Hands On Apologetics

About Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger

What People Are Saying About Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger

What You Will Learn By Reading Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Detailed Table of Contents)

The 44% Solution: Why Anti-Catholics Should Trust Their Instincts

One verse of Scripture that I try to keep in mind when doing apologetics is Deuteronomy 27:18, “’Cursed be he who misleads a blind man on his way!’” For me, the verse really hits home the importance of being as accurate as I possibly can whenever I write or give a talk. I know how easy it is, with the pressures of constantly producing new material, to misunderstand or misread something and accidentally mislead a lot of people. That is why whenever I run across something that does not seem right to me (especially when it concerns non-Catholics) red flags go up and I try to do my best to go the extra mile to make sure everything is accurate. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred my instincts prove correct and I save myself and others a lot of grief.

It seems to me that this is what happened to a member of our loyal opposition. On December 27, 2007, a blog article was posted on James Swan's website titled “Underwhelming Majority At Trent,” which was apparently a reprint of an old blog originally titled,“holy-spirited-guided majority vote." It stated:

“Here is something on the surface level that just doesn’t make sense.

'The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books.'
-Wiki, Metzger (pg. 246)'

If the ratification of the biblical canon at Trent was just a formality, why such an underwhelming vote?“

The post breaks down the vote into percentages which comes out to 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining to which the author rhetorically asks:

“If the Council of Trent was simply affirming the same canon that had been held by the Church since the 4th century, wouldn’t you expect a better consensus than 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining?”

You can see the red flags going up. Something seems out of whack with these numbers. Unfortunately, Carrie, who authored the blog, didn’t trust her instincts and Swan published the article, apparently not only once, but twice. Indeed, the republished article didn’t escape the attention of another Protestant apologist, whom I respect, James White who wrote:

“…I am more than happy to learn new things from folks like James Swan and others who post on his blog as well. For example, I did not know that the "yes" vote for the canon comprised barely 40% of the small group gathered at Trent. That's a real confidence booster....”

Indeed, in a recent video, James White revisits Carrie's point:

"Amazingly, even at the Council of Trent, a sizable portion of the prelates held to Jerome's view. In fact, the final dogmatic acceptance on the part of Rome of these books did not even garner a majority vote! The vote that decided the canon for Roman Catholics was 24 yea, 15 nay, and 16 abstaining! That means that less than 44% voted for the final decision of Trent! And this is Rome's infallible and dogmatic pronouncement!"

("Steve Ray On Catholic Answers Live," YouTube Video)

In a way, I do understand why Carrie and/or White ignored the red flags and went with the story. Bruce Metzger is a very reputable Protestant scholar and the quote comes from a well respected work, namely, The New Testament Canon: It’s Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987). How could a great scholar like Bruce Metzger (or B. F. Westcott for that matter) be wrong on Trent? I started digging.

Once I began to look into the “44% argument,” several other red flags began to pop up in my mind. One big flag came when I noticed that the quote given in my copy of Metzger did not match the one given in Swan's article. My copy reads:

“

The quote above is very different from the one used in the article, which read:

““The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books.’”

Where did Swan's quote come from? Are we using two different editions? I’m not sure. I also checked the link to Wikipedia that was provided, but I was unable to find the quote there either. As you can see, my quote from Metzger is much more complex than that given in the article.

The second red flag came when I noted the absence of any footnote in Metzger for his figures (see photocopy above). Where did Metzger get the 24 to 15 voting tally? The deliberations at Trent were long and there were a few votes taken during its deliberations. If the vote was on April 8^th (when the Decree on the Canon of Scripture was promulgated), was it a vote to approve the entire decree or was it a vote on some specific part? Both the article and White clearly believe that the "44% vote" was on the approval of the entire Decree. For example, the article stated:

“If the Council of Trent was simply affirming the same canon that had been held by the Church since the 4th century, wouldn’t you expect a better consensus than 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining?”

“From a strictly human perspective, a 44% majority is far from convincing me that the council members at Trent were sure of the historical witness to the exact nature of the canon” [Emphasis mine in both quotes].

Likewise, James White's view is equally clear:

"I did not know that the "yes" vote for the canon comprised barely 40%"

""In fact, the final dogmatic acceptance on the part of Rome of these books did not even garner a majority vote!"

"That means that less than 44% voted for the final decision of Trent!" [emphasis mine]

What was the “44% vote?”

When I see red flags, I do a little digging. The first place I looked was the same place I looked to confirm the Council’s position on the book of Esdras, the Concilium Tridentinum (Fridburgi Brisgoviae, 1964). This multi-volume set contains the official acts of Trent along with the diaries and letters from key fathers at the Council.

