Quote:
STEP 0: The Apostolic churches (East & West) discerned which books should be included in or excluded from the Sacred Scriptures. These writings were protected and passed down through the generations for more than a thousand years before we come to the Reformation period. The 7 so-called apocryphal books are included in both the Eastern and Western traditions without scandal (despite the East having a slightly larger collection of accepted writings). These 7 books were not distinguishable from the other OT books, and were scattered throughout the OT. These 7 books were used and referenced significantly by the NT authors and the Church. FACT: The 7 books were there.
It's not a good start when you "Step 0" is incorrect.
The bolded is factually and historically incorrect.
1. Lets start with the obvious. The word Apocrypha (which I believe started with Jerome) by definition denotes a difference between these books and the rest of the OT. So definitionally we are distinguishing these books. This makes your statement inaccurate at best.
2. History is also not on your side via multiple biblical scholars.
J.N.D. Kelly Reports:
"It was in the fourth century, particularly where the scholarly standards of Alexandrian Christianity were influential, that these doubts began to make their mark officially. The view which now commended itself fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,10 Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius,12 was that the deuterocanonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside the canon proper. Cyril was quite uncompromising; books not in the public canon were not to be studied even in private. Athanasius displayed greater flexibility, ruling2 that they might be used by catechumens for the purpose of instruction. Yet it should be noted (a) that no such scruples seem to have troubled adherents of the Antiochene School, such as John Chrysostom and Theodoret; and (b) that even those Eastern writers who took a strict line with the canon when it was formally under discussion were profuse in their citations from the Apocrypha on other occasions. This official reserve, however, persisted for long in the East. As late as the eighth century we find John Damascene maintaining the Hebrew canon of twenty-two books and excluding Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, although he was ready to acknowledge their admirable qualities."
"The West, as a whole, was inclined to form a much more favourable estimate of the Apocrypha. Churchmen with Eastern contacts, as was to be expected, might be disposed to push them into the background. Thus Hilary, though in fact citing all of them as inspired, preferred to identify the Old Testament proper with the twenty-two books (as he reckoned them) extant in the Hebrew; while Rufinus described5 Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and 1 and 2 Maccabees as 'not canonical, but ecclesiastical', i.e. to be read by Christians but not adduced as authoritative for doctrine. Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was 'to be classed among the apocrypha', not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded7 that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament, to which, breaking away once for all from the ancient Hebrew enumeration, he attributed forty-four books. The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I despatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405.
Even Schaff (who I believe is Roman Catholic) notes:
"I. In respect to the HOLY SCRIPTURES:
At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.
The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles."
"In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the disputed Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as deutero-canonical books, bearing a subordinate authority. The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches, excepting the Acts of the Martyrs on their memorial days. These two African councils, with Augustine,1296 give forty-four books as the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following order: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (the two of Samuel and the two of Kings), two books of Paralipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms, five books of Solomon, the twelve minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of Maccabees. The New Testament canon is the same as ours."
-----------
Step 1 itself is built on a faulty premise. You use a presupposition that the order of the canon is/was divinely inspired. while I think it's an interesting proposition because of the parallels to Sola Scriptura, it's an incorrect assumption.
Frankly, I don't think anybody during the Reformation necessarily argued against what Luther did.
You making such a big deal about it is actually the more interesting aspect because it tends to prove the claim that Protestants make against Rome. Rome is always looking for an authority over the Scriptures and in that we have the true source of authority within that religious group.
So like Step 0, this one seems to fall apart under examination.
------------
Step 2 fails when the actual history of the Apocrypha is looked at. Given the history provided, taking the stance of anathematizing anyone who did not hold the Apocrypha as canon actually anathematizes some significant Saints.
As I've also pointed out, not even a majority of voters (bishops?) agreed to affirm this canon. The passage relied on a significant portion abstaining from the vote.
So yes, Trent took a novel step of essentially anathematizing a significant portion of the historical church in order to anathematize the Reformers.
-------------
Step 3 I've already said is a mistake, but it's not a "Protestant" mistake.
--------------
However, it's worth noting that it's not a "Protestant issue" as you claim. Most of the Reformation churches hold to the historical view of these books.
I've already commented on the Lutheran position so won't reiterate that.
The Anglican 39 Articles says the following in Article 6
"And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following...."(they list out the Apocrypha). We see this directly in the
Even John Calvin said the following in his response to the Council of Trent:
"I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?...Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine."
-----------
So if we consider your steps now, we find that:
Step 0 was an inaccurate portrayal of history
Step 1 made a presuppositional claim that was incorrect.
Step 2 in light of Step 0 falls to a problem.
Step 3 I stated from the top was something I think should be corrected and the Apocrypha put back in with the same historical context that Luther applied to it.
And finally, your claim about "Protestants" also fails to stand up to historical scrutiny as the chief Reformers all held a very historically correct view of these books as has been proved above.
