The Roman Catholic Canon and the Book of Esdras (Part One)

I've been challenged to revisit the controversy about Rome's canonical decrees and the book of 1 Esdras because "This question keeps popping up due to the fans of James Swan, James White, etc... parroting the same erroneous assertion." The controversy involves one of the books of Esdras, the decrees of Hippo and Carthage, and the infallible pronouncement on the canon by the Council of Trent. Did the earlier councils canonize a book that Trent did not? Do the councils contradict each other? The person challenging me says they didn't, and claims an article from 1907 by Father Hugh Pope proves it: The Third Book of Esdras and the Tridentine Council. Pope's basic argument is that when Hippo and Carthage referred to the two books of Esdras in their canon, they meant Ezra - Nehemiah, not the spurious book of 1 Esdras and a second book comprising Ezra - Nehemiah.

What's interesting about Father Pope's article is that in regard to literature about this issue, his work appears to have had little impact on scholarship, either when it was written, or now. It's generally accepted by both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholarship that the early church utilized the spurious book of 1 Esdras, and it's highly likely the Hippo and Carthage did indeed have the spurious book of 1 Esdras in mind when it considered the Biblical canon. As I've surveyed some of the available literature, Pope's article is not typically referred to as any sort of definitive apologetic setting the record straight. A few of Rome's bloggers have certainly picked it up (like this blog for instance), and I have my suspicions that this article may have also used it, but scholarship itself appears to have generally ignored it. In the early 1900's I came across a few mentions of the article, but not meaningful mentions, typically just announcements of the article. Some of Pope's arguments are found elsewhere in credible sources. It seems likely that some sources since 1907 positively utilized Pope's article, but I've yet to find them. Of course, scholarship is not infallible, so it's certainly possible that Hugh Pope is the voice of truth crying in the wilderness of scholarship.

In order to evaluate Pope's article, I'd like to first present some background as to the way this controversy has recently played out. In a future blog entry, Hugh Pope's arguments will be laid out. To try and keep things cogent throughout these articles, I will refer to the disputed book of Esdras as "1 Esdras," though there may be times that "3 Esdras" is used to refer to the same book.

William Webster: The Different Canons of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent
I wrote about the 1 Esdras dilemma in 2006 when I briefly outlined the problem as presented by William Webster in his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. 2 (Battle Ground: Christian Resources Inc., 2001), p. 346-348 [Webster's material from his book can be found in this link]. In terms of Internet apologetics and cyber-battles with Rome's defenders, I would posit that it was probably Mr. Webster that popularized the argument about contradictory Councils and the canon with 1 Esdras acting as the grenade. The basic gist is that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage had a different 1 Esdras than Trent did. Mr. Webster argues in part,

Roman Catholic apologists argue that the canon was authoritatively settled for the universal Church at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. However, the canon decreed by the North African Councils differed from that decreed by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century on one important point. Hippo and Carthage stated that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras were canonical, referring to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras, the Bible their Latin version was based upon. In that version, 1 Esdras was the apocryphal additions to Ezra and Nehemiah not found in the Hebrew Bible, while 2 Esdras was the canonical Jewish version of Ezra-Nehemiah. The Jews only acknowledged Ezra and Nehemiah which they combined into one book. This was 2 Esdras in the Septuagint version. It was Jerome (in his Latin Vulgate) who separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, calling them 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras respectively. This became standard for the Vulgate and the basis upon which Trent declared the Septuagint I Esdras to be noncanonical. 1 Esdras in the Septuagint then became 3 Esdras in the Vulgate and the other Apocryphal apocalyptic work of 3 Esdras became 4 Esdras in the Vulgate.

According to Webster, the North African church relied on the Septuagint, and the Septuagint contained the spurious 1 Esdras. There does not appear to be much dispute about this. It's generally recognized that the spurious 1 Esdras was included in the LXX, by both Roman Catholic scholarship and Protestant scholarship. It's not sinister at all: Roger Beckwith notes that Josephus and "the Fathers of the first four centuries" appear to have preferred 1 Esdras over "the corresponding part of Esdras B (Ezra–Nehemiah)," not because they considered it a different book, but because "they regarded it as an alternative (and fuller) Greek translation of the same book" [Beckwith, R. T., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985) p. 340]. Brill's Commentary on 1 Esdras states,

1 Esdras is found in a number of early Christian manuscripts and extant in various translations of ancient Christian Bibles. for a case in point, the presence of 1 Esdras in Codex Vaticanus means that it was copied, read, studied, and preached by Christians and for Christians [link].

The Brill commentary also goes on to document the usage of  "1 Esdras as Christian 'Scripture'." This basic point of manuscript existence and church usage is important because Hugh Pope argues that "the oldest LXX MSS which we possess.. came into existence a few years before the African councils [of Hippo and Carthage], as if there is a serious possibility that the extant LXX manuscripts contained the spurious 1 Esdras as a novelty! Pope refers to this as "the one positive argument alleged for identifying Esdras I and II of the African Councils." It seems highly unlikely that, given all the usage of 1 Esdras in the first five centuries of the church that Hippo and Carthage did not understand 1 Esdras to be the spurious 1 Esdras. Pope attempts to downplay these basic facts because granting their truth collapses the rest of his argumentation.


James White vs. Gary Michuta vs. William Webster 

In 2004, Dr. White debated Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta on the Apocrypha. He raised this very issue (fast forward in the video to 1:39:15). Responding to Dr. White,  Mr. Michuta says, "William Webster is wrong" because Trent chose to pass over 1 Esdras "in silence" and not make a decision one way or the other in regard to the canonicity of the book. A few years later Mr. Michuta published Why Catholic Bible Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007) and used the same argument. I wrote about Mr. Michuta's argument a number of times when his book came out (see for instance, this link).

This may seem like a reasonable solution to keep the integrity of Rome's decrees in unison. Unfortunately, while one problem may be solved (the councils do not contradict each other), others surface. Let’s grant that Trent "passed over in silence" on ruling on the book of 1 Esdras. This means the possibility exists that the book in question is canonical, but not currently in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. Their arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles according to their own worldview. It would also mean, the canon is still open. Even more troubling for Michuta’s position are the statements put forth on the closed canon from the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Catechism states, “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.” Notice the words, complete list. If a book is passed over in silence, and may in fact be canonical, the list is not complete. On a theological level, what does it say about Rome's version of the Holy Spirit for an infallible council to pass over something that may be Holy-Spirit inspired Scripture? 

If Mr. Michuta is correct about Trent "passing over in silence" on 1 Esdras, then yes, there is a narrow sense in which William Webster could be wrong that the councils contradict each other. That is, if 1 Esdras is in some sort of conciliar holding pen waiting to be ruled on, the only option to keep Rome's councils from contradicting each other is to deem the book to be sacred Scripture. Will this happen? I doubt it. Rome doesn't appear these days to care about 1 Esdras. Webster's argument has been placed in a conciliar holding pen that's long since been forgotten by Rome's magisterium. If they know where this holding pen is, they don't appear to care.  

Mr. Webster responded to Mr. Michuta by saying, "Trent has spoken quite clearly. 1 Esdras is not canonical. Nowhere in the official list of canonical books is 1 Esdras to be found. The only books that are canonical are those listed by Trent." On Webster's side is the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states of 1 Esdras, "The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon." Also in editions of the Vulgate after Trent's decree 1 Esdras placement is tenuous. The 1590 Vulgate omits it, while the 1593 Vulgate places it in an appendix with a preface that says, 

Porro in hac editione nihil non canonicum, nihil adscititium, nihil extraneum apponere visum est: atque ea causa fuit, cur libri tertius et quartus Esdrae inscripti, quos inter canonicos libros sacra Tridentina Synodus non annumeravit, ipsa etiam Manassae regis Oratio, quae neque hebraice, neque graece quidem exstat, neque in manuscriptis antiquioribus invenitur, neque pars est ullius canonici libri, extra canonicae scripturae seriem posita sunt.[link]

 Also on Webster's side is that Trent's canon is held to be definitive by Roman Catholic sources, and in fact, other than Mr. Michuta, I've not yet come across any of Rome's defenders saying the canon is theoretically still open because of Trent's silence on 1 Esdras. No, quite the contrary: Rome's defenders typically battle with the understanding that the canon was settled once and for all by their infallible magisterium. 