The first place I looked was on April 8, 1546 when Trent adopted the decree. Not surprisingly, I didn’t find a 44% majority. Instead, I found that all the Council fathers essentially gave approval to the decree (see below).

Concilium Tridentinum, volume 5, p. 92.

The 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining is obviously not the adoption of the decree on the canon. The 44% wasn't the voting margin for the decree? Then, where did it come from? Could it have happened earlier in the Council when the contents of the canon itself was discussed? There was some voting on this topic, not on April 8th, but February, 15, 1546. It took place in the General Council. And again, we find that all the fathers gave their approval ("Et omnes responderunt placet") "(and all responded yes)."

Concilium Tridentinum, volume 1, 32

There's no 44% vote here either. After further digging, I finally discovered the 24 to 15 vote. As the Catholic historian Peter Duncker records:

Catholic Biblical Quarterly (15), 1953, p. 289

I went back to the official records of Trent and sure enough everything that Duncker had said was there (see below).

Concilium Tridentinum, volume 5, p. 10

Finally, here is the 24 to 15 vote! Carrie was right; the vote total didn’t make sense for a council that was merely rubber-stamping decisions of previous councils. The 44% vote had nothing to do with the contents of the canon, rather it appears that the vote concerned the inclusion of a anathema (the application of canonical penalties to those who deny what is stated). I should note that, according to Dunker, there is some slight disagreement among the sources and it is not completely clear whether this vote was on the inclusion of the anathema or whether it was on whether it would be illicit for the council to include a refutation of some of the attacks on the canon in its decree. Dunker makes a good case that the 44% vote was on the latter and not the former. What is clear is that this vote was not the Decree on the Canon of Scripture nor was it on the adoption of the contents of the canon.

Why is there disagreement on what this vote was on? Because the 44% vote had no effect on the final decree. It was a straw vote taken during an ongoing discussion Moreover, if you look closely at the quote above (Concilium Tridentinum, volume 5, p. 10) you will see that the vote didn't decide anything for the General Council. The document explicitly states "(sed nihil decretum)", which is translated "(but nothing was decided)."

The Main Points:

The "44% vote" was not in the "final dogmatic acceptance" of the Decree on April 8, 1546.
The vote was not on the canon. It was either on the lawfulness of adding a refutation in the Decree or the anathema.
The "44%" was a straw vote that didn't settle the question on the inclusion of refutations or the anathema.

What about Metzger? Did he say that the Decree on the Canon was passed by a slim majority? If you look closely at Metzger's quote (as I found it), you’ll see that his complex statement is really speaking of the vote to adopt a decree "in which" the anathema was given. It was the anathema, not the contents of the canon, that set Trent apart from previous councils. Metzger was really saying was that the Decree on the Canon promulgated on April 8, 1546 was the first decree on the Canon to include an anathema, which was adopted by a 24 to 15 vote with 16 abstaining.

Carrie and White has apparently misunderstood Metzger. Moreover, Metzger didn't really read Trent very carefully because the vote he recorded likely wasn't even on the anathema and even if it was apparently "nothing was decided” by it.

Conclusion:

What’s the difference between a propagandist and an apologist? A propagandist is mainly concerned with mocking and ridiculing his opponents for the entertainment of his co-religionists using whatever information he or she finds to be damaging. An apologist, however, takes his opponents seriously and recognizes that the opponents do have a rationale for what they believe. A good apologist feels the strength of his opponent’s position before critiquing it. The very fact that this article had a red flag or two, I think, says some good things about Carrie. As for the "44% vote" idea, this one has been sent to the graveyard of bad arguments, may it rest in peace.

Thank you Carrie... Here are the corrections that I made...

On January 21, 2008, "Carrie" from the James Swan blog posted an article that concerned a few mistakes I made in the article above. I just became aware of it tonight (Jan 24th), so I hope you will forgive me for my tardiness. I'm very thankful to Carrie for noting a few corrections that need to be made to my article above."

First, the article apparently was not written by James Swan, but "Carrie." I changed the article to reflect that. Hopefully, I got all the references. James Swan will have to miss out on the kudos, though because I thought my article was very complimentary of him. Second, the "44% vote" was not made in the particular councils (the classes), but the General Council. When writing the article, I was referencing the Latin texts and as you can see in CT, v. 5, p. 10, the header read "classes." This was an honest mistake. I'm still learning how to navigate the labyrinth that is the Concilium Tridentinum. Please make note of the change.

