11. The historical testimony of scripture.
Although the Scriptures testify to themselves as divine authority, as stated under the section "The Divine Authority of Scripture," God has also provided sufficient historical testimony to the same. For the Old Testament Scriptures, we have the testimony of the Jewish Church and the testimony of Christ and His apostles. Christian theologians of all times have rightly said that if the Jews had erred with regard to their canon or had falsified it, Christ would not have pointed so absolutely and without qualification to the Scriptures in the hands of the Jews and to their infallibility, as is done, for example, in the words: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them
1111) Handbuch 2 III, 151.<w:t>1112) A. a. O. I, 745.
1113) The Faith of Our Fathers. By James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1894, p. 111. [Ed. — page 112 in 1905 edition- Google Books]
399 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 330-331]
hear him!" 1114) "All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the Psalms. 1115) "Search the Scriptures, for ye think ye have eternal life therein, and it is they that testify of me." 1116) "The Scriptures cannot be broken." 1117) In contrast, historical testimony is lacking for the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. They have not been recognized as canonical either by the Jewish Church or by Christ."1118) For the writings of the New Testament we have the historical testimony of the first church (ecclesia primitiva). The testimony of the first Church is consistent with respect to the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of John, and the first Epistle of Peter (homologumena). With respect to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Second Peter, Second and Third John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation, more or less doubts have been expressed as to their canonical character (antilegomena). We have a brief compilation of the homologumena and antilegomena from Eusebius.1119) The difference between homologumena and antilegomena, which the first church made, the later church cannot abolish by decision. Luther also accepts the distinction that was made within the first church among the writings of the New Testament when he says with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of St. James and Jude, and the Revelation of St. John: "These had a different reputation in former times," with reference to Eusebius, Kirchengesch. III, 25. Luther praises the Antilegomena as containing many excellent doctrines, and also admits that objectionable passages could be helped by "glosses," which is why
1114) Luke 16:29.<w:t>1115) Luke 24:44.
1116) Jn. 5:39.<w:t>1117) Jn. 10:35.
1118) Baier-Walther I, 149. Detailed evidence for the refusal of the first Christian church to include the Apocrypha of the Old Testament in the canon, in Gerhard, Loci, L. De Script. 8, § 75 sqq. Cf. Keil, Einleitung, § 216. H. L. Strack, RE. 2 VII, 442 ff.
1119) Kirchengesch. III, 25. about the letters of Jacobi and Juda in particular II, 23. Eusebius reports VI, 25 also about the canon of Origen and his judgment about the letter to the Hebrews. Cf. the further exposition Baier-Walther 1, 150, nota b. Baier says: Negari profecto non potest, quod de scriptoribus ita dubitaverint veteres, ut simul etiam auctoritatem libris ϋΈοπνενστοις propriam his denegaverint. [“It certainly cannot be denied that the ancients were so doubtful about the writers that at the same time they also denied the authority of the books proper to them.”] Cf. the detailed article "Canon of the New Testament" by Theodor Zahn, RE.3 IX, 768-796.
400 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 331-332]
he does not want to prevent anyone from setting and lifting them as he pleases. But he does not want to put them under "the right, certain main books of the New Testament". For his own part, he wants to leave it with the doubt that remained about it within the first church.1120) Chemnitz calls it an anti-Christian endeavor that the Roman Church canonizes the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the Antilegomena of the New Testament by a mere decree, and even allows itself to pronounce the curse on all who do not accept the canon established in the Vulgate in all its parts.1121) The Fathers of the Missouri Synod also maintained the distinction between homologumena and antilegomena, though with the further explanation that they left the judgment of the individual antilegomena to everyone. They were, after all, of different opinion among themselves, e.g. with regard to the Apocalypse. Already in the second volume of Lehre und Wehre (1856) [p. 204 ff.] the question of the homologumena and antilegomena of the New Testaament is treated in detail under the title: "Is he to be declared a heretic or dangerous false teacher who does not consider or declare all the books in the volume of the New Testament to be canonical?" We should probably put the beginning and end of this article here as characteristic. Walther writes: "We are led to this question by the fact that Pastor Röbbelen, on the occasion of the glosses which he published on the Revelation of St. John in the Lutheraner, at the same time made the confession that he, with Luther, did not consider the 'Revelation' to be canonical. This, as we hear, has caused great offence here and there. We cannot agree with our dear brother Röbbelen on this point either, since we are convinced that the precious Christian and ecclesiastical book of Revelation belongs to the canon. Nevertheless, we believe that it is unreasonable and probably also based on ignorance of the matter, if one wants to regard an otherwise unsuspicious theologian
1120) These explanations return in Luther's prefaces to the aforementioned letters, St. L. XIV, 126-139. About the second and third Johannine letters Luther says: "They are not doctrinal epistles, but examples of love and faith and also have a right apostolic spirit." Op. cit., 126 f.