Is Gary Michuta Making Up "Passed Over in Silence"?  

What can be said about Mr. Michuta's claims that 1 Esdras was "passed over in silence"? Did he make it up? No, I don't believe he did. In his book, he states the following:

The question was (and still is) 'is Esdras a separate book that happened to use an awful lot of canonical material,' or 'is it an early recension of Scripture with some additional non-canonical material added?' No one knows. The only thing certain about Esdras' canonical pedigree is that it is uncertain.

Many things are questionable about Esdras. The Council of Carthage may have included Esdras on its list. We don't know for certain. Esdras may be an individual book or it may be a recension. No one knows. A few Church Fathers may have used Esdras as a canonical book, but this usage disappeared around the fifth century, although it remained in the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint. By the time of Trent, the exact nature of the Esdras, both its form and its canonical status, was open to doubt. The best move for Trent was not to move at all.

The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent's list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books. In post-Tridentine editions of the Vulgate, Esdras and the others were moved to an appendix in the back.

Those who claim then, that Trent" rejected Esdras are mistaken. It did not. In fact, any rejection or affirmation was purposefully withheld. If there was no decision, then Trent cannot be said to have contradicted Carthage. The question of Esdras' canonical status was left theoretically open. [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), p. 240-241].

The information from Mr. Michuta that's most important to this discussion is Trent's vote. Gary documents the information as coming from Peter G. Duncker, The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent [The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3 (July 1953), p. 293-294]. The pertinent section from Duncker isn't that long:

The difficulties made against the wording of the decree, that concern us, are expressed in the following of the 14 “capita dubitationum”:

4. Whether the so-called apocryphal books that are usually included in all the Vulgate codices of the Bible with the sacred books, are to be “nominatim” rejected by this decree, or to be silently omitted.

We may be very brief here. This point arose as a result of an observation of some of the Fathers about such books as 3-4 Esd and 3 Mc; but there was no question that they should be regarded as Sacred Books. The term “apocryphal״ has here undoubtedly the sense, as we Catholics understand the word, applied to the books that non-Catholics call “pseudepigraphic.” The result of the vote indicated that only three Fathers wanted the books to be rejected expressly, eight did not express themselves, forty-two preferred that nothing be said about them. In the later Vulgate editions 3-4 Esd and the prayer of Manasse were added, but as outside the Sacred Books.

The point to keep in mind here is that Duncker states that Trent debated "the so-called apocryphal books that are usually included in all the Vulgate codices." Trent recognized that 3 Esdras (remember- also known as 1 Esdras!) was in the earlier Vulgate. Where does this information come from? Duncker utilized Societas Goerresiana, Concilium Tridentinum (CT). Throughout  the article he relied on reliable primary sources (p.277).

My conclusion? I think that the vote did occur and Trent passed over 1 Esdras in silence. It was probably a pragmatic solution for an issue that Trent's participants didn't really care that much about. It appears to me that Trent's participants were aware of the spurious nature of 1 Esdras, and this can be verified that after Trent, as Duncker states, "In the later Vulgate editions 3-4 Esd and the prayer of Manasse were added, but as outside the Sacred Books." Does this "silence" on 1 Esdras mean William Webster was wrong? No. If Carthage and Hippo really had 1 Esdras in their canon, then most certainly Trent does not officially have it in its canon... yet.

All of this tedium about William Webster, Gary Michuta, and Trent's vote on 1 Esdras demonstrates that Trent recognized there was a problem with 1 Esdras, and that 1 Esdras had been around in the church's usage and manuscripts. While this excursion does not definitively interpret what Hippo and Carthage meant by the two books of Esdras, it does speak to the fact that 1 Esdras was not definitively renounced by the pre-African Council church. If Hugh Pope's paradigm were true, there should not have been any sort of debate at Trent in regard to the book. Pope would have his readers believe that 1 Esdras was rejected previous to the North African Councils, yet Trent demonstrates the book was never definitively rejected, and if Michuta is correct, it hasn't been rejected to this day.

Was 1 Esdras Considered Canonical Previous to the Vulgate?
Was 1 Esdras actually the book in view by Carthage and Hippo? If it was, then all bets are off for Rome's defenders. Mr. Michuta does not deny that the book the Council of Carthage canonized was the spurious 1 Esdras. He says, "Carthage did, indeed, accept 'Esdras, two books" and the identity of these two books seems straightforward enough" (p.238). Gary asks, "[W]hat did the Council of Carthage mean when it called for a canon with 'Esdras two books'? Did it mean Nehemiah alone, or did it mean Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esdras proper? It is difficult to tell. It appears that Carthage would have more likely included Esdras, not omitted it. However, neither case is certain" (p.239). Mr. Michuta documents this by referring to Francis Gigot, General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures (New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1900), p. 121. Gigot  is far more certain than Mr. Michuta. He states,

The Third Book of Esdras.

The second apocryphal writing now placed at the end of the authorized editions of the Latin Version, is the third book of Esdras, thus called in the Vulgate because our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias are known respectively as the first and the second book of Esdras. In the old Latin, Syriac and Septuagint versions, it was named the first book of Esdras from its position immediately before our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias. This latter name has great historical importance, inasmuch as when early Councils and writers of the Church speak of the first book of Esdras they have in view our third book of  that name, and when in their lists of sacred books they mention only two books of Esdras, the first to which they allude is our third book, while their second corresponds to our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias counted together as one work.  

The nomenclature just referred to is found in the African councils of Hippo and Carthage, in the writings of St. Augustine, Pope Innocent I and Cassiodorus, and proves beyond doubt that at a given time the canonicity of the third book of Esdras was officially recognized, at least in the Western churches. About the same period, the sacred character of this book was taken for granted by the leading writers of the East, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, who agree with St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others in the West, in quoting as Holy Writ passages found nowhere except in the third book of Esdras. It is not therefore surprising to find that in presence of such unanimity of the East and of the West, up to the fifth century of our era, some writers should have affirmed that this work is truly canonical and inspired. They remark that the Catholic Church, far from rejecting it positively as apocryphal, has allowed its use and inserted it in its official edition of the Vulgate and of the Septuagint ; that by far the largest part of its contents is simply a duplicate of canonical passages in the second book of Paralipomenon and in the first and second of Esdras ; and that, finally, it is difficult to see how the fact that the writing in question has ceased to be in use since the fifth century of our era, can invalidate the earlier positive testimony in its favor. (p. 121-122)

Utilizing Gigot, Mr. Michuta provides a helpful breakdown of exactly what is contained in 1 Esdras. It is a nine chapter book that takes sections from Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah and also adds in approximately two chapter of unique material, 1 Esdras 3-5:6  (Michuta, p.239; Gigot, p.122). The text of 1 Esdras can be found here.

Gigot is an older source, yet similar findings were noted in Brill's Septuagint Commentary on 1 Esdras by Michael F. Bird. He states:

The Brill commentary also goes on to document the usage of "1 Esdras as Christian 'Scripture'." It seems highly unlikely that, given all the usage of 1 Esdras in the first five centuries of the church that Hippo and Carthage did not understand 1 Esdras to be the spurious 1 Esdras.


Addendum: A Breakdown of 1 Esdras (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Although not belonging to the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, this book is usually found, ne prorsus intereat, in an appendix to the editions of the Vulgate. It is made up almost entirely from materials existing in canonical books. The following scheme will show sufficiently the contents and point out the canonical parallels:

-III Esdras, i and 2 Chronicles 35, 36 — History of the Kingdom of Juda from the great Passover of Josias to the Captivity.
-III Esdras, ii, 1-15 (Greek text, 14) and I Esdras, i — Cyrus's decree. Return of Sassabasar.
-III Esdras, ii, 16 (Gr. 15)-31 (Gr. 25) and I Esdras, iv, 6-24 — Opposition to the rebuilding of the Temple.
-III Esdras, iii, 1-v, 6 — Original portion. Story of the three pages. Return of Zorobabel.
-III Esdras, v, 7-46 (Gr. 45) and I Esdras, ii — List of those returning with Zorobabel.
-III Esdras, v, 47 (Gr. 46)-73 (Gr. 70) and I Esdras, iii, 1-iv, 5 — Altar of holocausts. Foundation of the Temple laid. Opposition.
-III Esdras, vi, vii and I Esdras, v, vi — Completion of the Temple.
-III Esdras, viii, 1-ix, 36 and I Esdras, vii-x — Return of Esdras.
-III Esdras, ix, 37-56 (Gr. 55) and II Esdras, vii, 73-viii, 12 — Reading of the Law by Esdras.