Carrie also was confused since the vote took placed on Feb. 15th, yet my copy of CT, v. 5, p. 10 read Feb. 18th. Carrie's confusion with the date just goes to show how confusing the CT headers can be. The date at the top reflects the day's discussion for the date given. Feb. 15th ends at the top of the page and the classes of Feb. 18th begins right after it. here is a scan of the entire page so you can see what I mean. The dates given in my article, however, are correct. Carrie is also correct in noting, and I mentioned this in my article, that the diaries and the acts give conflicting accounts of exactly what this vote represented (including even the tallies). I believe the confusion was due mainly to two reasons. First, the "addition of arguments" and "the anathema" questions are different but also very interrelated. It would be easy to see why different people understand the vote to represent different things. Second, whenever Trent does an important vote, more times then not, it is very precise, individual's votes are recorded, and additional comments are carefully noted. As Duncker notes, this vote is a mess. I can only conclude from this what I state in my article; the 44% vote was little more than a straw vote.

I think Carrie and I can agree, however, on the main points of my article, (1) The Wikipedia article that was cited in Carrie's article was overly interpretive of Metzger to the point of being misleading, (2) The "44%" was not on the final adoption of the decree on April 8, 1546, but February 15, 1546, and (3) Whatever the "44%" vote represented, it was not on the adoption of the Florentine canon. Thank you very much for you help. Please inform those on your blog of these corrections.

Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger Goes Into Second Printing!

It has been called "one of the most important apologetic works in decades" and now Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible has reached another milestone. A few months ago it was my honor to report that my book broke the all times one-month sales record for Grotto Press. Yesterday, I received news from the publisher that WCBB has officially gone into its second printing! I would like to thank those who picked up my book and encourage you to keep visiting www.HandsOnApologetics.com for additional information that couldn't make it into the book, such as the article below documenting the changes in the Geneva Bible.

The Word Is Getting Out ... Revisited

The following is an unsolicited call from a Catholic who just read Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. I love calls like this; it makes all the work I put into the book worth it. Click on the Audio button below to listen. FYI - it may take a few seconds to load.

(click to play)

Welcome Relevant Radio Listeners

As promised on "Searching the Word" with Chuck Neff, Here is my list of Old Testament Prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus. This list contains 72 passages although there certainly could be more. Enjoy!

72 Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus

The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

Every American schoolchild knows that the pilgrims landed on Plymouth rock, but do they know which Bible the pilgrims used? Most people, if asked the question, would say the Puritans used the good old King James Version. Wrong. The King James Bible was the "Authorized Version" of the Established Church of England and the Puritans were religious dissenters from that church. The Puritan's Bible of choice was the Geneva Bible, which was translated by Protestants who fled to Geneva from England during the reign of Queen Mary.

The Geneva Bible broke new ground for printed Bibles. It was the first Bible to assign chapter and verses to the text and its copious marginal notes qualify it to be called the first study Bible. The marginal notes were from a Reformed perspective and the Geneva Bible (1599) is still revered by many Reformed Protestants today.

Like nearly all early Protestant Bibles, the Geneva Bible contained the Deuterocanon gathered together into an appendix between the Old and New Testaments titled "Apocrypha" (Right - the 1599 Geneva Bible's table of contents). By "Apocrypha," the early Reformers meant those books that are good and beneficial for Christians to read, but not for the

purpose of confirming doctrine. The Geneva Bible also sported (like the early editions of its authorized counterpart) cross references to the "Apocrypha" in the New Testament. The importance of these cross references should not be minimized; they demonstrate that the early editors believed that the "Apocrypha" played in integral role in the New Testament text and that the cross referenced texts aided the Protestant reader in understanding and interpreting the New Testament. As time moved on, these benefits were overshadowed by anti-Catholic prejudice and the desire to minimize the books that the Catholic Church reaffirmed as inspired Scripture. The cross references slowly started to disappear from margins of the King James Version and the Geneva Bible until all of them, and the "Apocrypha" itself had totally disappeared.

The following are examples of the more interesting "Apocrypha" cross references that were omitted (suppressed?) in later editions.

Geneva 1560 - Matthew 27:34 / Wisdom 2:18	Geneva 1599 - Wisdom Omitted

The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible listed two cross-references for Matthew 27:43, namely Psalm 22:9 and Wisdom 2:18. Unlike Psalm 22:9, only Wisdom 2:18 links God's promise to rescue the Just One's claim to be the Son of God. However, the 1599 edition of the same Bible retains only Psalm 22:9 replacing Wisdom 2:18 with a cross reference to the Gospel of Mark.

Geneva 1560 - James 3:2	Geneva 1599 - Omitted

The 1560 edition gives James 3:2 three consecutive cross references to the Book of Sirach (Sir. 14:1, 19:16, and 25:11). There is nothing earthshaking regarding these cross references. Still, its interesting that the editors of the 1560 edition saw multiple contacts with Sirach while the editors of the 1599 entirely omits all three.