1121) Tridentinum, Sess. IV. Smets, p. 15: Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit — anathema sit. [Google]
401 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 332-333]
for a dangerous false teacher, who makes the Word of God itself suspect, because he heartily considers all homologues (generally accepted books) to be canonical, but doubts the canonicity of one or another antilegomenon (contradicted book). This would also be quite un-Lutheran, since our dear fathers of the faith, almost without exception, until after the adoption of the Formula of Concord, considered and declared either all or some of the Antilegomena to be writings that did not belong in the canon, not out of hastiness and carelessness with regard to the Word of God, but on the contrary out of great conscientiousness with regard to it. Luther's judgments on the antilegomena are so little a 'stain' on our church that they rather bear witness to how exactly it was once taken in our church with what should be the rule and guideline of our faith and life; and the summary decrees of the Papists and Reformed, that even all antilegomena must be accepted as canonical by every Christian at the loss of his salvation, are so little a testimony to the upholding of the Word of God in these communities that they rather prove how easy it becomes for those to include something in the canon who want to have the Scriptures interpreted either in blind charcoal-burner’s faith at the pleasure of the Church (that is, of the Pope) or according to the principles of reason. We think, then, that it would not now be in the wrong place if we were to give our honored readers here some testimonies about the opinion of our fathers, especially in the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth century, concerning this point; not because we ourselves shared this opinion for our own person, but solely in order to prove that doubts about the canonicity of the contradicted books can also exist among those whom no Lutheran will dare to deny the prestige of orthodoxy, and so among others to purify Luther from the suspicion that he, with reprehensible boldness, judged subjectively books included in the code of the New Testament. … If this question is not treated in an unchristian way, if the poor people are not confused by a dishonest presentation of what is at stake here, by a biased exploitation of a thesis that is difficult for the people to understand in its true meaning - for that is very easy here - the treatment of the question that has arisen
402 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 332-333]
can only serve to awaken the Christians to serious research and, on this occasion, to establish them more deeply and firmly in their knowledge and in their faith. If in any publication consideration should be given to the present, we declare in advance that we will not consider incomprehensible gossip, which gives itself the appearance of defending the Word of God, worthy of a response, but that we will give due consideration to proper discussion of the important subject matter, even if this would result in a judgment, no matter how harsh, being passed on our old teachers, Luther, Brenz, Chemnitz, Veit and Konrad Dietrich, etc.". In his article, Walther mainly lets Chemnitz speak, who in his Examen Concilii Tridentini, however, clearly and powerfully explains that that papist decree together with the attached anathema is an anti-Christian and nonsensical undertaking. Because this exposition is still today quite generally considered "classical" and is recommended for attention, it may find a place here in the main points.1122) Chemnitz writes: 1123) Tertia igitur quaestio est, an ea scripta, de quibus in antiquissima ecclesia propter quorundam contradictionem dubitatum fuit, ideo quod testificationes primitivae ecclesiae de his non consentirent, an, inquam, praesens ecclesia possit illa scripta facere canonica, catholica et paria illis, quae primi ordinis sunt. Pontificii non tantum disputant, se hoc posse, sed de facto illam auctoritatem usurpant, in universum tollentes primitivae et antiquissimae ecclesiae necessariam distinctionem inter libros canonicos et apocryphos seu ecclesiasticos. Sed manifestissimum est ex iis, quae diximus, ecclesiam nullo modo habere illam auctoritatem; eadem enim ratione posset etiam vel canonicos libros reiicere, vel adulterinos canonizare. Tota enim haec res (sicut diximus) pendet ex certis testificationibus eius ecclesiae, quae tempore apostolorum fuit, quas acceptas proxime sequens ecclesia certis et fide dignis historiis conservavit. [Google] Ubi igitur non possunt proferri certissima documenta primitivae et antiquissimae ecclesiae ex testificationibus veterum, qui non longe post apostolorum tempora vixerunt, libros illos, de quibus controvertitur, fuisse sine contradictione et dubitatione pro legitimis et certis acceptos et commendatos ecclesiae, non valent ulla humana decreta.
1122) Walther translated it L. u. W. II, p. 205-210, into German, in his edition of Baier it is printed I, 150 sqq. in the original Latin.