The book is incomplete, and breaks off in the middle of a sentence. True, the Latin version completes the broken phrase of the Greek; but the book in its entirety probably contained also the narrative of the feast of Tabernacles (Nehemiah 8). A very strange feature in the work is its absolute disregard of chronological order; thehistory, indeed, runs directly backwards, mentioning first Artaxerxes (ii, 16-31), then Darius (iii-v, 6), finally Cyrus (v, 7-73). All this makes it difficult to detect the real object of the book and the purpose of the compiler. It has been suggested that we possess here a history of the Temple from the time of Josias down to Nehemias, and this view is well supported by the subscription of the old Latin version. Others suppose that, in the main, the book is rather an early translation of the chronicler's work, made at a time when Paralipomenon, Esdras, and Neh. still formed one continuous volume. Be this as it may, there seems to have been, up to St. Jerome, some hesitation with regard to the reception of the book into the Canon; it was freely quoted by the early Fathers, and included in Origen's "Hexapla". This might be accounted for by the fact that III Esd. may be considered as another recension of canonical Scriptures. Unquestionably our book cannot claim to be Esdras's work. From certain particulars, such as the close resemblance of the Greek with that of the translation of Daniel, some details of vocabulary, etc., scholars are led to believe that IIIEsd. was compiled, probably in Lower Egypt, during the second century B.C. Of the author nothing can be said except, perhaps, that the above-noted resemblance of style to Dan. might incline one to conclude that both works are possibly from the same hand.

Why the Canon Is Closed According to Roman Catholic Apologists, and Why the Canon is Not Closed According to Roman Catholic Apologists

You can't make this stuff up:

The Canon is closed:

"Scripture was Scripture before the canon was declared. Vatican I and Vatican II both state this. The canon is not Scripture itself, but the authoritative list of biblical books. Thus, there is no difficulty in saying 'Scripture existed before the canon was declared.' Indeed, this was necessarily the case, since declaring a list of biblical books presupposes that there are biblical books to be listed! The point of the canon was to end dispute once and for all as to which books are part of the Bible, since some didn't accept various books, and others thought books were Scripture that were not (as later determined by councils and popes and general consensus)."

"I would say that many Christians largely knew what books were part of Scripture, but not exactly or with precision, and that's where the Church's declarations were important and necessary: to remove any remaining doubt and make it more certain what books were in the Bible."[source]

The canon is open:

"The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent's list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books.

...The question of Esdras' canonical status was left theoretically open." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 240-241].

"Let me be perfectly clear. My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else's interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact." Source: Silence and the Problem of Catholic Canon Certainty

Luther and the Apocrypha Revisited

A few years back, Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta released Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. One of Gary's arguments is that Luther was cornered in a debate and forced to deny the canonicity of the apocrypha (or deuterocanonicals).  The picture above is from Gary's website. I guess it's supposed to highlight Luther's change of mind on this subject.

According to Mr. Michuta, before the Leipzig disputation against Eck, Luther accepted the Deuterocanon as authoritatively canonical (p.247-248). As proof, he notes "In 1518, Luther freely quoted Sirach and Tobit against his Catholic detractors; but by the following year, Luther's view of the Deuterocanon had taken a decidedly negative turn" (p. 248). The event of the following year provoking Luther's change was the Leipzig disputation. During the Leipzig Disputation, Eck cornered Luther by forcing him to deny the canonicty of 2 Maccabees. "Eck appealed to 2 Maccabees 12:46 as a clear and incontestable proof from Scripture that Purgatory exists" (p.249). He then quotes Luther responding "There is no proof of Purgatory in any portion of sacred Scripture, for the book of Maccabees not being in the Canon, is of weight with the faithful, but avails nothing with the obstinate" (249). Michuta concludes, "Like the Marcionites, Ebionities, and Gnostics before him, Luther's theological convictions determined what constituted the canonical Scriptures. Consequently, Maccabees could never be allowed full canonical authority because it contradicts Luther's theology" (p. 252). Luther simply pulled out Jerome's appeal to the smaller rabbinical Jewish canon in order to deny Purgatory. Reading between the lines, Michuta is arguing Luther is fundamentally dishonest and simply changed to the smaller canon to just pick and choose his theology.

I went through this argument in a previous blog entry. There I pointed out Luther was heavily schooled with the Glossa ordinaria. When commenting on the apocryphal books, this work prefixes this introduction to them: Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. The schooling Luther received informed his opinion on the canon. Even the Occamist influence in Luther's life would have probably informed him similarly. Michuta himself notes Occam held to the allowance of reading the apocrypha, but that the books were not canonical (p. 218).

As a follow up, I came across a few quotes about one of Luther's teachers, Jodocus Trutfetter (or Trutvetter) of Eisenach. I was correct, Luther did learn about the canon from his Nominalist teachers:

In a letter to Trutvetter Luther acknowledges that it was from him that he had first learned that the Christian faith must be based solely upon the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures and that all other writings must be critically studied (WA, Br 1, 171) [Willem Jan Kooiman, Luther and the Bible (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961), p. 14]. [Reference to WA, Br 1 may be wrong]

[T]he two' men from whom Luther probably received the greater part of his theological and philosophical training, Bartholomew Arnoldi von Usingen and Jodocus Trutvetter of Eisenach, appear to have lived on friendly terms with the humanists, who were half-unconsciously their irreconcilable foes. Both were teachers in the philosophical faculty, and both, though tinged with classical learning, remained at the old standpoint of thought Usingen, perhaps the more conservative of the two, was an Augustinian, and so, after a time, brought into peculiarly close relations with Luther. His works, especially an exposition of Donatus, though written in a barbarous style, were full of illustrative quotations from Latin authors. Trutvetter best represented the orthodox speculation of the University. He was known, par excellence, as the Doctor of Erfurt. Luther calls him the first dialectician of the age. In 1507 he was invited to Wittenberg, where he taught for some years, returning to Erfurt in 1510. He was a Nominalist of the school of Occam, and at the same time a leader of the party who called themselves "moderns," in opposition to the "ancients": men, that is, who were not deterred by respect for old traditions from the attempt to improve existing textbooks and to carry forward their science into new fields of thought. His numerous works prove his acquaintance with classical, though chiefly Latin, authors, and the young humanists, with whom he lived on friendly terms, adorned them with commendatory verses. The most characteristic thing that we know of him is that he taught Luther to distinguish between the faith due to the Canonical books of Scripture and the free judgment that might be applied to others. Even so late as May 1518, some months after the publication of the Ninety five Theses, Luther writes to him in the friendliest terms, if not in the expectation of winning his support, at least hoping to disarm his opposition (De W. vol. i pp 107, 127) [source]

Jodocus Trutfetter, Luther's old professor at the University of Erfurt, heard from him, " You have been the first to teach me that we must read the canonical books with faith, all others with discernment." (Luther's letter to Trutfetter, May 9, 1518, Brief wechsel, I, No. 77, p. 187) [source]

Mr. Michuta has responded to a number of my aomin blog entries, but as far as I know, he's not written a word about any of my Luther entries that were based on his book.

The approach I take is the exact opposite of Michuta. I consider Luther fundamentally honest on this issue. He denied the authority of 2 Maccabees to establish doctrine because that was simply how he was trained as a theologian, and he followed a tradition which denied the apocrypha authority to establish doctrine. Luther in fact provides detailed opinions of the apocryphal books in his biblical prefaces. I see no reason to grant that his entire opinion suddenly shifted because of Eck at Leipzig. Luther quoted from the Deuterocanonicals throughout his entire career, in a manner consistent with the views expressed in his Biblical prefaces.

Is it Prideful to Claim the Book of Judith has Historical Errors?

