. Augustine’s Defense of the Apocrypha

St. Augustine argued for the inclusion of the Apocryphal books, considering them to be part of the inspired Scriptures. He contended, “I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one and divine.” Augustine’s view gained traction in the Church, and three councils ratified the canon he endorsed: the Council of Hippo in 393, the Third Council of Carthage in 397, and the Fourth Council of Carthage in 419. For over a millennium, the Church used the Latin Vulgate, which included the Apocryphal books.

Sacred Tradition and the Canon

At this point, it is essential to understand the Catholic view of Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church holds that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) guide the faithful. Sacred Tradition includes the teachings and writings of the early Church Fathers, the outcomes of Church councils, and the lived faith of the Christian community throughout history. This Tradition anchors the Church to the original beliefs handed down from the apostles, providing continuity and unity.

The Protestant Reformation and Sola Scriptura

The Protestant Reformation introduced the principle of Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”), which asserts that the Bible is the sole authority in determining Christian beliefs. This view led to a rejection of Sacred Tradition, which had guided the Church for 1,500 years. As Protestants moved away from the historic Church’s teachings, they developed doctrines based solely on individual interpretations of Scripture, leading to significant fragmentation.

The rejection of the Apocrypha was part of this larger movement. Reformers like Martin Luther argued for a return to the Hebrew canon, which did not include these books. However, it is noteworthy that Luther himself occasionally referenced the Apocrypha as Scripture. For example, he cited 1 Maccabees in his writings: “When Joseph and Azariah wanted to fight to gain honor for themselves, they were beaten [I Mac. 5:55-60].” Similarly, he referenced Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) in Selected Psalms III (1531).

The Catholic Church’s Enduring Canon

The Catholic argument for the canon emphasizes the consistency of Sacred Tradition. The Church used the Latin Vulgate with its Apocryphal books for over 1,000 years, and even today, the Catholic Church continues to regard these books as part of the inspired Word of God. The Protestant Reformation’s departure from the historic canon led to divisions that persist to this day. Differences in doctrines related to baptism, conversion, worship, and the Eucharist have all emerged, with some denominations even rejecting the ancient creeds altogether.

Unity Through Tradition

The fragmentation seen within Protestantism raises questions about the fruits of Sola Scriptura. If the Holy Spirit is indeed the Spirit of truth and unity, why does reliance on Sola Scriptura result in so much division? In contrast, the Catholic Church, by holding to Sacred Tradition, has maintained a remarkable unity across different languages, cultures, and times. This unity is grounded in the confession of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, as declared in the Nicene Creed at every Mass. It is Sacred Tradition that binds the Church together in the maternal care of “Holy Mother Church.”

Conclusion

The Catholic argument for the canon is rooted in history, continuity, and the guidance of Sacred Tradition. For over 1,500 years, the Church has used a Bible that includes the Deuterocanon, following the example of early councils and Church Fathers like St. Augustine. While Protestants may challenge the inclusion of these books, the Catholic Church sees them as integral to the fullness of Christian Scripture, providing a rich and unified expression of the faith.

By anchoring itself in the original beliefs of the apostles through Sacred Tradition, the Catholic Church offers a compelling case for the canon’s integrity and invites all Christians to consider the historical and theological foundations of the Bible they hold dear.