1123) Examen, Geneva edition 1667, p- 48 sqq.
403 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 333-334]
Quam insolens enim est audacia, ita statuere: Licet primitiva et sequens antiquissima ecclesia de libris illis propter multorum ecclesiasticorum contradictionem dubitarit, ideo quod non satis certa et firma auctoritatis ipsorum testimonia extarent, hoc tamen non obstante decernimus, debere illos pro omnino certis pari auctoritate cum illis, qui legitimi semper iudicati sunt, recipi! Sed quibus documentis hoc vestrum decretum probatis? Eespondet Pighius: Ecclesia habet illam potestatem, quod potest scriptis quibusdam impertiri canonicam auctoritatem, quam nec ex se, nec suis auctoribus habent. Quin igitur impartiantur illam auctoritatem vel fabulis Aesopi vel veris narrationibus Luciani? [Google] Non quod libros illos, de quibus controversia est, velim fabulis Aesopi comparari (tribuo enim illis cum Cypriano et Hieronymo honorificum locum, quem in veteri ecclesia semper habuerunt), sed επαγωγή εις αδύνατον, sicut dialectici loquuntur, volui ostendere, in disputatione de libris Scripturae ecclesiam non habere illam potestatem, quod possit ex falsis scriptis facere vera, ex veris falsa, ex dubiis et incertis facere certa, canonica et legitima sine ullis certis et firmis documentis, quae ad hanc rem requiri, supra diximus. ... In hac testificatione alia etiam est ratio illius ecclesiae, quae fuit illis temporibus, cum libri illi primum scriberentur, et eius ecclesiae, quae postea secuta est. Illa enim tantum conservat et ad posteros transmittit testificationem primae ecclesiae, non autem vel debet vel potest aliquid de libris illis statuere, cuius non habeat certa documenta ex testificatione primae ecclesiae. ... [Google] Tertia quaestio est: Qui libri sunt in canone, et qui non sunt in canone? sicut Hieronymus loquitur. Non autem de suppositiciis, adulterinis et falsis scriptis nunc loquimur, quorum catalogus extat apud Eusebium, et dist. 15. can. "Sancta Romana" Sed de illis libris quaestio est, qui simul extant in Vulgata bibliorum editione, quique in ecclesiis a fidelibus leguntur. De illis quaeritur veteris ecclesiae testificatio, an omnes sint eiusdem certitudinis' et paris auctoritatis. Est autem certissimum et manifestissimum, veteris ecclesiae hanc esse testificationem, quod ex illis libris quidam sint in canone, quidam non sint in canone, sed sint apocryphi. ... Ex scriptis Veteris Testamenti inter apocrypha, quae non sunt in canone, numerantur liber Sapientiae, Syrach etc. Ex libris Novi Testamenti, qui in prima et veteri ecclesia non habuerunt satis certa, firma et consentientia certitudinis et auctoritatis suae testimonia, hinc recensentur: [Google] Eusebius 1. 3, c. 25: "Scripta, quae non habentur
404 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 334-335]
pro indubitatis, sed quibus contradicitur, licet multis sint cognita, haec sunt: Epistola Jacobi, Judae, posterior Petri et altera cum tertia Johannis; Apocalypsin Johannis quidam reprobant, quidam certis et indubitatis scripturis adiudicant. ... Non est ignorandum, quod quidam in Romana ecclesia epistolam ad Ebraeos reprobarunt, asserentes, contradici, quasi non sit Pauli." ... Haec veterum testimonia ideo annotavi, ut non tantum notus sit catalogus scriptorum Novi Testamenti, quae non habent satis certa, firma et consentientia auctoritatis suae testimonia, sed ut praecipue notari possint rationes, quare de illis dubitatum fuerit: 1. quia apud veteres non inventa fuerunt satis certa, firma et consentientia testimonia de testificatione primae apostolicae ecclesiae, quod libri illi essent ab apostolis comprobati et ecclesiae commendati; 2. quia non certo ex testificatione primae et veteris ecclesiae constitit, an ab illis, sub quorum nomine editi sunt, libri illi conscripti essent, sed iudicati fuerunt ab aliis sub apostolorum nomine editi; [Google] 3. cum quidam ex vetustissimis aliquos ex illis libris tribuerent apostolis, quidam vero contradicerent, res illa, sicut non erat indubitato certa, relicta fuit in dubio. Pendet enim tota haec disputatio a certis, firmis et consentientibus primae et veteris ecclesiae testificationibus, quae ubi desunt, sequens ecclesia, sicut non potest ex falsis facere vera, ita nec ex dubiis potest certa facere sine manifestis et firmis documentis. Contra haec tam manifesta antiquitatis testimonia Tridentinum Concilium sessione quarta ita decernit: "Si quis libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in veteri Vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, anathema sit." Sed unde hoc suum decretum contra antiquitatis testimonia probant et confirmant? Nun proferunt certa et manifesta