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 11/17/2008

Back in 2004 I attended Dr. White's debate with Catholic apologist Gary Michuta on the Apocrypha. The cross-examination period was the key moment in determining whose position actually made the most sense of the historical facts. One of the questions Dr. White asked Mr. Michuta was about the historical accuracy of the book of Judith. Judith claims Nebuchadnezzar reigned from Nineveh (Judith asserts Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, ruling from Nineveh). The problem Catholic apologists face is that the historical and Biblical evidence does not bear these claims out. Nebuchadnezzar was actually the king of Babylon, and did not rule from Nineveh.

Here is a brief MP3 clip of the actual question and answer from the 2004 debate. In Mr. Michuta's response, he assumes Judith is scripture, and appeals to problems of Biblical inerrancy as an answer. That is, non-Christian scholars have attempted numerous times to indict the Bible of an historical error, only to eat their words when either archaeology or textual analysis resolve the alleged error or contradiction. Michuta assumes the same is the case with the historical claims of Judith. He concludes that he isn't going to answer the question, because in actuality, it presupposes a non-Christian worldview. He treats Judith as an historical work. Since it is Scripture, any errors must be alleged errors.

In his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Michuta reaffirms this method of response: "The best way out of this dilemma is not to enter it at all. Biblical inerrancy is not based upon our feeble abilities to solve every problem" (p. 322). Michuta further states, "The problem at the heart of this line of argumentation [by Protestants pointing out historical errors in the Apocrypha] is one of pride. It places the intellect in the role of judge, allowing it to sit in judgment upon the Word of God" (p. 323).

But it appears it's not only Protestants who struggle with pridefully using their intellect to judge the Bible. Those in charge of The Jerusalem Bible likewise struggle with this pride. They state, "...[H]istorically he was king of Babylon and was never styled 'king of Assyria,' and Nineveh was not his capital city." I hear the complaint already, "The Jerusalem Bible was produced by liberal Catholics." Okay, well the New Catholic Answer Bible likewise seems to have a pride problem. It states, "Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail. The story was written as a pious reflection on the meaning of the yearly Passover observance" (p. 442).

But the most fascinating example of pride comes from a very recent broadcast of Catholic Answers Live. Tim Staples was asked directly about the historical errors in the book of Judith. Tim answers by stating Judith is not strict history, but is rather an extended parable, and he reluctantly uses the phrase "didactic fiction." Here is the brief MP3 clip of the actual question and answer from Catholic Answers Live. I've never done a study on this, but I wonder how many Biblical "extended parables" actually contain seemingly historical facts that are in error, but get passed over because they were not meant to be correct facts. Staples position implies that if Judith is actual history, it is indeed in error.

Tim goes on to further assert that the book of Jonah is not a historical book, but is rather a "timeless story." Ironically, Michuta chastises higher critics in his book for attacking Jonah and the rest of Scripture with charges of historical error (p.323), and by doing so I assume he considers Jonah a historical and prophetic narrative. (As an ironic aside, one of the popular Catholic charges against Luther is that he denied Jonah as history).

Michuta concludes someone with humility would simply accept the canon of Scripture as given to the Roman Catholic Church:

"It takes humility to accept the canon of Scripture as given to the Church. But once we have made such an act all the glories of the Bible open up to us. we may humbly submit our intellect to the text, sitting at the Master's feet like little children, knowing that even if the power to solve all difficulties is beyond us, there is nevertheless a solution. To do otherwise would be not only anti-Protestant (since it violates Sola Scriptura), but anti-Catholic and anti-Christian as well" (p. 323).

Catholic Answers often promotes Mr. Michuta's book as the definitive source for information about the Apocrypha. I wonder if Gary Michuta considers Tim Staples "anti-Catholic" for his position on Judith and Jonah? That would be a "Catholic Answer" I'd like to have. He probably would not. I'd probably get an answer that states since Staples doesn't treat the book as history, he doesn't fall under the condemnation of "pride."

Rome's authoritative statements on issues like this are rare, if not completely absent, so a Catholic apologist is able to affirm what another Catholic apologist denies. Where is Rome's infallible help on this issue? Is the book history or an extended parable? I think before any Catholic apologist ventures into an Apocrypha debate or offers a "Catholic Answer," perhaps they should at least figure out which genre the book is before they decide what is really prideful or humble.

Why Luther Removed 2 Maccabees from the Bible

Over on the Catholic Answers apologetics forum (now defunct), I've spent some time engaging Roman Catholics (and one Lutheran) in a thread entitled, Martin Luther and the Deuterocanonicals. The basic question being asked is: why did Martin Luther remove the Apocrypha from the Bible? 

It didn't take long in the discussion before the standard Roman Catholic answer appeared. According to many Roman Catholics, Luther removed the Apocrypha because it disagreed with his theology. For instance, 2 Maccabees 12:46 substantiates such things like Purgatory, and since Luther didn't believe in Purgatory, he removed it.  The second part of this Roman Catholic argument is that Luther was cornered into rejecting 2 Maccabees while debating John Eck on Purgatory. It has become standard now to mention Gary Michuta's argumentation on this from his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger for historical support on: Eck vs. Luther= remove 2 Maccabees.

That awful Luther just couldn't stand Roman doctrines, so he rejected all the Apocryphal books (read: sarcasm). But wait a minute... there are a few other Apocryphal books that go along with 2 Maccabees! I don't think I've ever heard a Roman Catholic explain which Roman Catholic doctrines the other books substantiate purgatory and why Luther rejected them, provoked by purgatory. No, their emphasis is always on Purgatory and 2 Maccabees. There alone a red flag should go up that perhaps the typical Roman Catholic response doesn't match up to historical reality. That Luther may have rejected one book because it taught a distinctly Roman Catholic doctrine doesn't explain why he rejected the other apocryphal books.

One of my favorite monkey wrenches to throw into these types of discussions is the ironic fact that when Luther engaged John Eck on purgatory, he still believed in Purgatory at this time and continued to do so for quite a while after the debate. 

Finally after a few days, a Roman Catholic response with some substance attempted to deal with this. Below is my reply to this response. I first debunked Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's argument, then I touched on the main thrust of the argument directed at my way.

1. Gary Michuta, Luther, and Leipzig
Mr. Michuta's underlying argument against Luther in Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger is as follows. Before the 1519 Leipzig disputation against Roman Cathoic theologian JohnEck, Luther accepted the Apocrypha as authoritatively canonical (p. 247-248). As proof, he notes "In 1518, Luther freely quoted Sirach and Tobit against his Catholic detractors; but by the following year, Luther's view of the Deuterocanon had taken a decidedly negative turn" (p. 248). The event of the following year provoking Luther's change was the Leipzig disputation. During the Leipzig Disputation, Eck cornered Luther by forcing him to deny the canonicity of 2 Maccabees. "Eck appealed to 2 Maccabees 12:46 as a clear and incontestable proof from Scripture that Purgatory exists" (p.249).  He then quotes Luther responding "There is no proof of Purgatory in any portion of sacred Scripture, for the book of Maccabees not being in the Canon, is of weight with the faithful, but avails nothing with the obstinate" (p. 249). Michuta concludes, "Like the Marcionites, Ebionities, and Gnostics before him, Luther's theological convictions determined what constituted the canonical Scriptures. Consequently, Maccabees could never be allowed full canonical authority because it contradicts Luther's theology" (p. 252). Luther simply pulled out Jerome's appeal to the smaller rabbinical Jewish canon in order to deny Purgatory. Reading between the lines, Mr. Michuta is arguing Luther is fundamentally dishonest and simply changed to the smaller canon to just pick and choose his theology and squirm out of Eck's argument.

2. A Response to Gary Michuta's Argument
Contrary to Mr. Michuta's caricature of Luther pre-Leipzig, the reason why Luther could quote Sirach and Tobit is because Luther was heavily schooled with the Glossa Ordinaria. This standard source echoed the position of Jerome on the Apocrypha, that the books were of secondary or ecclesiastical canonical status. 

This standard medieval source informed his opinion on the canon. Even the Occamist influence in Luther's early training would have informed him similarly. Mr. Michuta himself notes Occam held to the allowance of reading the Apocrypha, but that the books were not canonical (p. 218).