Geneva 1560 - Hebrews 1:3	Geneva 1599 - Omitted

The 1560 edition provides an important cross reference from Hebrews 1:3 to Wisdom 7:26. Hebrews speaks of Jesus as the "refulgence" (Geneva Bible "brightness") of God's glory. The Greek word "Apaugasma" is used only in Hebrews 1:3 and Wisdom 7:26 in the Greek Bible. Moreover, the context of Wisdom's description of Wisdom personified sheds much light (pun intended) on who Jesus is. Unfortunately, the readers of the later 1599 edition were left in the dark as to this connection.

Geneva 1560 - Hebrews 11:35 - Omitted	Geneva 1599 - Reference Added

The Geneva 1560 edition oddly omits a cross reference to 2 Maccabees 7:1-42 in Hebrews 11:35 even though the connection between these two texts is beyond doubt. Not only is Second Maccabees 7:1-42 the only place in the Greek Bible where people suffered torture and death explicitly for their hope in the resurrection (2 Macc. 7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29), but Hebrews 11:35-36 describes their suffering using the same words as Second Maccabees (tympanizo and empaigmos). The 1599 edition remedied this earlier defect, not by cross referencing 2 Maccabees 7:1-42, but by inserting the cryptic statement, "He [the writer of Hebrews] means that perfection which Antiochus wrought."

In my book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007), I chronicle the demise of the "Apocrypha" in Protestant Bibles. And frankly it was one of the most difficult sections of my book to write since I could see how so many Protestants today have been unknowingly robbed of their Protestant heritage because later editors were embarrassed by the beliefs of the predecessors. It seemed clear to me then (as it does now) that these omissions were not the result of overcrowded margins. They were removed for another purpose. As the Protestant theologian William Daubney explains, "Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so... these references disappeared from the margins" (The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: Clay and Sons, 1900), 21). Hence we see the Pilgrims' regress from the historic form of the Protestant Bible. Not only that, but even more importantly, we see an even further departure from the form of the historic and ancient Christian Bibles, which always included the Deuterocanon interdispersed within the Old Testament corpus.

Apologetic Classes In Session!

Learn How To Share Your Faith

Do you want to learn how to share, explain, and defend your Catholic Faith? Are you already familiar with Catholic apologetics, but would like to take your knowledge to the next level? If you live in South-eastern Michigan, now is your chance to take that next step.

These classes go beyond using standard proof texts. They focus on the practical aspects of Catholic apologetics. You will learn, not only WHAT to say, but HOW to explain your Faith in an effective manner. I've packed my fifteen years of experience as a professional apologist into these classes. This will be my fourth year teaching this material and I can tell you that it has been fine-tuned and very effective as my former students will attest.

Classes will be held every Wednesday at 6:30 PM at the new E.C.R.C. education center located at the corner of W. Maple Rd. (15 Mile) and Inkster Rd. in Bloomfield, Michigan. These classes are open to all Catholics interested in apologetics. There will be no charge for the classes. The course material booklet will be available for students for an nominal fee at the beginning of class.

Breakout workshops: For the first time this year, we are going to have break out study sessions that will cover in depth areas outside of Catholic apologetics (e.g. Mormonism, Atheism, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Age, et al.). The time and date for the breakout sessions have not yet been worked out, but they will be posted on www.HandsOnApologetics.com as soon as they are settled.

If you'd like further information, please call St. Thomas Chaldean Catholic Church at 248-788-2460 or email me at Gary@HandsOnApologetics.com or visit http://www.ecrc.us/ Hope to see you there!

Final Response To White / Webster On Esdras & Trent

Putting Our Cards On The Table.

This is, I hope, the final chapter in a rather strange foray over the topic of whether Trent "rejected" Esdras. During my debate with James White on May 20, 2004, James questioned me as to whether the Council of Trent contradicted Hippo / Carthage when it "rejected" Esdras as part of the Old Testament canon. My response to him was that the council fathers voted not to address Esdras in its decree and therefore no contradiction existed. A few years later, a Reformed Protestant on the Catholic Answers Forum asked me to expand a little bit on my Esdras response. I replied that I was a little embarrassed for James because he relied on another person's argument (i.e. Bill Webster) without researching the matter more deeply ..."

Click Here For Full Article

Original Response To White / Webster On Trent And Esdras

Council of Trent:

Diaries, Acts, Letters and Tracts (New Collection)

(Fridburgi Brisgoviae, 1964)

Volume 4

(Click Here For Full Page)

(Above) Photocopy of Concilium Tridentinum, vol. 5, page 41, lines 30-31.

(Click Here For Full Page)

(Left) Photocopy of Trent's vote to not to reject Esdras in its decree, but to passover the question in silence. (Concilium Tridentinum, vol. 5, page 52, lines 22-32).

(Click Here for Full Page)