quaedam documenta ex testificationibus primae apostolicae et veteris ecclesiae, quod libri illi controversi eandem certitudinem et parem auctoritatem cum reliquis, de quibus nunquam dubitatum fuit, habeant? Nihil minus; neque enim possunt hoc facere. Sed rapiunt sibi hanc potestatem, quod papa cum suis praelatis possit et illis et forsan aliis etiam libris impertiri canonicam auctoritatem, quam nec ex se, nec ex suis auctoribus merentur et quam tempore apostolorum et primitivae ecclesiae non habuerunt, sicut Pighius contendit. Quin igitur aperte dicunt, quod res est? [Google] Licet probari non possit, libros illos vel a prophetis, vel ab apostolis sive scriptos, sive comprobatos et a prima veterique ecclesia certo et constanter receptos, imo licet contrarium manifestissimis antiquitatis
405 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 335]
testimoniis meridiana luce clarius probetur: hoc tamen non obstante statuimus et decernimus, certo hoc credendum esse, licet nulla a nobis huius rei idonea proferantur documenta, quia (si dis placet) plenitudo huiusmodi antichristianae potestatis sepulta est in scrinio pectoris pontificii. — Dicunt anathema omnibus, qui libros apocryphos non recipiunt eadem certitudine et auctoritate sicut canonicos. Anathema igitur erit Eusebius, Jerome, Origen, Melito et tota prima apostolica ea ecclesia, ex cuius testificatione illa, quae supra de libris istis recitavimus, accepta sunt. ... Tota igitur disputatio in hac quaestione consistit: an certum et indubitatum sit, libros illos, de quibus haec controversia est, esse Scripturam divinitus ,inspiratam a prophetis et apostolis, quae divinitus auctoritatem illam habuerunt vel editam, vel approbatam. [Google] Tota antiquitas respondet, non esse certum, sed propter multorum contradictiones fuisse dubitatum. Tridentinum vero supercilium anathema minatur, nisi quis illos susceperit pari, imo eadem certitudine et auctoritate sicut reliquos libros, de quibus nunquam dubitatum fuit. Quid igitur mirum est, quod parasiti quidam pontificii disputarunt, papam posse novos fidei articulos condere, cum hoc loco novam Scripturam canonicam fabricare non vereatur? ut nullum amplius sit dubium, quis sit ille, qui, in templo Dei sedens, super omne, quod Deus dicitur, extollitur, 2 Thess. 2. — Numquid igitur simpliciter abiiciendi et damnandi sunt libri illi? Nequaquam hoc quaerimus. Quem igitur usum habet haec disputatio f Respondeo: ut regula fidei sive sanae in ecclesia doctrinae certa sit. Ex solis enim libris canonicis auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam veteres censuerunt, sicut testimonia supra allegata sunt. Solius canonicae Scripturae auctoritas idonea iudicata fuit ad roboranda illa, quae in contentionem veniunt; reliquos vero libros, quos Cyprianus ecclesiasticos, Hieronymus apocryphos nominat, legi quidem voluerunt in ecclesia ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiarum dogmatum confirmandam. [Google] Non enim voluerunt illos proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Et illorum auctoritas ad roboranda ea, quae in contentionem veniunt, minus idonea iudicata fuit. Nullum igitur dogma ex istis libris exstrui debet, quod non habet certa et manifesta fundamenta et testimonia in aliis canonicis libris. Nihil, quod controversum est, ex istis libris probari potest, si non extent aliae probationes et confirmationes in libris canonicis. Sed quae in illis libris dicuntur, exponenda et intelligenda sunt iuxta
406 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 336]
analogiam eorum, quae manifeste traduntur in libris canonicis. Hanc esse vetustatis sententiam, nullum est dubium. Sed Concilium Tridentinum propter illam ipsam causam necessariam et verissimam hanc veteris ecclesiae distinctionem infringit, subvertit et tollit, quia (sicut Andradius meus inquit) non volunt se in has coniicere angustias, ut omnibus aliis praesidiis destituti a sola canonica Scriptura' fidem mutuentur. Inquit enim synodus Tridentina, se ideo ex libris apocryphis facere canonicos, ut ostendat, quibus potissimum testimoniis et praesidiis in confirmandis dogmatibus et instaurandis moribus sit usura. Walther adds:1124) Idem docent A. Osiander († 1617), Aeg. Hunnius, Hafenrefferus, C. Dietericus, F. Balduinus, Th. Thummius et alii. [Google]