Therefore, it wouldn't be odd to find Luther familiar with or fluent in the Apocrypha, but that doesn't mean he believed it was canonical scripture. If one reads Luther's preface to the Apocrypha, one will find the actual reasons he classified these books as non-canonical, and those reasons often echo previous voices from church history. What one will find in Luther's writings is that he  approvingly quoted from Sirach and Tobit throughout his career. The same type of citations found in Luther's Resolutions cited by Mr. Michuta are found later in Luther's writings. Mr. Michuta left this fact out or was perhaps unaware of it? If indeed the debate with Eck forced Luther to change his opinion on the Apocrypha, one would expect to find Luther's citations different than previously. What one finds is the exact method of citation from the Apocrypha both before and after Luther's encounter with Eck. Luther's last writings were his Lectures on Genesis. Both Sirach and Tobit are cited by Luther in a very similar way to that in The Resolutions (or as Michuta would say, in a method commensurate with sacred scripture) yet, not considering it canonical scripture.

The approach I take is the exact opposite of Mr. Michuta. I consider Luther fundamentally honest on this issue. He denied the authority of 2 Maccabees to establish doctrine because that was simply how he was trained as a theologian, following in a a tradition which denied the Apocrypha authority to establish doctrine.  Luther provides detailed opinions of the Deuterocanonical books in his biblical prefaces. There is no reason to grant that his entire opinion suddenly shifted because of Eck at Leipzig.  Luther quoted from the Apocrypha throughout his entire career, in a manner consistent with the views expressed in his Biblical prefaces. Mr. Michuta's paradigm has no way to account for this.

3. Catholic Answers
Returning to this Catholic Answers discussion. The thread begins with, "I've heard many of the Catholic apologists on this site make the claim that Martin Luther 'removed' the DC's because they provided biblical evidence for Catholic beliefs that Luther disagreed with (purgatory, etc)." Then added later, "For Catholics, I would hope we have some historical evidence to back up the claim that Luther did it for the reasons we say he did it."One Roman Catholic particpant found it hard to believe anyone would dispute that Luther removed the Apocrypha because it provided Biblical evidence for Roman Catholic beliefs: "I would think the story plausible enough to be true. It explains why the OT and NT canon became such a hot topic for Luther. If a part of Scripture didn't agree with his theology, a good strategy would be question the Book's authenticity." He also quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia stating, "In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the books was outside the Canon." Another contributor states,

"One of the reasons that Luther is perceived to have done this is detailed in the book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger by Gary Michuta. (which I happen to think is the best apologetics book published this century so far) In it he details an account of where Luther once spoke favorably of Maccabbees and then did a 180 later when he was debating Eck on purgatory."

There are therefore a number of people on Mr. Michuta's wavelength: Luther denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha, at least 2 Maccabees, because it clearly teaches Purgatory. Of course, the other Apocryphal books aren't  mentioned. This is the only issue ever brought up: 2 Maccabees and Purgatory.  This is historical Roman Catholic myopic reasoning.

Then appeared the first meaningful Roman Catholic response to my contributions to this discussion by someone whom I think is named Sam Entile (this is his Catholic Answers signature link). Sam makes some good points taking this discussion to a deeper level.

Sam says,"Whether or not Luther believed there was a Purgatory is beside the point." What? This has been the thrust of the entire discussion, and as another participant stated, "If a part of Scripture didn't agree with [Luther's] theology, a good strategy would be question the Book's authenticity." The very question that opened thread asked if Luther removed "the DC's because they provided biblical evidence for Catholic beliefs that Luther disagreed with (purgatory, etc)." Mr. Michuta states, "Maccabees could never be allowed full canonical authority because it contradicts Luther's theology." Almost the entire tenor of the discussion revolves around whether or not Luther removed certain books because it contradicted his theology. The underlying assumption is that Luther's theology denied purgatory, so certain books had to go. This happens because many (if not most) Roman Catholics assume Luther didn't believe in Purgatory in 1519.  Luther still believed in Purgatory in 1519, and continued to do so for some time afterward. Sam said also,

"Luther had a major problem with the Catholic understanding of Purgatory, which included the help we can exercise for them by way of penances, including a financial penance. (Even Michuta, in a post Swan cites, says Luther rejected 'Purgatory and all that goes along with it [prayer and sacrifices].' I think a careful reading of the section in Gary's book also shows this to be the context of Luther's theological departure from the Catholic understanding."

Sam also launched into a discussion on indulgences related to purgatory. This is anachronism. There was no complete dogma on the indulgence when Luther posted the Ninety-Five Theses, or at the 1519 Leipzig debate. There was no official Roman Catholic doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence and all that goes along with it upon purgatory. Until that was defined, theologians were able to debate on it, which is exactly what Luther did.

As to "a careful reading of Gary's book" which "shows this to be the context of Luther's theological departure from the Catholic understanding" I'd simply have to say: show me. I am working from the 1st edition, so if Gary Michuta has updated his arguments, I haven't seen them. I would posit though, if he did, he probably did so as a response to my blog entries! Unless shown otherwise from a later edition or elsewhere, my description of Mr. Michuta's argument above stands unless demonstrated from the context of his book.

Sam then says, "Luther's idea of Purgatory was very different than the Catholic idea of interceding on behalf of those souls (which included financial penance)." What Sam hasn't done though is provided any in-depth study as to what Luther's view of purgatory actually was, or what this view dogmatically consisted of for Roman Catholic theologians during Luther's lifetime. He then reiterates that the "Catholic idea of interceding on behalf of those souls (which included financial penance)." The underlying assumption is this was the dogmatic Roman Catholic view during this period in Luther's life, but as has been pointed out, the relationship of indulgences and Purgatory were still an issue to be worked out. Theologians in a Roman Catholic system were free to debate on issues not yet dogmatically defined. So, arguing Luther didn't believe in Purgatory correctly fails as a way to get Mr. Michuta off the hook. Both Luther and Eck believed in Purgatory in 1519.

Conclusion
As stated above, the approach I take is the exact opposite of Mr. Michuta and the Catholic Answers participants. I consider Luther fundamentally honest on this issue. He denied the authority of 2 Maccabees to establish doctrine because that was simply how he was trained as a theologian. He followed a tradition which denied the Apocrypha authority to establish doctrine. Luther provided detailed opinions of the Apocryphal books in his biblical prefaces. I see no reason to grant that his entire opinion suddenly shifted because of Eck at Leipzig. 

Revised, April 2026

Luther and Purgatory, Revisited

While spending a little time on the Catholic Answers forum, I came across an error in a secondary resource I use: What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. This actually turned out to be a helpful error. Back in 2008 I cited Plass stating,

"When in 1518 [Luther] further explained his fifteenth thesis, he remarked: 'I am very certain that there is a purgatory,'... In the Leipzig debate of the following year purgatory was discussed at length...Luther there said he knew that there is a purgatory. The dispute was about the nature of the institution rather than its existence. The 'orthodox' Romanists contended for the meritorious character of the purging. But increasingly Luther could find no room for this figment in Scripture theology. By November 7, 1519, he had progressed far enough to write to Spalatin: 'It is certain that no one is a heretic who does not believe that there is a purgatory,' although he had still professed to believe in its existence in February of that year. In fact, also in the following year in 1520, he still holds to it. But thereafter his language becomes different until...he calls it a fabrication of the devil" [Plass, What Luther Says Volume 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 387-388 n.25].

This information from Plass is helpful in debunking Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's argument that Eck (in debate) forced Luther to abandon the canonicty of 2 Maccabees in order to deny the reality of purgatory (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger). According to Michuta, "Eck appealed to 2 Maccabees 12:46 as a clear and incontestable proof from Scripture that Purgatory exists." Gary states, "Luther refused to allow Maccabees into the argument" (Michuta, pp. 248-249), and "This denial of canonical status [of 2 Maccabees] was something new" (p.250). Michuta posits, "Consequently, Maccabees could never be allowed full canonical authority because it contradicts Luther's theology" (p.252). "Luther taught that Scripture alone is the highest and ultimate authority for the individual Christian. When confronted with Scripture that contradicted his theology (as he was with 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, used as a defense of Purgatory), Luther took advantage of the doubts raised by Jerome to deny that ancient book's full canonical weight" (p.309). One can see the picture of Luther being painted: the only way to get out of Eck's scriptural argument for proof of purgatory was to deny that the scriptural proof was truly Scripture! On the Catholic Answers forum, Michuta stated, "Luther was forced to reject (or down-grade) the authority of Maccabees because its meaning unmistakably affirmed Purgatory and all that goes along with it." One must question the motivation applied to Luther by Mr. Michuta in light of the fact that Luther had not yet denied purgatory.

