Posted on 11/22/2004 9:28:44 PM PST by goldstategop
I'll go with the infallible canon of Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth." You can go with Roger Beckwith's infallible canon.
The earliest Christian list of OT books that exists today is by Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about A.D. 170:
"When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms,[*1] two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom, [*2] Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. [*3]
It is noteworthy here that Melito names none of the books of the Apocrypha, but he includes all of our present Old Testament books except Esther. [*4]
Eusebius also quotes Origen as affirming most of the books of our present Old Testament canon (including Esther), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as cononical, and the books of Maccabees are EXPLICITLY said to be "OUTSIDE OF THESE (canonical books]" ~ Ecclesiastical History 6.15.2 (Origen DIED about A.D. 254).
*[1] That is: 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings.
*[2] This does not refer to the apocryphal book called the Wisdom of Solomon but is simply a fuller description of Proverbs. Eusebius notes in 4.22.9 that Proverbs was commonly called Wisdom by ancient writers.
*[3] Ezra would include both Ezra and Nehemiah, according to a common Hebrew way of referring to the combind books.
*[4] For some reason there was doubt about the canonicity of Esther IN SOME PARTS of the early church (in the East but not in the West), but the doubts were eventually resolved, and the Christian usage eventually became uniform with the Jewish view, which had ALWAYS counted Esther as part of the canon, although it had been opposed by certain rabbis for their own reasons. (See the discussion of the Jewish view in Beckwith, Canon, pp.288-97).
* "What shall be said about the Apocrypha, the collection of books included in the canon by the Roman Catholic Church, but excluded from the canon by Protestantism?
These books were never accepted by the Jews a Scripture.... the earliest Christian evidence is decidedly against viewing the Apocrypha as Scripture, but the use of the Apocrypha gradually increased in some parts of the church until the time of the Reformation.
The fact that these books were included by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (completed in A.D. 404) gave support to their inclusion, EVEN THOUGH JEROME HIMSELF SAID THEY WERE NOT "BOOKS OF THE CANON", but merely "books of the church" that were helpful and useful for believers.
Note: It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the excepti of 1 and 2 Esdras and the prayer of Manasseh).
It is significant that the Council of Trent was the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of Martin Luther and the rapidly spreading Protestant Reformation, and the fact that the books of the Apocrypha contain support for the Roman Catholic Church's teaching of prayers for the dead and the justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone.
In 1546, at the time they affirmed the Apocrypha to be within the canon, the Roman Catholic Church said that they had the authority to constitute A LITERARY WORK to be "Scripture". ..." Wayne Grudem [paraphrased from Systematic Theology-Zondervan]
You're beginning to lose it again. Hahahaha
Yeah. Various Christian groups, et.al., would dearly love to have us accept various other ideas and have them included in the canon of Scripture, too. Here are a few examples of what some would like to have included in the new Testament:
The "Gospel of Thomas" [not the apostle], which for a time was held by some scholars to belong to the NT canon, ends with the absurd statement [which contradicts the rest of Scripture]:
"Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said: "Lo, I shall lead her, so that I may make her a male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself a male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Some scholars wanted to include as Scripture the writing called the Didache. It is even quoted by some today as if it were an authority on the teaching on the early church or on the same level as the New Testament writings, yet it contradicts or adds to the commands of the NT at many points.
(For example, in the Didache Christians are told to let alms sweat in their hands until they know to whom they are giving (1.6); fasting is required on Wednesdays and Fridays but prohibited on Mondays and Thursdays (8.1); Christians are required to pray the Lord's prayer three times a day (8.3); apostles are prohibited from staying in a city more than two days (11.5) - (but note that the apostle Paul stayed 1 1/2 years in Corinth and 3 years in Ephesus); prophets who speak in the spirit cannot be tested or examined (11.7) - (a contradiction to the other Scriptures: 1 Cor. 14:29 & 1 Thess.5:20-21)
Luckily we don't have to worry about any of this because it is God Himself, via the Holy Spirit who assures the transmission of the text down through the ages. It doesn't depend upon human efforts.
"My sheep (in whom is my Spirit) hear my voice" [John 10:27]
Yeah, but Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament largely from the Septuagint which contains the Deuterocanonical books of Scripture. 300-350 references to the Old Testament are taken from the Septuagint.
I don't know why you seem to disregard this fact, or the fact that several Church Councils determined the Canon of Scripture (including the Deuterocanonical books) at the end of the fourth century.
Some scholars wanted to include as Scripture the writing called the Didache. It is even quoted by some today as if it were an authority on the teaching on the early church or on the same level as the New Testament writings
Christians place importance on the actions of the early Church since peers of the Apostles would have best understood Apostolic Tradition. Since the Didache is one of the earliest known Church documents, it is of great importance in understanding Sacred Tradition. The Church has never regarded the Didache as the equivalent of Sacred Scripture. Nor has the Church ever regarded the teachings of any Church Father, or even any Doctor of the Church, to be inerrant. The Church only regards as inerrant Its dogmatic teaching.
Stop pretending that I didn't write what I wrote HERE and in my previous posts.
I've grown tired of riding in a boat with a one-armed boat-rower. Bye - bye!
The teaching of one bishop does not represent an infallible teaching. Yet the picture regarding the canon of the OT in the early Church is murky, isn't it? Some authorities were using the protocanonical books and others were using the proto-and deuterocanonical books of Scripture.
The question becomes, Who has the authority to determine the Canon of Scripture infallibly? Who does Jesus say has the authority to settle disputes?
Jesus tells us to take our disputes "to the church," and that anyone who doesn't listen to the church should be treated as a "pagan or tax collector." Reaffirming Jesus' statement, Scripture calls the church "the pillar and foundation of truth."
So what does the Church say? The Church tells us that the dogmatic teachings of Church Councils are infallible. While the Church Councils dating from the fourth century did not invoke infallibility in determining the canon of Scripture, the Church nevertheless determined the canon of Scripture to include the Deuterocanonical books of Scripture. This canon was used throughout Christian history until the Council of Trent, where this canon was defined dogmatically.
Moreover, Jesus and the Apostles quote the Old Testament 300 of 350 times in the New Testament from the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon. Clearly Christ and His Apostles accepted the Septuagint as Sacred Scripture, as does His Church.
Who else has the authority to determine the Old Testament canon?
These books were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture....
In the Christian age. Prior to Jesus' time various Jewish groups used various canons of Scripture. At the Jewish "council" of Jamnia in 100 A.D. (which is in no way comparable to a Council of Christ's Church), the Jews rejected the Deuterocanonical books of Scripture. But this was a reaction against Christianity. Additionally, since Judaism has no central authority, this coucil has no authority. To this day, Ethiopian Jews regard the Deuterocanonical books of Scripture as divinely inspired.
Martin Luther recognized the Council of Jamnia, over and against the teachings of Christ's Church, because he rejected the Church's teaching regarding Purgatory, which is clearly referenced in 2 Maccabees 12:38-46.
Don't forget that he also rejected at one time the Letter of James, which he regarded as "an epistle of straw" since it contradicted his teaching of "faith alone."
Better to trust in Christ's Church than in the doctrines of men.
I'm not Catholic so I don't consider my church as 'my mother,' but I have gone kicking and screaming more than once! My mother MADE us go to church and SS, even though she rarely went herself. I sang in choirs and joined youth groups, etc. and built a base of faith that stays with me today. In fact, if I don't go to church some Sunday, I really MISS it. Have a great Thanksgiving, Aquinasfan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.