It has been pointed out that this distinction between homologumena and antilegomena was abandoned by later Lutheran teachers. Philippi1125) refers especially to Gerhard, whom he calls, next to Chemnitz, the "most famous dogmatist" of the Lutheran Church. Admittedly, among the later dogmatists, in one form or another, the remark is found that no distinction is made by the present church (hodie) between the writings of the New Testament.1126) As for Gerhard, he remarks in regard to the Apocalypse that he considers it canonical. However, he occasionally adds: Interim tamen, cum in primitiva ecclesia aliquamdiu apud quosdam de huius libri auctore dubitatum fuerit, ideo ad secundi ordinis canonicos eum referimus; non quidem canonicam auctoritatem ei detrahentes, interim nec reliquis libris canonicis, de quibus nunquam dubitatum fuit, simpliciter et per omnia ipsum coniungentes; et aequissimo iure postulamus, interpretationem huius libri instituendam esse talem, quae cum primi ordinis canonicis libris nulla ratione pugnet. [Google]1127) This then comes down to the distinction between homologumena and antilegomena. Just as we cannot speak of a second-order Godhead in the doctrine of God, which old and new Subordinatians do, so we cannot speak of deuterocanonical writings without a certain self-contradiction in the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures,
1124) Baier-Walther 1, 153.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1125) Glaubenslehre 1, 108. [1854 ed.]
1126) Thus also Baier 1, 150. 153.
1127) Disputatt. Theology. Ienae, 1655, p. 1015. Quoted by Walther in Baier-Walther I, 153.
407 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 336-337]
which is God's unbreakable Word. If earlier and in our time it has been said: Because there are Antilegomena, we cannot exactly determine the extent of the canon and therefore we cannot know exactly what is principium cognoscendi and norma of Christian doctrine, here there is a human error of calculation. That the church of the New Testament has a completely fixed canon, to which no uncertainty is attached, we know from Jn. 8:31-32; 17:20; Eph. 2:20, because the commanded adherence to the doctrine of Christ and the apostles presupposes the certain possession of this doctrine.
In this context, it has been asked whether the distinction between homologumena and antilegomena "has a pervasive dogmatic significance". For our part, we answer the question in the negative, if it has the meaning of whether he who considers and treats the Antilegomena as canonical per se, thereby has more and different doctrines. On the one hand, we hold to the Old Church distinction between the New Testament writings; on the other hand, we are convinced that in the Antilegomena, even if taken by themselves, there is neither a false doctrine nor a doctrine which, according to its content, goes beyond the books which have the unanimous testimony of the ecclesia primitiva. We consider that Rome and sectarians misuse the Epistle of James when they make this Epistle the protector of their doctrine of works. We only have to keep in mind that James addresses faith, not in so far as we are justified before God by faith, but in so far as we are to show our faith to men according to God's will and order, which can only be done by works. We refer to the section "Justification by Works" (II, 634 ff.). The peculiarity of the Epistle of James has also been expressed in this way: James is not dealing with both the new and the old man in the Christian. As far as the Apocalypse is concerned, it also does not give the old and new Millenialists the slightest reason to find in it the chiliasm with which they have troubled and plagued the Church. This judgment is substantiated under the section "The Second Coming of Christ" (III, 687 ff.). In general, all addresses are misleading, as if the number of Christian doctrines were to be estimated according to the number of biblical books. It has been rightly pointed out that the Gospel of Matthew already contains the entire Christian doctrine, and that for a number of
408 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 337-338]
years missionaries to the Gentiles were content, or rather had to be content, with a translation of this one Gospel, and taught from it all the articles of the Christian faith. Whoever wants to can convince himself that in the Gospel of Matthew all doctrines are revealed which the Lutheran church confesses in the Book of Concord. Yet with respect to the whole Scripture of the New Testament there remains true what is said of the Scripture of the Old Testament, Rom. 15:4: Όσα προεγράφη, εις την ήμετέραν διδασκαλίαν. Christians rejoice and thank God's grace and care that the saving truth is witnessed to them by so many witnesses appointed by God for this purpose. They walk in this manifold testimony "as in a paradise," and their assurance is strengthened thereby. As Paul writes to the Philippians (3:1), "That I always write one thing (τα αστό) does not grieve me, and makes you the more certain."