Plass shows Luther still maintained a belief in purgatory even after the debate with Eck. Plass though didn't go far enough. The texts he cites to substantiate his assertion (WA 7:451; 454] are not from 1520, but are from the March 1521 treatise Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind. But also in 1521, Luther published his Defense and Explanations of all the Articles. Luther states,

THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ARTICLE
That there is a purgatory cannot be proved by those Scriptures which are authentic and trustworthy.

The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory, and it seems not beyond belief that some of the dead suffer in like manner. Tauler has much to say about it, and, in short, I myself have come to the conclusion that there is a purgatory, but I cannot force anybody else to come to the same result.

There is only one thing that I have criticized, namely, the way in which my opponents refer to purgatory passages in Scripture which are so inapplicable that it is shameful. For example, they apply Ps. 66[:12], “We went through fire and through water,” though the whole psalm sings of the sufferings of the saints, whom no one places in purgatory. And they quote St. Paul in I Cor. 3[:13–15] when he says of the fire of the last day that it will test the good works, and by it some will be saved because they keep the faith, though their work may suffer loss. They turn this fire also into a purgatory, according to their custom of twisting Scripture and making it mean whatever they want.

And similarly they have arbitrarily dragged in the passage in Matt. 12[:32] in which Christ says, “Whoever speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.” Christ means here that he shall never be forgiven, as Mark 3[:29] explains, saying, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” To be sure, even St.Gregory interprets the passage in Matthew 12 to mean that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come, but St. Mark does not permit such an interpretation, and he counts for more than all the doctors.

I have discussed all this in order to show that no one is bound to believe more than what is based on Scripture, and those who do not believe in purgatory are not to be called heretics, if otherwise they accept Scripture in its entirety, as the Greek church does. The gospel compels me to believe that St. Peter and St. James are saints, but at the same time it is not necessary to believe that St. Peter is buried in Home and St. James at Compostella and that their bodies are still there, for Scripture does not report it. Again, there is no sin in holding that none of the saints whom the pope canonizes are saints, and no saint will be offended, for, as a matter of fact, there are many saints in heaven of whom we know nothing, and certainly not that they are saints, yet they are not offended, and do not consider us heretics because we do not know of them. The pope and his partisans play this game only in order to fabricate many wild articles of faith and thus make it possible to silence and suppress the true articles of the Scripture.

But their use of the passage in II Macc. 12[:43], which tells how Judas Maceabeus sent money to Jerusalem for prayers to be offered for those who fell in battle, proves nothing, for that book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written. In other respects, too, this book deserves little authority, for it contradicts the first Book of Maccabees in its description of King Antiochus, and contains many other fables which destroy its credibility. But even were the book authoritative, it would still be necessary in the case of so important an article that at least one passage out of the chief books [of the Bible] should support it, in order that every word might be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses. It must give rise to suspicion that in order to substantiate this doctrine no more than one passage could be discovered in the entire Bible; moreover this passage is in the least important and most despised book. Especially since so much depends on this doctrine which is so important that, indeed, the papacy and the whole hierarchy are all but built upon it, and derive all their wealth and honor from it. Surely, the majority of the priests would starve to death if there were no purgatory. Well, they should not offer such vague and feeble grounds for our faith! [LW 32:94-96]

The Canon of the Council of Laodicea

Here's a stray canon tidbit that doesn't get a lot of attention. A canon list purporting to have been compiled by the Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 363) excludes the apocrypha and the book of Revelation, and includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah (as part of Jeremiah).

59. Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.

60. It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [i.e. First and Second Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [i.e. First and Second Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel.

And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon. [source]

The Old Testament list is very similar to Cyril of Jerusalem's list, as well as that of Athanasius (with the exception of including Esther). If someone did add it at a later date, it's at least evidence that someone else denied the apocrypha, or felt the need to clarify Laodicea. An interesting question to ask about Canon #60: Did someone add it to make Canon #59 make more sense? If a Council is going to say "Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament," the next question is then "which books"?

While I wouldn't use this list as any sort of definitive canon proof, it does have an interesting history. Below are a sampling of some of the opinions on canon #60.


Phillip Schaff on Canon 60

Philip Schaff states:

In 1777 Spittler published a special treatise to shew that the list of scriptural books was no part of the original canon adopted by Laodicea. Hefele gives the following resume of his argument:

(a) That Dionysius Exiguus has not this canon in his translation of the Laodicean decrees. It might, indeed, be said with Dallaeus and Van Espen, that Dionysius omitted this list of the books of Scripture because in Rome, where he composed his work, another by Innocent I. was in general use.

(b) But, apart from the fact that Dionysius is always a most faithful translator, this sixtieth canon is also omitted by John of Antioch, one of the most esteemed and oldest Greek collectors of canons, who could have had no such reasons as Dionysius for his omission.

(c) Lastly, Bishop Martin of Braga in the sixth century, though he has the fifty-ninth, has also not included in his collection the sixtieth canon so nearly related to it, nor does the Isidorian translation appear at first to have had this canon. Herbst, in the Tubingen Review, also accedes to these arguments of Spittler’s, as did Fuchs and others before him. Mr. Ffoulkes in his article on the Council of Laodicea in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities at length attempts to refute all objections, and affirms the genuineness of the list, but his conclusions can hardly be accepted when the careful consideration and discussion of the matter by Bishop Westcott is kept in mind. (History of the Canon of the New Testament, IIId. Period, chapter 2:[p. 428 of the 4th Edition.]) [source]

On the absence of Revelation, Schaff states:

The Council of Laodicea (363) gives a list of the books of our New Testament with the exception of the Apocalypse. The last canon which contains this list, is probably a later addition, yet the long-established ecclesiastical use of all the books, with some doubts as to the Apocalypse, is confirmed by the scattered testimonies of all the great Nicene and post Nicene fathers, as Athanasius (d. 373), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Gregory of Nazianzum (d. 389), Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), Chrysostom (d. 407), etc. [source]

von Hefele on Canon 60
The major source Schaff is using is Karl Joseph von Hefele - A History of the Christian Councils: from the original documents. von Hefele was a Roman Catholic theologian (see the Catholic Encyclopedia). He actually argues in favor of canon #60, "the silence of Dionysins, John of Antioch, and Martin of Braga, are not in my opinion sufficient to outweigh the many manuscripts and quotations which support the sixtieth canon. And that only fifty-nine Laodicean canons are cited by many of the ancient Fathers proves nothing for Spittler, because, as he himself states, in very many old manuscripts the fifty-ninth and sixtieth canons were written as one, as the latter does in fact belong to the former".

He states in full:

In this list of the canonical books, which approaches that given in the Apostolic Canons, No. 85 (84), are wanting of the Old Testament, the books of Judith, Tobias, Wisdom, Jesus the son of Sirach, Maccabees; of the New Testament, the Apocalypse of S. John, Such an omission is, however, the less remarkable, as it is known that in the fourth century it was the custom, even among the Fathers of the Church (for instance, Athanasius), to reckon in the catalogue of the Holy Scriptures only the proto-canonical, and not the deutero-canonical books. The same applies to the Revelation of S. John, which was also in the fourth century thought not to be genuine by a large number of Greeks.

A special treatise concerning the genuineness of this canon was published by Spittler in 1777, in which he seeks to show that it did not emanate from the Synod of Laodicea, but was only added later, and taken from the eighty-fifth Apostolic Canon. His principal reasons are:

(a) That Dionysius Exiguus has not this canon in his translation of the Laodicean decrees. It might, indeed, be said with Dallaeus and Van Espen, that Dionysius omitted this list of the books of Scripture because in Rome, where he composed his work, another by Innocent I was in general use.

(b) But, apart from the fact that Dionysius is always a most faithful translator, this sixtieth canon is also omitted by John of Antioch, one of the most esteemed and oldest Greek collectors of canons, who could have had no such reasons as Dionysius for his omission.

