Rather, I wrote to you not to fraternize with
anyone called a brother who is a fornicator or a covetous man or an idolater or
a reviler or a drunkard or a swindler, not even to eat with such a person. (1
Cor 5:11)
Commenting
on this passage, Catholic apologist, agreeing with the vast majority of
scholarship agrees that this refers to a missing letter of Paul:
“wrote”:
Gr: [εγραψα], refers to a letter previous to First Corinthians that has
apparently been lost to this day. Paul is referring to the same letter in vr.
11 as he says “I wrote.” This is not the only time that the New Testament
refers to a Pauline letter that did not end up in the biblical corpus (see Cl
4:16 regarding Paul’s letter to the Laodicians). (Robert A. Sungenis, The First Epistle to the Corinthians
[Catholic Apologetics Study Bible V; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics
International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 38 n. 101)
On Col 4:16, Sungenis would later offer this commentary on the verse in
his 2020 commentary on Colossians:
“read that
which is of the Laodiceans”: και την εκ Λαοδικειας ινα και υμεις αναγνωτε, the letter Paul
wrote to the Laodiceans did not make its way through history for one reason or
another (cf. Cl 2:1; Ap 1:11; 3:14). If it is assumed that the letter to the
Laodiceans was inspired by God (2Tm 3:16) just as the Colossian letter due to
the fact that Paul wanted each letter to be read in the other’s church thus
putting them on par, then the conclusion must be that there are some
God-inspired books that did not make it into the canon of Scripture for one
reason or another. (Robert A. Sungenis, The Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Catholic
Apologetics Study Bible IX: State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International
Publishing, Inc., 2020], 59 n. 92, emphasis added)
So, according to Sungenis, there
is the possibility of inspired books
from Paul that did not make it into the canon (in Sungenis’ theology, as
decreed dogmatically during the fourth session of Trent [April 1546]). One is
reminded of the following from Gary Michuta who admitted that, while
practically impossible in his view, it is theoretically possible to
view the Catholic canon as being “open”:
On
March 29, 1546, fourteen questions (called capita dubitationum)
were proposed to the council fathers to provide direction for the framers of
the document. Question four asked whether the books that were not included in
the official list of the canon, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (the
book of Esdras, 3 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by the decree by
name or passed over in silence (Concilium Tredentinum: Diariorum, Actorum,
Epistularum, Tractatuum [Nova Collectio] edidit Societas Goerresiana,
Tomus Quintus. Question four of the Capita Dubitationum, 41,
lines 30-31). Only three fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two
voted that these books should be passed over in silence (Latin, libri
apocryphi sub silentio). Eight were undecided (Ibid., 52, lines 22-32).
Therefore,
not only did Trent not explicitly reject the book of Esdras,
but the fathers did express a wish that the decree not name
these books as being rejected. This is a subtle but important point; It’s not
altogether accurate not say that Trent “rejected” the book of Esdras.
Does
this mean that Catholics can accept the book of Esdras as canonical Scripture
or that the contents of the canon of Scripture is an open question? Not at all.
The canon of Scripture is that is given at the Council of Trent, the Council of
Florence, and the African councils. I suppose it could be theoretically possible
at some future date to admit Esdras to the canon since it was never explicitly
rejected, but this would be practically impossible since the
book has fallen into disuse. (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are
Bigger [2d ed.; El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2017],
322-23)
Such is also the opinion of Robert Bellarmine and Andrew Edward
Breen:
But the reason why
the Hebrews used Tradition more than Scripture seems to have been, because up
to the time of Ezra the Scriptures were not produced in the form of books so
that they could be used easily and comfortably, but there were dispersed in
various annals and papyri; sometimes, because of the negligence of the priests,
for a long time they were not found, as is evident from 2 Kgs 22:8f., where it
is related as something new that in the days of Josiah a volume of the Law of
the Lord was found in the Temple. But after the captivity Ezra collected
everything together and put it into one book, adding to Deuteronomy, the last
chapter on the death of Moses and some other things from various sources in
order to complete the history. On this matter see Theodoretus in the preface to
the Psalms, Bedam in chapter 9 on the book of Ezra, and Peter Antonius Beuter
in annotation 9 on Holy Scripture . . . But that the Scriptures do not contain
everything in such a way that they themselves are sufficient without other
Traditions, I will prove this first of all: because either the whole canon of
Scriptures taken together is sufficient, or the individual books by themselves
are sufficient . . . For, many truly sacred and canonical books have perished.
Therefore, we do not have, nor did we have for 1500 years, sufficient doctrine,
if everything is located in the Scriptures. For, Chrysostom teaches in homily 9
on Matthew that many books of the Old Testament have perished, when he comments
on the words “he shall be called a Nazarene” (2:23): Many things
perished from the prophetic memoirs, and it is possible to prove this from the
history of the Chronicles. For you know that they were Jews, and you know that
some were wicked; some prophecies perished out of negligence, but others they
either burned or destroyed. He teaches the same thing in homily 7 on 1
Cor.; and it is not possible to respond that all those that were destroyed were
restored by Ezra; for, Chrysostom wants to prove that now not all of the
prophecies of the Prophets exist, and he proves it, because the Jews lost many
of them.
