Replies

Wonderful how he was confirming the authority of the Sacred Scriptures centuries before any "formal declaration" determined them to be.

Keep in mind that Polycarp's church of Smyrna would have had a different canon of Sacred Scripture than, say, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth or Rome. Some churches included books (as Campion pointed out) such as the Apocalypse of Saint Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Protoevangelium of James. The church of Edessa even included a purported letter from Jesus himself to King Abgar.

What changed in the 4th century is that the Churches got together and decided which books were unquestionably part of the canon of Scripture, and which were not. Once decided, this canon was kept together until it was dismembered by revolutionaries in the 16th century.

Was it the formal fourth century declaration of what writings were deemed Holy Scripture and canonical that made them so or were they Divinely-inspired regardless of that recognition? Does Almighty God need men to dictate to Him what they would and would not receive as binding and authoritative? Rather, He punished those who neglected or ignored His prophets.

Paul warned: Take note of anyone who does not obey the instructions we have given in this letter. Do not associate with him, so that he may be ashamed. (II Thess. 3:14) The Apostolic authority of these writings was intrinsic - it didn't take three centuries for them to be recognized as such.

What changed in the 4th century is that the Churches got together and decided which books were unquestionably part of the canon of Scripture, and which were not. Once decided, this canon was kept together until it was dismembered by revolutionaries in the 16th century.

I know this thread began as well deserved praise for Saint Polycarp's stand for the Christian faith to the point of martyrdom - a strength we should all hope to exhibit if it ever came to that.

However, I didn't want to just leave your erroneous assertion regarding the canon unchallenged. This has been the topic of multiple threads over the years here, as you are probably aware. There are numerous references I could give you that defend the 66 book canon of universally recognized Divinely-inspired Scripture, but I suspect that nothing would change your mind about the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books especially since Rome has made her "infallible" declaration about them at Trent (and, yes, it was Trent when the "official" canon was finalized). Should you surprise me and want to see the evidence, I'd be more than happy to show it to you. I have asked this question on several occasions whenever this argument pops up and no Catholic has answered me so far. Maybe you might?

Since our disagreement is over 7 intertestamental period books that were attached to the Old Testament, why would the Jews - unto whom were given the "Oracles of God", per Paul - reject them as Biblical? Why did the Reformers reject them? As you may or may not know, Martin Luther wrote a German translation of the 66 book Bible IN ADDITION TO those Apocryphal books. Yes...he included them. He placed them between the Old and New Testaments (like Jerome did). Like Jerome, he said they could be useful for the edification of the church but NOT for establishing doctrines. They were seen as extra-Biblical writings (Deuterocanonical = second canon) and NOT God-breathed Scripture. That is the difference. They were not "dismembered" by the Reformers, only recognized as NOT on the same level as Divinely-inspired Holy Scripture. Again I ask, WHY would they have been rejected if they truly were from the Holy Spirit?