(c) Lastly, Bishop Martin of Braga in the sixth century, though he has the fifth-ninth, has also not included in his collection the sixtieth canon so nearly related to it, nor does the Isidorian translation appear (?) at first to have had this canon. Herbst, in the Tubingen Review also accedes to these arguments of Spittler's, as did Fuchs and others before him. But Schrockh at least, even if somewhat hesitatingly, has raised the objection, that if this Synod in its fifty-ninth canon ordered that only the canonical books should be read, an explanation was obviously needed as to which are the canonical books. To this I may further add, first, that the Laodicean Canon of Scripture and that of the Canones Apost. are by no means identical, as Spittler assumes, but differ essentially both in the Old and New Testament; secondly, that the two argumenta ex silentio which Spittler alone employs in favour of his assertion, namely, the silence of Dionysins, John of Antioch, and Martin of Braga, are not in my opinion sufficient to outweigh the many manuscripts and quotations which support the sixtieth canon. And that only fifty-nine Laodicean canons are cited by many of the ancient Fathers proves nothing for Spittler, because, as he himself states, in very many old manuscripts the fifty-ninth and sixtieth canons were written as one, as the latter does in fact belong to the former. [source]

Wescott on Canon #60
Brooke Foss Westcott has also weighed in on canon #60. While Wescott argues against its authenticity, he suggests it was included to reflect the Eastern canon rather than the Western canon:

Of this Canon the first paragraph is recognised as genuine with unimportant variations by every authority; the second, the Catalogue of the Books itself, is omitted in various Manuscripts and versions; and in order to arrive at a fair estimate of its claims to authenticity, it will be necessary to notice briefly the different forms in which the Canons of the ancient Church have been preserved.

The Greek Manuscripts of the Canons may be divided into two classes, those which contain the simple text, and those which contain in addition the scholia of the great commentators. Manuscripts of the second class in no case date from an earlier period than the end of the twelfth century, the era of Balsamon and Zonaras, the most famous Greek canonists. Yet it is on this class of Manuscripts, which contain the Catalogue in question, that the printed editions are based. The earliest Manuscript of the first class with which I am acquainted is of the eleventh century, and one is as late as the fifteenth. The evidence on the disputed paragraph which these Manuscripts afford is extremely interesting. Two omit the Catalogue entirely. In another it is inserted after a vacant space. A fourth contains it on a new page with red dots above and below. In a fifth it appears wholly written in red letters. Three others give it as a part of the last Canon, though headed with a new rubric. In one it appears as a part of the 59th Canon without interruption or break; and in two (of the latest date) numbered as a new Canon. It is impossible not to feel that these several Manuscripts mark the steps by which the Catalogue gained its place in the present Greek text; but it may still be questioned whether it may not have thus regained a place which it had lost before. And thus we are led to notice some versions of the Canons which date from a period anterior to the oldest Greek Manuscripts.

The Latin version exists in a threefold form. The earliest (Versio Prised) is fragmentary, and does not contain the Laodicene Canons. But two other versions by Dionysius and Isidore are complete. In the first of these, which dates from the middle of the sixth century, though it exists in two distinct recensions, there is no trace of the Catalogue. In the second, on the contrary, with only two exceptions, as far as I am aware, the Catalogue constantly appears. And though the Isidorian version in its general form only dates from the ninth century, two Manuscripts remain which are probably as old as the ninth century, and both of these contain it. So far then it appears that the evidence of the Latin versions for and against the authenticity of the Catalogue is nearly balanced, the testimony of Italy confronting that of Spain.

The Syriac Manuscripts of the British Museum are however more than sufficient to turn the scale. Three Manuscripts of the Laodicene Canons are found in that collection, which are as old as the sixth or seventh century. All of these contain the fifty-ninth Canon, but without any Catalogue. And this testimony is of twofold value from the fact that one of them gives a different translation from that of the other two.

Nor is this all: in addition to the direct versions of the Canons, systematic collections and synopses of them were made at various times, which have an important bearing upon the question. One of the earliest of these was drawn up by Martin bishop of Braga in Portugal at the middle of the sixth century. This collection contains the first paragraph of the Laodicene Canon, without any trace of the second; and the testimony which it offers is of more importance, because it was based on an examination of Greek authorities, and those of a very early date, since they did not notice the Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, which were included in the collection of the fifth century*. Johannes Scholasticus, a presbyter of Antioch, formed a digest of Canons under different heads about the same time, and this contains no reference to the Laodicene Catalogue, but on the contrary the list of Holy Scriptures is taken from the last of the Apostolic Canons. The Nontocanon is a later revision of the work of Johannes, and contains only the undisputed paragraph ; but in a third and later recension the Laodicene and Apostolic Catalogues are both inserted.

On the whole then it cannot be doubted that external evidence is decidedly against the authenticity of the Catalogue as an integral part of the text of the Canons of Laodicea, nor can any internal evidence be brought forward sufficient to explain its omission in Syria, Italy, and Portugal, in the sixth century, if it had been so. Yet even thus it is necessary to account for its insertion in the version of Isidore. So much is evident at once, that the Catalogue is of Eastern and not of Western origin; and, except in details of order, it agrees exactly with that given by Cyril of Jerusalem. Is it then an unreasonable supposition that some early copyist endeavoured to supply, either from the writings of Cyril, or more probably from the usage of the Church which Cyril represented, the list of books which seemed to be required by the language of the last genuine Canon? In this way it is easy to understand how some Manuscripts should have incorporated the addition, while others preserved the original text; and the known tendency of copyists to make their works full rather than pure, will account for its general reception at last. [source]


Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger
Gary Michuta likewise comments on this list in his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. Gary notes Laodicea was a local council issuing no doctrinal decrees, but rather disciplinary decrees (p. 117). He states of canon #60, "Furthermore, even if it could be proved to represent the authentic view of the council, this Sixtieth Canon would have been a disciplinary measure not a doctrinal one. That is, it sought to legislate the practice of the Church (discipline) and not the teaching of the Church (doctrine)" (pp.118-119).

On the other hand, when commenting on the local councils of Hippo and Carthage, Gary insists these local councils are a witness to the inspiration of the apocrypha reflecting "the common usage of the church" (p.162). Now that's interesting because the Catholic Encyclopedia says of these councils:

Carthage was formerly the head of the whole of Africa, as St. Augustine tells us in his Epistle CLXII. From this cause it happened that a great number of councils were held there, gathered from all the provinces of Africa. Especially while Aurelius as Archbishop was occupying the throne were these meetings of bishops frequently holden; and by these, for the establishing of ecclesiastical discipline in Africa, many canons were enacted. [source]

I sense a double standard, but I do agree with Gary that in Romanism a local council doesn't make definitive statements for the entire Roman Catholic Church. William Webster points out:

...the Councils of Hippo and Carthage... were provincial Councils which had no authority to rule on the canon for the Church as a whole. Augustine, who was the guiding spirit of these Councils, admitted as much:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal [NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustin, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8].

Augustine acknowledged the lack of unanimity in the Churches regarding the canon and gave advice on how to determine which books were truly canonical. In effect he said one was to follow the judgment of the majority of churches. So, if it could be shown that some of the books sanctioned by Hippo and Carthage were not accepted as canonical by the majority of Churches then the North African Churches must yield on this point. Obviously, then, in promulgating the decree on the canon, Hippo and Carthage were not laying down a law for the universal Church but expressing the opinion and practice of their particular region. Since the Bible used by the North African Church was the Old Latin, a translation of the Septuagint which included a number of the books of the Apocrypha, these Councils were simply confirming the traditional canon for the North African Church based on the Septuagint.

Luther: Citing The Prayer of Manasses & James

Here's an odd tidbit I came across. While reading The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon According to the Continental Reformers (The Journal of Theological Studies, April 1907). Howarth says,

It is an interesting fact that earlier in the same year in which this disputation took place [1519], Luther published a small tract entitled Eine kurze Unterweisung, wie man beichten soil. As an appendix to this tract, he published a translation of the Prayer of Manasses with the heading Des Konygs Manasses gebeth tzu der beicht ser dienstlich, and in the body of the tract, after quoting Ps. xxv n, he goes on to say:

'. . . wie denn des menicklich weyter erinnerung ausz des konigs Manasses tzu Juda gebeth nemen mag. Welches gebeth, weil es ser wol tzu der beicht dient, mag es ein utslichs christlichs mensch vor seiner beicht sprechen.'

It is strange that among Luther's very earliest Bible translations should be this prayer, which has been excluded from the canon by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike, and, as I believe, on quite inadequate grounds.