Furthermore, Ezra did
not restore the lost books, but he corrected and assembled the existing ones. 1
Chron. 29:29: Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are
written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan
the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer. And 2 Chron.
9:29: Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they
not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah
the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer. And 1 Kings 4:32: He
also uttered three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and
five. Where are all of these? From the New Testament it is probable
that the letter of Paul to the Laodiceans has perished. According to the
opinion of some he mentions it Col. 4:16, and doubtless there was another one
to the Corinthians, which seems to be mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:9 in these
words, I wrote to you in my letter; and it could easily have
happened that still others perished. Therefore let the heretics see how they
can repair such an outstanding defect. (Robert Bellarmine, Controversies of the Christian Faith [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep The Faith, 2016], 222-24)
THE LOST BOOKS OF
BOTH TESTAMENTS
It
is the common opinion of theologians that an inspired book may perish, and that
some de facto have perished. As authorities for this opinion
we may cite Origen, Chrysostom, St. Thomas, Bellarmine, Serarius, Pineda,
Bonfrere, and nearly all later theologians (Orig. in Cant Prol. c. fln. [M. 13,
84]; S. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 7, 3 [M, 61, 58]; S. Thom.
Comm. in ep. S. Paul. ad 1 Cor. 5, 4 et Col. 4, 16; Bellarm. de
verbo Dei IV. 4; Serar. Prolog. c. VII. qu. 14. 15; Pineda alom.
praev. I.1; Bonfrer. Praeloq. VI. 2, etc).
Salmeron
strove to set aside this opinion by the following arguments: “The Providence of
God, which gave a book to teach men, will preserve that book. Moreover, if the
Church, even in its preparatory state in the Old Law, should allow a book to
perish, which had been committed to her care, she would be unfaithful to her
trust.” In response we say first that two questions are confused here. It is
one thing that a book divinely inspired, not yet canonized by the Church,
should perish; another that a book delivered to the Church by canonization
should perish. This latter fact has never happened. Franzelin, in response to
Salmeron, argues that it is possible that even a canonical book should perish,
for the reason that such book is not the sole or absolutely necessary means of
teaching men the truth. The Church is only infallible and indefectible in
furnishing an adequate means to impart truth to man, and her teaching power
would not be hampered by the loss of a book, or portion thereof, of Holy
Scripture. The argument of Salmeron that God, who gave the book, would preserve
it, is feeble, for the book may be superseded by another, or it may not be
necessary or succeeding ages.
The
common opinion is, therefore, that an inspired book may perish, and that some
have perished. Many proverbs and canticles of Solomon and writings of Prophets,
spoken of in the Scriptures, have certainly perished, and some, at least, of
these were inspired.
In
the Old Testament we find mention of the following works: The Book of the Wars
of the Lord (Num. XXI. 14); The Book of the Just (Jos. X. 13); The Book of the
Words of the Days of Solomon (II. Sam. XI. 41); The Book of the Words of the
Days of the Kings of Juda (III. Kings, XIV. 19); The Book of the Words of the
Days of the Kings of Israel (III. Kings XIV. 20); The Book of Samuel the
Prophet (I. Chron. XXIX. 29); The Words of Nathan, the Prophet (l.c.); The Book
of Gad the Prophet (l.c.); The Books of Ahias (II. Chron. IX. 29); The Version
of Addo, the Prophet (l.c.); The Book of Semeia the Prophet (II. Chron. XII.
15); The Book of Jehu, the Son of Hanan (II. Chron. XX. 34); The Discourse of
Hosai (II. Chron. XXXIII. 19); The Deeds of Ozias by Isaiah (II. Chron. XXVI.
22); three thousand Parables o Solomon (III. Kings IV. 22); five thousand
Canticles of Solomon (l.c.); the treatise of Solomon on Natural History (l.c.);
certain writings of Jeremiah (II. Maccab. II.1); The Book of the Days of John
Hyrcanus (I. Maccab. XVI. 24); The Book of Jason, the Cyrenean (II. Maccab. II.
24).
We
hold it undoubted that a person inspired, in one production, may write another
without such influence of the Holy Spirit. We admit that some of the mentioned
works were not inspired; but there are others whose titles clearly prove that
they were inspired works, and we no longer possess them.
Of
the New Testament, nearly all admit that one of Paul’s Epistles to the
Corinthians (I. Cor. V. 9), and the Epistles to the Church of Laodicea (Coloss.
IV. 16), have perished. Who will deny that in these Paul also was inspired?
Wherefore
we conclude that the opinion which maintains the possibility and the actuality
of the loss of inspired writings, rests on convincing data. (Andrew Edward
Breen, A General and Critical Introduction to the Study of Holy
Scripture [Rochester, N.Y.: John P. Smith Printing House, 1897],
377-79)
Such give pause to the many Catholics who claim that they have “certainty”
vis-à-vis the contents of the canon, a popular argument used, especially by
converts to Catholicism, to justify belief therein.