I was unaware that Luther translated the Prayer of Manasses, so I did a search in Luther's Works. I found the following quote from him in Volume 1 (Lectures on Genesis), commenting on Genesis 4:13. These comments come from late in Luther's life, notice as well his positive citation from the book of James.

13. And Cain said to the Lord: My iniquity is too great to be forgiven.

Here Moses appears to have introduced a perplexing difficulty for the linguists and the rabbis, for they torture this passage in various ways. Lyra mentions the opinions of some who explain the words as an affirmation, namely, that Cain, in his despair, said that his sin was too great to be forgiven, just as we also translate it. Augustine, too, adheres to this opinion. “Cain,” says he, “you lie. For God’s mercy is greater than the misery of all sinners.”

But the rabbis explain this as a question and in a negative sense: “My iniquity is not too great to be forgiven, is it?” But if this is the true meaning, Cain not only did not acknowledge his sin but even excused it and reproached God for inflicting a greater punishment than he deserved. In like manner, the rabbis distort the meaning of Scripture almost everywhere.

-snip-

The reason for their going astray is that they are indeed familiar with the language but have no knowledge of the subject matter; that is, they are not theologians. Therefore they are compelled to twaddle and to crucify both themselves and Scripture. How is it possible to judge correctly about things that are unknown? The main thought in this passage is that Cain is being accused by his conscience. But there is no one—including not only any wicked person but even the devil himself—who would be able to endure this judgment. Thus James, in chapter two, declares that even the devils tremble in the presence of God (v. 19). And Peter, in his second epistle, chapter two, says that not even the angels, although they are greater in power and might, are able to endure the judgment which the Lord will bring upon those who blaspheme (v. 11). Manasseh, in his prayer, expresses it thus: “All men tremble before His wrathful face.” [LW 1:296]

I think it's safe to say that the simple citation of text doesn't imply Luther believed it to be canonical. So if a Roman Catholic apologist argues a positive citation from Luther equals an acceptance as canonical Scripture, they haven't weighed all the facts. This happens to be one of the main methods of argumentation put forth by Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, not only for Luther, but for many other voices in Church history. It appears that the paradigm "citation=canon" is flawed.

Did Luther Accept the Apocrypha Early in His Career?

Did Luther accept the apocrypha as canonical scripture, and then as he slipped away from Romanism reject it? That's the idea of at least one Roman Catholic apologist. The unscrupulous Luther was forced to change his mind on the apocrypha in order to deny specific Roman Catholic doctrines.

Here's an mp3 clip from Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta from the 2004 Apocrypha Debate (against Dr. White). In the clip, Gary mentions a debate between Luther and Silvester Maccolini. The information is similar to that in his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 248:

The Protestant scholar, Sir Henry Howorth, notes that Luther appears to have used the Deuterocanon as authoritative canonical writings in his conflict with the Church:

"The Dominicans, the great champions of Papal claims, continued to attack Luther, and especially did they do this at Rome, where one of them, Silvester Maccolini surnamed Prierias, the official censor made an especial assault upon him.... Luther answered [Prierias] in the words of Augustine that the only authority he could accept in the matter was the Canonical Scriptures. What Luther actually meant at this time by the phrase "eis libris, qui Canonici appellantur" is not quite clear, for we now find him in the Resolutions commenting on the Thesis published in 1518 quoting Sirach (Luther's Works, Weimar, Ed. I. 603) while in his answer to Pierias he quotes Tobias (667) in each case apparently as authoritative" [Henry Howorth, "The Bible Canon of the Reformation," International Journal of the Apocrypha, 20, Series VI (Jan.1910): 12].

In 1518, Luther freely quoted Sirach and Tobit against his Catholic detractors; but by the following year, Luther's view of the Deuterocanon had taken a decidedly negative turn.

Michuta argues Luther's early use of the apocrypha proves an acceptance of the apocrypha as canonical scripture. Then when cornered in debate by Eck at Leipzig, Luther abandoned the position that the apocrypha was canonical scripture (for a full review of this argument, see here and here) in order to reject the doctrine of purgatory.

Tedium
There are a few documents above mentioned by Mr. Michuta. Luther did write a counter response to Sylvester Prierias’ Dialogue Concerning Papal Authority. (this was a refutation of the Ninety-five Theses). Luther's response was his Ad Dialogum Silvestri Prieritatis de Potestate Papae Responsio (Answer to the Dialogue of Sylvester Prierias Concerning Papal Authority) (Leipzig: M. Lotther, August, 1518). WA 1, 647 ff). It was composed in two days but was not printed until August 1518 (Prierias' is said to have likewise boasted that he had answered Luther in three days). To my knowledge, these works haven't yet been translated into English.

Prierias was an early opponent of Luther's, and he hasn't maintained the best reputation throughout history. He was one of those who was in favor of condemning the Hebraist Johann Reuchlin. In terms of defending the pope, this man was set on "10" (on a scale of 1 to 10). He argued for the supreme authority of the pope ("He who does not hold to the teaching of the Roman Church and the pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic."). As to the interaction between Luther and Prierias, I simply have to assume it's true that Luther quoted Tobias.

If "the Resolutions commenting on the Thesis published in 1518" refers to "Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses", it's found in LW 31). It is true: Luther quotes Sirach twice, and does not refer to or distinguish Sirach as apocrypha:

52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.

They dare to expound this monstrous doctrine without shame in order to take away from men the fear of God and through indulgences hand them over to the wrath of God, contrary to the word of that wise one who said, “Do not be without fear concerning the propitiation for sin” [Sirach 5:5], and of the Psalmist, “Who understands his faults?” [Ps. 19:12]. [LW 31:208]

Every doctrine of Christ is an exhortation to penitence and points to the fact that men should turn from the devil, the sooner the better. As Ecclesiasticus says, “Do not delay in turning to the Lord” [Sirach 5:8]. The Lord himself says, “Watch, therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour” [Cf. Matt. 25:13]. [LW 31:187]

If "the Resolutions commenting on the Thesis published in 1518" refers to "Resolution Concerning the Lutheran Thesis XIII On the Power of the Pope (Resolutio Lutheriana Super Propositione Sue Decima Tertia De Potestate Papae) (1519), that is found in WA 2, 180–239, and not available in English (to the best of my knowledge).

I don't have the article from Howorth that Michuta cites (I do have two similar articles by Howarth). The International Journal of the Apocrypha was short lived, and difficult to track down. Roger Beckwith called Howarth's work in this area "informative (though injudicious)." Indeed, after reading the snippet from Michuta, I would concur. It seems to me that Howarth mislead Michuta down a rabbit trail of selective facts.

Response
Keep in mind, the apocrypha or canon debate was not an important issue during this early period in Luther's life. I would argue it wasn't even an issue of importance for Luther during his encounter with Eck. Luther was arguing primarily over indulgences and papal authority.

Luther was heavily schooled with the Glossa ordinaria. When commenting on the apocryphal books, this work prefixes this introduction to them: Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. The Catholic Encyclopedia verifies it's wide use: "The compilatory 'Glossa Ordinaria' was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion."

I think it makes much more sense that the schooling Luther received informed his opinion on the canon. Even the Occamist influence in Luther's life would probably have held the same opinion. Michuta himself notes Occam held to the allowance of reading the apocrypha, but that the books were not canonical (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 218).

Therefore, it wouldn't be odd to find Luther familiar with or fluent in the apocrypha, but that doesn't mean he believed it was canonical scripture. If one reads Luther's preface to the apocrypha, one will find the actual reasons he classified these books as non-canonical, and those reasons often echo previous voices from church history (here's an example).

One of the joys of having Luther's Works on CD-ROM is being able to do word searches. What one will find is that Luther quoted approvingly from Sirach and Tobit throughout his career. The same type of citations found in The Resolutions above are found later in Luther's writings.

Mr. Michuta left this fact out, or was perhaps unaware of it. If indeed the debate with Eck forced Luther to change his opinion on the apocrypha, one would expect to find Luther's citations different than previously. What one finds is the exact method of citation from the apocrypha both before and after Luther's encounter with Eck. In fact, Luther's last writings were his Lectures on Genesis. Both Sirach and Tobit are cited by Luther in a very similar way to that in The Resolutions (or as Michuta would say, in a method commensurate with sacred scripture) yet, not considering it canonical scripture.